EPA declares CO2 dangerous pollutant

[Original Looper 1]

Their next move?

Touring South America -
Corridor Of The Giants
By J. Speer-Williams
3-13-10

Climategate: Where Did It Go?

Who said, "Breakin' news is always bad news even if it's old news"?

By now most of us in the alternative media are aware of the some 61 megabytes of global warming research data of emails, documents, and computer code released by whistleblowers, that have exposed climate scientists, at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain, as the frauds they've proven themselves to be.

This decade of incriminating emails and documents clearly concludes that global warming scientists have manipulated scientific data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures; and the fact that, there has been no statistically significant global warming for fifteen years, but our world has experienced a rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

So breath-taking has been this leaked data, to date, it has produced some startling headlines in the alternative media:

(1) Climategate: Greatest Scandal in Modern Science!"

(2) "Climategate? Smoking Gun? Blood in the Water?"

(3) "Global Warming Scientists Seek to Protect Their Government Funding by Corrupting the
Peer-review Process."

(4) "Climate Bombshell: Hackers {or Whistleblowers] Leak Emails Showing Conspiracy."

(5) "Email Leaks Turn Up Heat on Global Warming Advocates."

(6) "Climategate Scientists Caught Red-handed in Monumental Fraud."

(7) "Bad Scientists? No Criminals!"

Now, these global warming scientists, who have been so severely exposed for the frauds they are, are crying, "Persecution!". While their own emails prove they have been very busy planning how best to get tenured professors fired, who will not shallow the rotten fish of anthropogenic global warming, how to black-ball them from scientific journals, and prevent them from participating in the peer-review process.

Persecution? No, but prosecution in a criminal court of law is what they deserve.

Even Obama's Climate Czar, John P. Holdren has been exposed, by these emails, for the fraud he is, proving Holdren's avid global warming advocacy has been more driven by politics than science.

Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is no stranger to extremist views: In a 1977 book, Holdren co-authored (Ecoscience - Population, Resources, Environment), he campaigned for compulsory abortion, mass sterilization, involuntary infertility, a one-child policy, and global governance.

In another of Holdren's books (Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions), he even argued that babies were not human beings.

Mr. Holdren, there's no question babies are human. The real question is are you a human being?

These academic and governments fraudsters, along with their corporate media counterparts, account for the fact that many people have been denied the truth regarding the man-made global warming myths, even at this late date.

The so-called "consensus" establishing the validity of the man-made global warming theories does not exist; the mainstream, corporately owned media merely tell us it does; and, do not expect "our" media to widely broadcast anything about these email exposures; many people will never hear of them.

When caught red-handed in their lies, the corporate media always has but one response: Utter silence, waiting for the smoking gun to cool, and then be forgotten. But if the red-hot pistol doesn't cool quickly enough, the whole corrupted system of the controlled press goes into over-drive, preparing for a workable gambit: Which is usually their tried and true method of creating controversy, something relatively easy for them to do. And once an issue enters the world of controversy, the Establishment usually wins the info wars of public opinion, because they get the most words, the loudest words, and the last words. And after all, they represent authority.

Trial and error is employed to find the kindling that will ignite the fires of controversy. Usually the first maneuver is tested with some secondary official, from some secondary country, to gage the effectiveness of the ploy. That process began, long ago, with Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer.

Ms. Cramer claimed that the East Anglia University whistleblowers altered 61 metabytes of computer data before leaking the files, in spite of the fact such a statement, has to date, never been made by the man-made global warming advocates, who wrote it all .

If Ms. Cramer's allegations gain traction, expect to hear more about how the whistle-blowers falsified the data. We may even hear of innocent people coming to trial, falsely confessing they were the ones who "altered" all the mountain of emails, before releasing them. But, with enough mind control, I could be convinced, I was the one who falsified them, even though I know so little about computers, I can hardly use my Apple program to write this sentence.

Ms. Cramer, in her outrage, screamed, "This is just criminal. It's unacceptable."

What is acceptable Ms. Cramer, the death of a billion starving people, and the guaranteed poverty of the rest of us, due to the pending Cap and Trade legislation in Washington, and the coming international laws, directives, regulations, and more laws, that will inhibit the farming of food and the means to get it to market, with few of us having enough money to buy food if it were available?

Am I exaggerating? I hope so, but believe not.

********************

IF the corporate media won't spread the complete truth, we need to do it.


Paul

[Original Looper 1]

Of course, Goldman Sachs is involved in Cap & Trade - a projected $2 TRILLION a year profit market.


The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore's Carbon Crusade http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663

The article includes the following:

Whatever its impact on the environment, the cap-and-trade carbon scheme is sure to boost the economic and political prospects of people and groups that are behind it. Before the company collapsed under the weight of financial scandal, Enron under CEO Ken Lay was a key proponent of the cap-and-trade idea. So was BP’s Lord John Browne, before he resigned last May under a cloud of personal scandal. In August 1997, Lay and Browne met with President Bill Clinton and Vice President Gore in the Oval Office to develop administration positions for the Kyoto negotiations that resulted in an international treaty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.S. Senate voted 95 to 0 not to ratify the Kyoto treaty in 1997. But that hasn’t stopped Al Gore.

Gore’s Circle of Business

Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. “Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isn’t a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets,” said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.

GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.

CCX owes its existence in part to the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago-based liberal foundation that provided $347,000 in grant support in 2000 for a preliminary study to test the viability of a market in carbon credits. On the CCX board of directors is the ubiquitous Maurice Strong, a Canadian industrialist and diplomat who, since the 1970s, has helped create an international policy agenda for the environmentalist movement. Strong has described himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” His former job titles include “senior advisor” to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “senior advisor” to World Bank President James Wolfensohn and board member of the United Nations Foundation, a creation of Ted Turner. The 78-year-old Strong is very close to Gore.

CCX has about 80 members that are self-confessed emitters of greenhouse gases. They have voluntarily committed themselves to reduce their emissions by the year 2010 to a level 6% below their emissions in 2000. CCX members include Ford Motor Company, Amtrak, DuPont, Dow Corning, American Electric Power, International Paper, Motorola, Waste Management and a smattering of other companies, along with the states of Illinois and New Mexico, seven cities and a number of universities.

Presumably the members “purchase” carbon offsets on the CCX trading exchange. This means they make contributions to or investments in groups or firms that provide forms of “alternative,” “renewable” and “clean” energy.

CCX also has “participant members” that develop the carbon-offset projects. They have names like Carbon Farmers and Eco-Nomics Incorporated. Still, other participant member groups facilitate, finance and market carbon-offset projects to “sequester, destroy or displace” greenhouse gases. CCX aspires to be the New York Stock Exchange of carbon-emissions trading.

Along with Gore, the co-founder of GIM is Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. Last September, Goldman Sachs bought 10% of CCX shares for $23 million. CCX owns half the ECX, so Goldman Sachs has a stake there as well.

GIM’s “founding partners” are studded with officials from Goldman Sachs. They include David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM); Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations. Another founding partner is Peter Knight, who is the designated president of GIM. He was Sen. Al Gore’s chief of staff from 1977-1989 and the campaign manager of the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.

Like CCX, the ECX has about 80 member companies, including Barclays, BP, Calyon, Endesa, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Shell, and ECX has contracted with the European Union to further develop a futures market in carbon trading. What’s in it for the companies? They will benefit either by investing in carbon credits or by receiving subsidies for doing so.

Front and Center

Clearly, GIM is poised to cash in on carbon trading. The membership of CCX is currently voluntary. But if the day ever comes when federal government regulations require greenhouse-gas emitters -- and that’s almost everyone -- to participate in cap-and-trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes.

And that moves Al Gore front and center. As a politician, Gore is all for transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming, according to Forbes magazine. Little is known about his firm’s finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.

**************

The entire article is worth reading as it goes into, in depth, the whole energy credits market that the Wall Street suits are envisioning as their next big money making scheme.

I am not opposed to pollution controls and limits. We only have one planet and should treat it with more respect. However, it appears that the entire global climate control issues are being reduced down into another money making scheme for a few at the expense of the many.

It appears that the climate bills are going in the same direction as health care reform -- the debate is being shaped and controlled by those creating the very problems, the "solutions" being proposed are not going to fix the issues but will instead create more of a tax burden on working Americans and small businesses, and in the end, the corporations and profiteers (such as Al Gore & company) will be the only winners.

The 2/1 party that really runs things and makes up our "overlords," always wins because most of us from our youth were indoctrinated in our schools to believe in team sports and the team spirit. It's our team against theirs. Our team is better and more deserving than theirs. Some you win and some you lose. That's how we have all been brainwashed, taken advantage of, and exploited our whole lives. It's our team's the lesser of 2 evils. I hate their team worse than my team. That's why THEY always win. They capitalize on our psychological indoctrination that's been ingrained since our youth.

Gene is right, the problem is they own BOTH teams. We don't need a 3rd party, we need a true 2nd party.

Always follow the money to find the true picture.


Paul

[Powerabout]

It looks like an illegal share pumping scheme.
Does this mean Gore is in for some class action suits?

[Mark75H]

It looks like an illegal share pumping scheme.
Does this mean Gore is in for some class action suits?

Good point

[Jeff Akers]

In spite of recent revelations, the IPCC express is barreling along. There may be some form of inquiry, but will it be significant? The engineers and conductors are assuring the passengers they will do better next time. Some passengers are leaving, disturbed by issues such as the non-existent melt of the Himalayas, disappearance of the relationship between storm damage and warming, unfounded claims of elimination of fifty percent of rain-based agriculture in Africa and forty percent of the Amazon rainforest.

However the passengers in first class continue to insist that these are minor inconveniences and the main line is solid and clear. They ignore the three great train wrecks ahead – the datasets of NOAA-NCDC, NASA-GISS, and Hadley-CRU.

As stated in the Summary for Policymakers, the claim that it is at least ninety percent probable that humans caused the warming in the last half of the 20th Century is based on several assumptions. One: temperature trends are accurately determined; and two: the natural causes of temperature change are known.

Of course, this methodology requires rigorously maintained measurements of temperature. As discussed in the science editorial below, these datasets are doubtful and before any policy on global warming is adapted, they must be verified. The second requirement of this methodology, complete knowledge of the natural causes of temperature change, will be discussed in next week’s TWTW.

As partially described in the Nature editorial reproduced below and in referenced articles, climate alarmists are claiming they are victims suffering from abuse by skeptics. Certainly ad hominem attacks have no place in science, but many of today’s “victims” had no issue with ad hominem when they were the perpetrators.

This leads to a somewhat amusing incident. On March 3, the web site of Scientific American posted a story on the satellite, Mars Express, fly by of the one of the moons of Mars, Phobos. The story was entitled “Probe flies by ‘alien space station.’” The author claimed that Fred Singer told President Eisenhower that the moon “might be an ancient abandoned spacecraft.” Of course, this was a complete fabrication and to their credit, when informed, the editors took down the posted article with apologizes and a statement it was not done by their staff. However, there was no explanation of who was responsible.

More disturbing news is that the EPA is up to its old tricks of manipulating the court system to expand power at the exclusion of the public, the legislative process, and those most impacted by such expansion of power. According to the AP, EPA announced a legal settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity. The EPA is sued by the friendly special interest group demanding EPA must expand its powers to deal with a perceived, though often spurious harm, and then reaches a settlement which is sanctified by the courts. The EPA will promulgate more regulations, in this instance, considering “ways the states can address rising acidity levels in oceans, which pose a serious threat to shellfish and other marine life.” The claim is that increased atmosphere carbon dioxide is responsible for the rising ocean acidity.

In his book heaven+earth, geologist Ian Plimer points out the science is a sham. The oceans are a base with a pH between 7.9 and 8.2. They have remained that way millions of years even when volcanoes greatly increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere many times beyond what it is today without any change in ocean pH. Even the terminology is scientifically incorrect, since the oceans are alkaline; the issue should be “reducing ocean alkalinity,” not increasing acidity. But reducing alkalinity would not have the same emotional appeal.

Of course, there will be a public hearing process on the rules, but as demonstrated in its endangerment finding, EPA will claim it is required to do so by the courts, and will ignore the science. As long as the courts defer to the EPA for scientific expertise, the public is not safe.

The AP article and a review of the experimental science by Sherwood, Keith, and Craig Idso are referenced below.

On another note, in a past issue TWTW pointed out there no scientific basis for EPA to intensify its regulations on ozone and it is likely that the new regulations will be economically harmful. The public comment period will close on March 22.

Roy Spencer has posted the satellite temperature measurements for February. Due to the El Niño occurring in the Pacific, as with January, February is above the norm. Roy also is applying a new technique to estimate the Urban Heat Island effect.


SOURCE: www.sepp.org