Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%

Wednesday, 18 December 2013 15:52

Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%


Written by Alex Newman





http://www.thenewamerican.com/media/...968c0297_M.jpg
Self-styled “global-warming” guru Al Gore (shown) and a gaggle of supposed “climate scientists” have egg all over their faces — big time. In 2007, 2008 and 2009, Gore publicly and very hysterically warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.” Citing “climate” experts, the government-funded BBC hyped the mass hysteria, running a now-embarrassing article under the headline: “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’.” Other establishment media outlets did the same.


Well, 2013 is almost over, and contrary to the alarmist “predictions” by Gore and what critics refer to as his “doomsday cult,” the latest satellite data show that Arctic ice cover has actually expanded 50 percent over 2012 levels. In fact, during October, sea-ice levels grew at the fastest pace since records began in 1979. Experts predict the expansion to continue in the years to come, leaving global-warming alarmists scrambling fiendishly for explanations to save face — and to revive the rapidly melting climate hysteria.


In September, meanwhile, data also showed that sea ice levels in Antarctica had expanded to record levels for the second year in a row. Of course, by now, virtually everyone who has been following news about “global warming” — now more often referred to as “climate change” owing to public-relations concerns — also knows that global temperatures have not risen for some 17 years. The spectacular lack of warming demolished all 73 of the “climate models” used by the United Nations to push its controversial theories.




According to the dubious theories and predictions advanced by Al Gore and other alarmists, though, none of this should be happening. Speaking to an audience in Germany five years ago, Gore — sometimes ridiculed as “The Goracle” — alleged that “the entire North Polarized [sic] cap will disappear in 5 years.” While the original video of that particular failed prediction appears to have been scrubbed from the Internet, conservative bloggers managed to track down the same footage from other sources. “Five years,” Gore emphasized again, is “the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear.”

The following year, Gore made similar claims at a UN “climate” summit in Copenhagen. “Some of the models ... suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore claimed in 2009. “We will find out.” Indeed, the bogus prediction appears wildly off the mark, to put it mildly, but the establishment press and Gore apparently do not want the world to find out.


In fairness, Gore was hardly the only hysterical climate-doomsday proponent to be left looking foolish. In December of 2007, the BBC highlighted alleged “modeling studies” that supposedly “indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.” Incredibly, some of the supposed “experts” even claimed it could happen before then, citing calculations performed by “super computers” that the BBC noted “has become a standard part of climate science in recent years.”


“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” claimed Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, described as researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School who was working with co-workers at NASA to come up with the now-thoroughly discredited forecasts about polar ice. “So given that fact, you can argue that may be [sic] our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” Other “experts” quoted in the BBC article agreed with the hysteria.


In the real world, however, the scientific evidence demolishing the global-warming theories advanced by Gore, the UN, and government-funded “climate scientists” continues to grow, along with the ice cover in both hemispheres. In the Arctic, for example, data collected by Europe's Cryosat spacecraft pointed to about 9,000 cubic kilometers of ice at the end of the 2013 melt season. In 2012, which was admittedly a low year, the total volume was about 6,000 cubic kilometers — some 50 percent less than the 2013 total. Polar bear populations are thriving, too.


Across the southern hemisphere, the data have proved even more devastating to what supposed “climate scientists” were caught referring to as their “cause” in the deeply embarrassing ClimateGate e-mails. First, the figures from 2012 showed a record high level of sea-ice cover — more than at any point since records began in 1978. This year set another new record, with ice covering more than 19.5 million square kilometers of ocean around Antarctica by September.


Around the world, meanwhile, record low temperatures continue to make a mockery of “global warming” theories. While anecdotal, to be sure, Cairo, Egypt, just saw its first snowfall in more than 100 years. In the United States there have been thousands of new records for cold temperatures and snowfalls just in the month of December. In an extremely bizarre twist, some “climate scientists” have even started claiming that the freezing temperatures are actually more evidence of “global warming.”


To explain the universally acknowledged lack of warming over the last 17 years in defiance of all UN climate theories, government-funded “climate scientists” and the UN have increasingly touted what critics ridicule as “The Theory of The Ocean Ate My Global Warming.” Under heavy political pressure from the Obama administration and other governments, the UN ran with the theory, despite the lack of any observable evidence to suggest the deep ocean is actually eating the UN’s predicted global warming.


Appearing increasingly detached from reality to independent scientists, the UN claimed in its latest global-warming report to be 95 percent sure that human emissions of carbon dioxide were to blame for rising temperatures. Those claims, now widely laughed at around the world, were made despite the fact that every single one of its computer models has been entirely discredited by the lack of warming for the last 17 years. Many experts are now even predicting global cooling.


Top scientists and experts around the world — even many who have served on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — have been ridiculing the global outfit and its discredited “climate” report. Most governments and dictators, however, continue playing along with what some experts call the climate “charade” or “hoax,” mostly due to built-in incentives and taxpayer funds that help perpetuate the unjustified alarmism.


For third-world dictators, the goal appears to be securing trillions in Western taxpayer money under the guise of “climate” reparations and “justice.” For governments ruling wealthier nations, the end-game seems to be carbon taxes and a planetary “climate” regime with unprecedented powers over humanity. Assembled in Warsaw for the latest UN climate summit, even as the implosion of the “science” behind global-warming theories was accelerating, member regimes agreed to finalize a global climate treaty by 2015.


Polls show that despite hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars squandered on global-warming alarmism, the American public still refuses to widely accept the man-made warming theories advanced by an increasingly discredited UN and its allies. A September Rasmussen survey of likely voters, for example, found that just 43 percent of likely U.S. voters believe alleged “global warming” is caused by human activity. About the same number believe it is not.
Despite vicious attacks and threats — some of it exposed in the ClimateGate scandal — scientists are increasingly jumping off the sinking “climate” ship as well. Even some major governments are working to rein in the out-of-control alarmism, with authorities in Australia, elected in a landslide earlier this year, promising to liberate the nation from “carbon taxes” while quashing much of the taxpayer-funded “global-warming” juggernaut. Calls for prosecuting “fraud” by “climate scientists” are growing, too.



So far, despite hyping the absurd claims five years ago, the establishment press has failed to inform its dwindling readership that Al Gore and his fellow alarmists were proven embarrassingly wrong. No apologies have been forthcoming from Gore, either, and none of the “scientists” who made the ridiculous predictions has apologized or lost his U.S. taxpayer-funded job. In fact, almost unbelievably, the establishment press is now parroting new claims from the same discredited “experts” suggesting that the Arctic will be “ice-free” by 2016.
As Gore put it in 2009, “We will find out.”

Photo of Al Gore: AP Images

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.
Related articles:
Al Gore's "Climate Reality" vs. Reality
Al Gore Appeals to "Collective Will" to Solve Climate Change
Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report
UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity
Arctic Ice Expands, Dispelling Myths of Climate Change
Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling
“Climate Science” in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda
Global-warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death
Despite Lack of Global Warming, UN Sure Humanity Is to Blame
Obama & Allies Tell UN to Cover for Lack of Global Warming
Amid UN Climate Deception, Experts Decry Corruption of Science
UN Climate Summit Reaches Deal for Radical Treaty by 2015




http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...ver-expands-50


It is all crap and traitor!! Money from your pocket into theirs world wide!!!!

Daily Caller News Foundation
http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-cont...7387390626.jpg
‘MASSIVE SEIZURE OF POWER’: Climate scientists, economists challenge EPA

1:52 PM 12/18/2013


Michael Bastasch


A group of climate scientists and economists are challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other stationary sources.

These critics see a “massive seizure of power” by the agency.

The scientists and economists, including the former chair of the EPA’s Science Advisory Committee, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, arguing that the agency does not have the authority to permit greenhouse gases from stationary sources. According to the group, such a permitting scheme is a “naked power grab of the most cynical sort.”

“There is no avoiding that this rule is a massive seizure of power, indeed likely far and away the largest seizure of power by any government agency ever,” reads the amicus brief.

“Under the guise of a technical statutory interpretation, the EPA now asserts it has a central role for itself to control and dictate all aspects of our lives under an over 30-year-old statutory provision never previously thought remotely to cover this subject matter,” the brief continues.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments from the EPA and some states and energy companies in February regarding the agency’s greenhouse gas permitting system. The central question of the case is, whether or not the EPA’s authority to regulate emissions from cars and trucks gives the agency the authority to set standards for stationary facilities, like power plants and refineries.

The EPA argues that it has the authority to permit stationary sources, but petitioners say that such a permitting scheme would be unworkable since greenhouse gases stem from global emissions and can’t be controlled by limiting U.S. emissions alone.

The high court’s decision will have huge implications for the energy sector and for the economies of coal states. Given that, several Republican lawmakers have injected themselves into this case, arguing that the court should rule against the EPA.

“The EPA continually attempts to sidestep Congress and expand its role in advancing a partisan political agenda,” said Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith. “The Obama administration continues to overstep its constitutional authority as it attempts to enact job-killing regulations."

Smith was joined by Kentucky’s Republican congressional delegation in filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on Monday. This includes Kentucky Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, as well as Republican Reps. Andy Barr, Brett Guthrie, Thomas Massie, Hal Rogers and Ed Whitfield.

The lawmakers argue that the EPA has effectively usurped Congress’s authority to write the laws by moving to regulate greenhouse gases — which was done under the Obama administration.

“Our Constitution reserves the power to enact, amend, or repeal statutes to Congress alone,” reads the lawmakers’ brief.
“The power asserted by the EPA here infringes on the constitutional prerogatives of Congress, undermines government accountability, and threatens liberty,” the brief says.

The greenhouse gas permitting scheme is a key component of President Obama’s plan to tackle global warming. It would allow the administration to fore more coal plants offline to reduce U.S. carbon emissions, which some scientists say cause global warming.
Follow Michael on Twitter and Facebook

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/18/ma...challenge-epa/

Tuesday, 24 December 2013 08:15 Reddit Joins LA Times in Banning Skeptics from Climate “Debate”

Written by William F. Jasper

• E-mail
  

http://www.thenewamerican.com/media/...35ba5c87_M.jpg
Reddit, the giant aggregator of social, political, and entertainment news, which boasts that it is “the front page of the Internet,” is taking flak for announcing that it now bans all climate “deniers” from its science forum.
In a December 16 posting on the left-liberal Grist website (a George Soros-funded website), Reddit science “moderator” (now self-professed censor) Nathan Allen announced that the Reddit science forum would no longer allow postings from those who challenge the increasingly discredited notion that manmade carbon-dioxide is causing a global warming existential threat to the planet.
Allen’s essay, entitled “Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. Why don’t all newspapers do the same?”, obviously hopes to spark a wave of official, explicit bans at other media outlets. Of course, most of the so-called mainstream media already employ de facto censorship of the realist/skeptic position in their “climate change” coverage, and have for many years. While they heap lavish, adoring coverage on fanatical climate “scientists” such as James Hansen and Michael Mann, and non-scientist activist celebrities such as Al Gore, George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bono, and Madonna, the mainstream media (MSM) can be counted on to ignore or vilify the thousands of genuine scientists who contradict the carefully crafted false claim of a “scientific consensus” in favor of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). However, much of the MSM have gone beyond censoring the contrarian scientists out of their “news” stories and op-ed pages, going so far as to ban all letters-to-the-editor section that challenge the AGW dogma. The Los Angeles Times is one of the few major MSM organs that has publicly admitted it has a policy of refusing to print letters from climate “deniers.” The folks at Reddit, apparently, would be happy if all media outlets followed suit.


In his Grist op-ed, Dr. Allen wrote:
In addition to my career as a PhD chemist, I am one of a select few who enjoy the privilege of moderating content on reddit.com’s science forum. The science forum is a small part of reddit, but it nonetheless enjoys over 4 million subscribers. By comparison, that’s roughly twice the circulation of The New York Times.
Dr. Allen is obviously pleased with himself and the global digital footprint he influences. He continues:
The forum, known as /r/science, provides a digital space for discussions about recent, peer-reviewed scientific publications. This puts us (along with /r/AskScience) on the front line of the science-public interface. On our little page, scientists and nonscientists can connect through discussions on everything from subatomic particles to interstellar astrophysics.
According to Allen, Reddit’s science forum is “a microcosm, representative of the vast range of views that can be supported by empirical evidence.” “Importantly,” he claims, “it provides the same window for those who are not scientists, who do not regularly talk with PhDs, and who may be unfamiliar with how science is discussed by scientists. In essence, it is a window into the Ivory Tower.” Unfortunately, the “window into the Ivory Tower” of Reddit is as closed as the window into the Ivory Tower of most of academe. Like his professorial comrades on the college and university campuses, Allen seems to be stuck in Stalinism 101, unable to tolerate true debate and the give-and-take that occurs in genuine scientific enquiry. Typical of his comrades on the left, he has adopted the terminology of the Holocaust, consciously vilifying all who dissent from the radical global warming alarmist dogma as “deniers.”
This uncivil discourse is a form of genuine hate speech, aimed at generating hate for those with an opposing scientific viewpoint. Of course, liberal-left activists such as Nathan Allen claim to abhor incivility and hate speech — all the while practicing it with a vengeance. According to Allen, “no topic consistently evokes such rude, uninformed, and outspoken opinions as climate change.”
While admitting that intemperate language and insults come from both sides of the AGW debate, he unconvincingly argues that it is the global warming “deniers” who are most culpable of offensive, “aggressive behavior.” “Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors,” Allen charges.
“As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their ‘skepticism’ on climate change,” asserts Allen. “The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad.”
According to Reddit’s Nathan Allen, the “deniers” are hopeless “true believers” and the only way to deal with them is to cut off their access to all media outlets. “As a site, reddit is passionately dedicated to free speech, so we expected considerable blowback,” says Allen. “But the widespread outrage we feared never materialized, and the atmosphere greatly improved.” If Allen is being truthful, the fact that no widespread outrage materialized is an inadvertent auto-refutation of Reddit’s supposed passionate dedication to free speech. It belies the Reddit mythology about the website’s supposed openness and diversity.
Across the top of its “about” page, in large type, Reddit proudly runs this paean to its accessibility from a Reddit enthusiast, one Dapper77:
“This is a place friendly to thought, relationships, arguments, and to those that wish to challenge those genres."
Reddit’s Wikipedia entry says “The website is known for its open nature and diverse user community that generate its content.” It also claims that the website “has a strong culture of free speech and very few rules about the types of content that may be posted.”
Allen and his fellow Reddit moderators can tolerate just about anything — except dissent from their pet environmental dogma. "As moderators responsible for what millions of people see, we felt that to allow a handful of commenters to so purposefully mislead our audience was simply immoral," Allen said.
Talk about “true believers”! Allowing dissenters to comment, according to Reddit, is “immoral.” Allen calls upon other media thought police to emulate Reddit’s proficiency in policing their venues to eliminate “contrarian” thought. Says Allen:
So if a half-dozen volunteers can keep a page with more than 4 million users from being a microphone for the antiscientific, is it too much to ask for newspapers to police their own editorial pages as proficiently?
The “97% of Scientists” Consensus Myth
Not surprisingly, while ridiculing “deniers” as antiscientific, Allen and the Reddit science moderators engage in one of the biggest and most thoroughly discredited anti-science deceptions of all time: the claim that there is a near-unanimous scientific “consensus” in favor of their radical AGW theories. Here’s Allen:
When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus.
Sound familiar? Yes, that’s the same bogus statistic cited by President Obama this past May, along with the usual MSM choir trumpeting the same false claims of almost total “scientific consensus” on the impending apocalyptic climate “crisis.” Like President Obama, Reddit cites as its source for this outrageous claim the thoroughly discredited study by Australian AGW alarmist/activist John Cook. The New American reported on the eviscerating analyses of Cook’s study by independent scientists and researchers here, here, and here.
The Cook report, which claimed to be based on “over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers,” published in the period 1991-2011, turned out to be a colossal fraud. Stripped of its false accounting methodology, only 65 of the 12,000 papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW alarmist claims. That yields an endorsement rate of around half a percent, not 97 percent! But the 97 percent mantra has been repeated so often that it is cited as gospel by millions of true believers.
One of the most incredible claims of Allen and his Reddit cadres — and yet a claim that is all too typical among the AGW alarmists — is that the “deniers” are a bunch of nasty, ignorant laymen, and that the only scientists who dissent from AGW orthodoxy are a relative handful of “professional climate change deniers” in the pay of Big Oil and Big Coal. However, the AGW accusers never bother to back up their charges — because they can’t. As The New American has reported a number of times (see here and here), the few millions of dollars that AGW skeptics have received from corporate donors is a scant pittance compared to the tens of billions of dollars that have been lavished on the climate alarmists by corporations, foundations, environmental organizations, carbon trading investors, and governments.
Concerning the ever-recurring pernicious lie of scientific consensus, the alarmists appear to be getting increasingly shrill, perhaps in panic mode because so many of their former allies have been jumping ship. Two of the most prominent “green” scientists to reverse course on AGW alarmism are James Lovelock, the British inventor, NASA scientist, author, and originator of the Gaia Hypothesis; and Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, a founding father of Germany’s environmental movement and a director of one of Europe’s largest alternative energy companies.
Here are some of the other world-renowned scientists whom Allen and the Reddit ignore, dismiss, or insult:
• Dr. William Happer, one of America’s preeminent physicists and a professor of physics at Princeton University;
• Dr. Pierre Darriult, physicist and former Director of Research at the CERN Laboratories;
• Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology;
• Mike Hulme, professor of climate science at East Anglia University and an IPCC lead author;
• Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT climate physicist and Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences;

• Dr. John Christy, climatologist of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA;
• Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas;
• Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, former Virginia State climatologist, a UN IPCC reviewer, and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences;
• Dr. Vincent Gray, New Zealand chemist and climate researcher;
• Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, geologist/geochemist, head of the Geological Museum in Norway;
• Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager and project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans;
• Dr. Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center astrophysicist;
• Burt Rutan, renowned engineer, inventor, and aviation/space pioneer;
• Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, emeritus professor of physics, and founding director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks;
• Dr. Bjarne Andresen, physicist, and professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark;
• Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, University of Ottawa, Canada.
That’s just the tip of the proverbial scientific dissenter iceberg. In 2010, Marc Morano at Climate Depot published a 321-page PDF special report featuring statements and bios of more than 1,000 eminent scientists from around the world, including Nobel Prize winners and IPCC authors, who challenge the claim of scientific consensus on global warming.
And, as we have mentioned many times in previous articles, there are more than 31,000 scientists in the United States who have signed a petition urging the U.S. government to reject AGW hysteria and the types of actions that have been proposed at UN forums in Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cancun, and Rio.
In our free society the Reddit climate alarmists should be free to limit access to their website to whomever they please; however they should be named and shamed for falsely portraying themselves as advocates of free and open discourse, and for smearing all those who do not share their hysterical hype and their statist, anti-liberty policy proposals.
Related articles:
Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%
EPA Official Sentenced for Fraud
Obama EPA Climate Decrees Will Further Damage U.S. Economy
Energy Stakeholders Contest EPA Power Regulations
Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report
Famous “Gaia” Scientist James Lovelock Converts From Alarmist to Skeptic on Global Warming, Blasts UN (Video)
Sha Zukang, Communist China’s Radical UN Official, Heads Rio+20 Enviro Summit (Video)
Billionaire Socialist Maurice Strong Returns to Promote Rio+20 (Video)
Agenda 21, ICLEI and the UN’s Rio+20 Conference (Video)
Lord Monckton Breaks Down Rio+20 (Video)
UN’s Rio+20: Add “Biodiversity” and “Sustainability” to “Climate Change” Fearmongering (Video)
Obama Launches New Global Warming Video as Phony "Consensus" Crumbles
Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked
German Firms Flee to U.S. to Avoid Staggering “Green” Energy Costs
Climate “Consensus” Con Game: Desperate Effort Before Release of UN Report
"Lysenkoism" at OSU?
Germany Cuts Subsidies to Floundering Solar Industry
Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books
IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud
“Fakegate” Climate Scientist Reinstated, Criminal Questions Unanswered
Activist Climate Scientist Admits Stealing Documents from Heartland Institute
Ethical Meltdown: Global Warming Alarmists Defend Peter Gleick’s Theft, Fraud
“Peter Gleick Lied, But …” — Global-warming Alarmists Justify His Crime, Deception



http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...climate-debate

Liberty Calling With Judy Morris shared Wayne Dupree Show's photo.


LOL...

https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/...58017196_n.jpg


LOL.....share with your global warming advocates and watch them squirm out of this one LOL

Activist Post


Al Gore freezes to death trying to prove his claim that there would be no ice in 2014...
https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/...36821812_n.jpg

Daily Caller News Foundation
http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-cont...2398615477.jpg

Obama announces $1 billion ‘Climate Resilience Fund’ while East Coast is buried in snow

President Obama will use his time in the drought-stricken state of California to announce a $1 billion “Climate Resilience Fund” to provide assistance to local communities to prepare for global warming.

The climate fund will be included in the president’s 2015 budget request. The $1 billion in spending would go to research into preparing for the impacts of global warming, helping communities prepare for such impacts and funding climate-resilient technology and infrastructure.
Obama also pledged millions of dollars to help Californian’s cope with the drought that has plagued more than 90 percent of the state. The president also directed federal facilities in the state to cut water usage.

“As communities across California struggle with the impacts of one of the state’s worst droughts in over 100 years, President Obama is committed to ensuring that his Administration is doing everything it can help the farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and communities being impacted,” the Obama administration said in an emailed statement.

But as California faces its worst drought in recent memory, the U.S. East Coast was buried in snow. On Thursday, the U.S. southeast was hit with a snowstorm that has been blamed for at least 21 deaths. The snowstorm has moved north, covering the nation’s capital in nearly a foot of snow and is expected to pelt the entire eastern seaboard from Georgia to Maine.

Thousands of flights have been cancelled, reports the AP. More than 70 percent of flights in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. and Charlotte, N.C were canceled on Thursday due to the fierce storm.

“This year is off to a brutal start for airlines and travelers,” said FlightAware CEO Daniel Baker. “Not only is each storm causing tens of thousands of cancellations, but there’s been a lot of them.”

This stands in sharp contrast to California, which is suffering from the worst drought in living memory. California Gov. Jerry Brown called a state of emergency last month, saying the state must prepare for prolonged water shortages. Environmentalists and Democrats have used the drought as a rallying cry to tackle global warming.

“The global climate has now been so extensively impacted by the human-caused buildup of greenhouse gases, that weather practically everywhere is being influenced by climate change,” White House science czar Dr. John Holdren told reporters Thursday night. “We’ve always had droughts in the American West, of course, but now the severe ones are getting more frequent, they’re getting longer, and they’re getting dryer.”

Scientists, however, have not yet linked the drought to global warming. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) will be examining the drought later this year to tell if it was caused by man-made global warming or natural variability.

Last year, AMS found that the drought that ravaged the Midwest in 2012 was not caused by global warming, but by natural variation in the weather. Other scientific research shows that droughts have not actually increased in intensity.

“It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado said in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”
Follow Michael on Twitter and Facebook

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/14/ob...#ixzz2tOuxF2zT

This is all about them trying to steal all of our Countries natural resources any way they can and it is still crap and traitor!!!!! Remember "we are going to be completely out of oil" a while back"???? Global warming, crap and traitor, these people don't quit!!! Money from our pocket into theirs... It is all about control of us and ours from the cradle to the grave and all things in between!!!!

Girl Scouts Promote Environmental Justice, Climate Change, Green Energy in Its Leadership Program


February 14, 2014 - 6:06 PM

---

By Penny Starr
Subscribe to Penny Starr RSS

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter


http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/fil...0with%20MO.jpgFirst lady Michelle Obama with Girl Scouts in the White House garden last year. Obama is the honorary national president of the organization. (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – The Girl Scouts’ National Leadership Journeys program requires girls to embrace environmental justice, climate change and green energy in order to earn awards. The Journey Awards – “aimed at giving them the benefits of the Girl Scout "Keys to Leadership": Discover, Connect, Take Action” – are described on the Girls Scouts website as being designed for girls from kindergarten through high school.

The “It’s Your Planet – Love It” journey page is illustrated with a photograph of a “green roof” at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, Calif.

“Girls are being exposed to ideas and discussions on the environment every day and everywhere,” the description of the various journeys with this theme states. “Girl Scouts journeys are packed with the latest research and girl-relevant environmental thinking and offer adults a way to interact with girls on topics of great importance in their lives.

“In this journey series, girls at each grade level have an opportunity to learn about grade-appropriate environmental issues such as clean water and air, noise pollution, global warming, soil contamination, and agricultural processes,” the description states.

The list of programs with the planet theme include ‘Between Earth and Sky” for kindergartners and first-graders, called Daisies.
“On this Journey, Daisies learn about the natural world around them and how to keep the Earth healthy,” the description states. One suggested activity is to “put on a play about protecting the Earth.”

The Brownies’ journey, “Wow! Wonders of Water” (for second and third graders) states that girls will “learn how to protect the waters of our planet.”

Girl Scout Cadettes (grades seventh, eighth and ninth) go on a “Breathe” journey.

“On this Journey, Cadettes learn all about the air they breathe and how to improve its quality,” the description states. “They may take a trip to a wind farm to see how sustainable energy is harvested, invite an environmental scientist to talk about air-quality control, or perform fun experiments about air.

“Then they team up on an air-quality project they care about,” the description states. “They might create a no-idling zone in their school parking lot, plant an indoor garden at a community center, or develop an anti-smoking social media campaign.”

The most senior scouting journey – ambassadors who are in their junior or senior year of high school – will learn about “environmental justice.”

“On this journey, ambassadors learn to identify global environmental issues and create their own vision for change,” the description states. “They may interview an environmental scientist to find out how she uses data, debate environmental controversies, or find inspirational quotes, poems, or song lyrics that ignite their vision for justice.

“Then they team up to present and share their vision of environmental justice,” the description states.
The “It’s Your World – Change It” journey programs teach girls how to change the world, including how to “navigate cliques, and look past stereotypes” for Cadettes. Juniors (fourth and fifth grade) will “team up to become agents of change in their own community, perhaps by putting on a skit at school about using less energy or creating a sustainable 'meal in a bag' solution for the local food bank.”

Ambassadors will “take action on an issue they care about. They might make the case for more bike paths by presenting to their city council, create a social media campaign to encourage the use of reusable bags, or lobby government officials for no-texting-while-driving laws.”

The third journey offered to Scouts – “It’s Your Story – Tell It” focuses on caring for animals for the younger girls and media campaigns and relationships for older girls.


- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penn....pbLhlNgY.dpuf


Crap and traitor from our pockets into theirs thru propaganda of our children!!!

http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/e2wire.jpg


February 13, 2014, 10:15 pm Study: Natural gas may not be 'bridge fuel' to fight climate change

By Laura Barron-Lopez

The U.S. natural gas infrastructure has far more leaks than federal authorities previously reported, according to new findings.
A study released Thursday by Stanford University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) revealed that, while natural gas emits less carbon dioxide during combustion than other fossil fuels, the potential for leaks — which emit the more potent greenhouse gas methane — put a damper on its "climate benefits."

President Obama, however, credited natural gas as a top factor in bringing the U.S. closer to energy independence during his State of the Union address."One of the reasons why is natural gas, if extracted safely, it’s the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change," he said in his address.

But the study's team of authors who reviewed more than 200 reports found emissions of methane are significantly higher than official estimates, with leaks from the natural gas system being one significant contributor.

"However, because of the high global warming potential of methane, climate benefits from natural gas use depend on system leakage rates," the study states. "Some recent estimates of leakage have challenged the benefits of switching from coal to natural gas, a large near-term greenhouse gas reduction opportunity."

Right now the Environmental Protection Agency's best estimate is the country's natural gas system leaks about 1.5 percent of gross production — or 28 million tons of methane per year. The new study says there's a gap between that estimate and the actual measurements by roughly 14 trillion grams of methane.

"This new technology is critical because, if our policy is going to continue to focus on using gas as a “bridge fuel,” we need to double down our efforts to mitigate the leaks," said co-author Francis O'Sullivan of MIT.

While the gas system is leakier than thought, in the long run, electricity generation through the burning of gas opposed to coal makes a greater dent in total greenhouse gas emissions over 100 years, according to the study.

When it comes to powering trucks and buses with natural gas in place of diesel fuel, however, gas will likely add to effects that compound global warming.

"Fueling trucks and buses with natural gas may help local air quality and reduce oil imports, but it is not likely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said lead author of the report Adam Brandt, an assistant professor at Stanford said in a statement.

"Even running passenger cars on natural gas instead of gasoline is probably on the borderline in terms of climate," Brandt added.
Why the disconnect in calculations from researchers and the EPA?

The study's authors say the EPA conducts atmospheric tracking of emissions, which misses possible contributing elements.
For instance, emission rates for wells and processing plants are left to operators on a voluntary basis, meaning leaks might go unrecorded since the EPA is not allowed on site more than half of the time.

"It's impossible to take direct measurements of emissions from sources without site access," said Garvin Heath, a senior scientist with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and a co-author of the new analysis.

Methane emission levels in general, including all factors are about 50 percent higher than what the national accounts report, the report states.
The EPA also doesn't regulate natural emissions from wetlands and geologic seeps, and puts added weight on human activity.
And the study's authors are concerned because methane is roughly 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide on a 100-year basis, and more so in short term.

MORE HERE:

Study finds growing doubt of climate change

Read more »

by Taboola
Sponsored Content


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-...#ixzz2tP0nbjwd
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Thursday, February 13, 2014

John Casey Exposes the Truth About Climate Change


Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ItmaEvX77Y#t=68
Published on Feb 9, 2014
In this video Mr. Casey exposes the global warming fraud and brings your attention to an ice age threat which is threatening our planet and the peak point is about 2030 - 2031. This video has been uploaded with Mr. John Casey's written permission and is copyright of Mr. John Casey.

Mr. John L. Casey is the former White House space program adviser, consultant to NASA Headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is the President of Space and Science Research Center http://www.spaceandscience.net

He is one of America's most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts. Mr. Casey is the leading advocate in the US for a national and international plan to prepare for the next climate change to one of a dangerous cold climate era. This new cold era is caused by a historic decline in the Sun's energy output, what he calls a "solar hibernation."

He is the author of the internationally acclaimed climate science book, "Cold Sun" which describes the rationale for understanding why global warming has ended and the effects of the new cold climate era.

• Category
  
  Nonprofits & Activism
• License
  
  Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)

• Source videos none View attributions

http://www.activistpost.com/2014/02/...t-climate.html

PS this is a really good video on the fraud of climate change!!!!

This winter’s cold snap is one reason why Obama’s coal regulations are not the best idea

posted at 8:21 pm on February 13, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Even independently of the Obama administration’s policies, the U.S. energy grid has been undergoing some major shifts in the past few years. As the shale revolution has gained steam and natural gas has become more abundant, the proportion of electricity we get from coal has decreased while the role of viable-substitute natural gas has gotten bigger. Many defenders of the Obama administration’s incoming regulations for new and existing coal-fired power plants point to this ongoing market shift as part of their rationale, arguing that the transition to cleaner-burning natural gas is happening anyway and that all these regulations are just hurrying things along a bit for the sake of the climate — but the regulations are also ensuring that a swing back to coal can’t happen even if the market wanted it to. For instance, what if an extra-cold winter sent demand (and thus, prices) for natural gas unusually high; or if, say, a region like New England was lacking the pipeline network it would take to transport the necessary quantities of gas to keep everyone’s homes heated? You know, like — now?

Via The Hill:

The drawn out arctic blast has the U.S. turning to coal.
As natural gas prices reach a four-year high due to the strain the cold has put on gas pipelines, utilities are shifting to coal to pump out 4.519 million megawatt-hours a day.
Coal’s share of energy production in the U.S. might climb to 40.3 percent from 39 percent last year. And the U.S. is on track for its coldest winter in more than 30 years through January, giving rise to the less expensive energy source.
“The idea of coal disappearing is not an effective climate change policy,” said John Thompson, an analyst at the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force told Bloomberg News. “Coal use is growing.”

Yes, coal use is growing — much like in Germany, where their determination to speedily stamp out fossil-fuel based energy sources in fact directly resulted in the country burning more coal. Is it me, or is anybody else picking up on a pattern in which governmental attempts at top-down market manipulation often end in either counterproductivity and/or disaster?

Via Politico:

But the coal industry and its supporters in Congress are sounding the alarm. They note that many of the older coal-fired power plants that have helped fill the gap this winter are due to shut down next year because of the Obama administration’s environmental rules.
“What happens … when that capacity is gone?” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) asked this week at a gathering of utility regulators in Washington. “Maybe we won’t have cold periods like we’re seeing next year [and] we’ll be OK. But what kind of a policy is that? A hope and a prayer?”

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/02/1...the-best-idea/

No Two Global-Warming Flakes Are Alike

Posted By Chris Graham on Feb 14, 2014 | 146 Comments
http://cdn.lastresistance.com/wp-con...ial-walker.jpg

http://cache-02.cleanprint.net/media...tIcn_32x32.pnghttp://cache-02.cleanprint.net/media...fIcn_32x32.pnghttp://cache-02.cleanprint.net/media...lIcn_32x32.png

Whoo-whee! Did you guys get all that global warming that hit yesterday?

I spent 45 minutes shoveling more than a foot of global warming out of my driveway and clearing a path up the walkway.

What was especially difficult was that after all the global warming fell, it turned to rain and created a sheet of ice on top of all that thick, white global warming, causing it to be twice as heavy than it would have otherwise been.

Where was President Obama during all of this? He was supposed to be able to control the weather!

But man did I break a sweat out there! A-ha! See? Global warming! Warmth causes you to sweat, I sweated, ergo, warming—on a global scale!

Did you hear about Death Valley in the Mojave Desert? It got over two feet of global warming! It was so warm that it actually felt cold, and the clouds apparently believed it because they dropped over two feet of cold, icy global warming on the place.

Okay, that didn’t happen. But it will one day. As the world heats up, the ponds, lakes, and oceans evaporate into the clouds, and then those clouds spill precipitation back down to Earth, sometimes in watery form, sometimes in icy form.

If this sounds a lot like what’s been going on literally since the beginning of history, it’s not; this time, the evaporated waters will multiply in the air and precipitate ten times, no, 50 times as much water back to Earth, causing, one day, a worldwide flood. With some volcanoes and earthquakes thrown in for good measure.

Don’t tell me that doesn’t make perfect sense.

The only thing that can really save us from such a flood will be Obama. The moment we nominated him to be our Democratic Party presidential candidate—that was the moment he started slowing the rise of the oceans.

As long as he’s president, he can protect us. (I don’t know where he was yesterday—another fundraiser with another obscene rapper?—but, hey, even deities need rests sometimes.)

I propose we make him president in perpetuity. I know no two global-warming flakes are alike, but it all looks the same to me and I’m sick of it. It has to end.

Barack Obama 2016…and Beyond!

Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4746/two-g...lcA3rcJC5tS.99

February 17, 2014 Climate Consensus Con Game

By S. Fred Singer
At the outset, let's be quite clear: There is no consensus about dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) -- and there never was. There is not even a consensus on whether human activities, such as burning fossil fuels to produce useful energy, affect global climate significantly. So what's all this fuss about?

Let's also be quite clear that science does not work by way of consensus. Science does not progress by appeal to authority; in fact, major scientific advances usually come from outside the consensus; one can cite many classic examples, from Galileo to Einstein. [Another way to phrase this issue: Scientific veracity does not depend on fashionable thinking.] In other words, the very notion of a scientific consensus is unscientific.

The degree of consensus also depends on the way the questions are phrased. For example, we can get 100% consensus if the question is "Do you believe in climate change?" We can get a near-100% consensus if the question is "Do you believe that humans have some effect on the climate?" This latter question also would include also local effects, like urbanization, clearing of forests, agriculture, etc.

So one has to be rather careful and always ask: What is the exact question for which a consensus has been claimed?

Subverting Peer Review

Finally, we should point out that a consensus can be manufactured -- even where no consensus exists. For example, it has become very popular to claim that 97% of all publications support AGW. Here the key question to ask is: Which publications and what exactly is the form of support?

Thanks to the revelations of the Climategate e-mails, we now have a more skeptical view about the process which is used to vet publications. We know now that peer-review, once considered by many as the 'gold-standard,' can be manipulated -- and in fact has been manipulated by a gang of UK and US climate scientists who have been very open about their aim to keep dissenting views from being published. We also know from the same e-mails that editors can be bullied by determined activists.

In any case, the peer-review process can easily be slanted by the editor, who usually selects the reviewers. And some editors misuse their position to advance their personal biases.

We have, for example, the case of a former editor of Science who was quite open about his belief in DAGW, and actively discouraged publication of any papers that went against his bias. Finally, he had to be shamed into giving voice to a climate skeptic's contrary opinion, based on solid scientific evidence. But of course, he reserved to himself the last word in the debate.

My occasional scientific coauthors David Douglass (U. of Rochester) and John Christy (U. of Alabama, Huntsville) describe a particularly egregious instance of the blatant subversion of peer-review -- all supported by evidence from Climategate e-mails.

Confusing the Issue

Further, we should mention the possibility of confusing the public, and often many scientists as well, by clever use of words. I will give just two examples:

It is often pointed out that there has been essentially no warming trend in the last 15 years -- even though greenhouse forcing from carbon dioxide has been steadily increasing. At the same time, climate activists claim that the past decade is the warmest since thermometer records were started.

It happens that both statements are true; yet they do not contradict each other. How is this possible?

We are dealing here with a case of simple confusion. On the one hand we have a temperature trend which has been essentially zero for at least 15 years. On the other hand, we have a temperature level which is highest since the Little Ice Age ended, around 1800 A.D.

Note that 'level' and 'trend' are quite different concepts -- and even use different units. Level is measured in degreesC; trend is measured in degC per decade. [This is a very general problem; for example, many people confuse electric energy with electric power; one is measured in joules or kilowatt-hours; the other is measured in kilowatts.]

It may help here to think of prices on the stock market. The Dow-Jones index has more or less been level for the last several weeks, fluctuating between 15,000 and 16,000, showing essentially a zero trend; but it is at its highest level since the D-J index was started in 1896.

This is only one example by which climate activists can confuse the public -- and often even themselves -- into believing that there is a consensus on DAGW. Look at two typical recent headlines:

"2013 sixth-hottest year, confirms long-term warming: UN"
"U.S. Dec/Jan Temperatures 3rd Coldest in 30 Years"

Both are correct, but neither mentions the important fact that the trend has been flat for at least 15 years -- thus falsifying the greenhouse climate models, all of which predict a strong future warming.

And of course, government climate policies are all based on such unvalidated climate models -- which have already been proven wrong. Yet the latest UN-IPCC report of Sept 2013 claims to be 95% certain about DAGW! Aware of the actual temperature data, how can they claim this and keep a straight face?

Their laughable answer: 95% of climate models agree; therefore the observations must be wrong! One can only shake one's head sadly at such a display of "science."

Another trick question by activists trying to sell a "consensus": "If you are seriously ill and 99 doctors recommend a certain treatment, would you go with the one doctor who disagrees?"

It all depends. Suppose I do some research and find that all 99 doctors got their information from a single (anonymous) article in Wikipedia, what then?

Opinion Polls

Both sides in the climate debate have made active use of opinion polls. In 1990, when I started to become seriously involved in climate-change arguments and incorporated the SEPP (Science & Environmental Policy Project), I decided to poll the experts. Having limited funds, and before the advent of widespread e-mail, I polled the officers of the listed technical committees of the American Meteorological Society -- a sample of less than 100. I figured those must be the experts.

I took the precaution of isolating myself from this survey by enlisting the cooperation of Dr Jay Winston, a widely respected meteorologist, skeptical of climate skeptics. And I employed two graduate students who had no discernible expertise in climate issues to conduct the actual survey and analyze the returns.

This exercise produced an interesting result: Roughly half of the AMS experts believed there must be a significant human influence on the climate through the release of carbon dioxide -- while the other half had considerable doubt about the validity of climate models.

Subsequent polls, for example those by Hans von Storch in Germany, have given similar results -- while polls conducted by activists have consistently shown strong support for AGW. A classic case is a survey of the abstracts of nearly 1000 papers, by science historian Naomi Oreskes (UC San Diego); published in 2004 Science, she claimed a near-unanimous consensus about AGW. However, after being challenged, Oreskes discovered having overlooked some 11,000 abstracts -- and published a discreet Correction in a later issue of Science.

On the other hand, independent polls by newspapers, by Pew, Gallup, and other respected organizations, using much larger samples, have mirrored the results of my earlier AMS poll. But what has been most interesting is the gradual decline over the years in public support for DAGW, as shown by these independent polls.

Over the years also, there have been a large number of "declarations, manifestos, and petitions" -- signed by scientists, and designed to influence public opinion -- starting with the "Leipzig Declaration" of 1995. Noteworthy among the many is the Copenhagen Diagnosis (2009), published to build up hype for a UN conference that failed utterly.

It is safe to say that the overall impact of such polls has been minimal, compared to the political consequences of UN-IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) reports that led to (mostly failed) attempts at international action, like the Kyoto Protocol (1997-2012). One should mention here the Oregon Petition against Kyoto, signed by some 31,000 (mostly US) scientists and engineers -- nearly 10,000 with advanced degrees. More important perhaps, in July 1997 the US Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution against a Kyoto-like treaty by unanimous vote -- which probably dissuaded the Clinton-Gore White House from ever submitting Kyoto for Senate ratification.

Is Consensus still an issue?

By now, the question of a scientific consensus on AGW may have become largely academic. What counts are the actual climate observations, which have shaken public faith in climate models that preach DAGW. The wild claims of the IPCC are being offset by the more sober, fact-based publications of the NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change). While many national science academies and organizations still cling to the ever-changing "evidence" presented by the IPCC, it may be significant that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has translated and published a condensation of NIPCC reports.

In the words of physicist Prof Howard "Cork" Hayden:

"If the science were as certain as climate activists pretend, then there would be precisely one climate model, and it would be in agreement with measured data. As it happens, climate modelers have constructed literally dozens of climate models. What they all have in common is a failure to represent reality, and a failure to agree with the other models. As the models have increasingly diverged from the data, the climate clique have nevertheless grown increasingly confident -- from cocky in 2001 (66% certainty in IPCC's Third Assessment Report) to downright arrogant in 2013 (95% certainty in the Fifth Assessment Report)."

Climate activists seem to embrace faith and ideology -- and are no longer interested in facts.

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute, and an elected Fellow of several scientific and engineering organizations. He co-authored theNY Timesbest-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. In 2007, he founded and has since chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See www.NIPCCreport.org]. For recent writings, seehttp://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/...#ixzz2tgBhnsIl
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

February 16, 2014 Really? Kerry - Global Warming as Big of a Threat as Terrorism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ6BXHiUQgM
Published on Feb 16, 2014
US Secretary of State John Kerry has been in Indonesia talking about climate change.

He spoke to students at the American Cultural Centre in Jakarta, telling them:

"When I think about the array of global climate, of the global threats; think about this: terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. All challenges that know no borders. The reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them."

On Friday, Kerry came to an agreem...
READ MORE : http://www.euronews.com/2014/02/16/jo...

euronews: the most watched news channel in Europe
Subscribe! http://eurone.ws/10ZCK4a

euronews is available in 14 languages: http://eurone.ws/17moBCU

In English:
Website: http://www.euronews.com/news
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/euronews
Twitter: http://twitter.com/euronews
Google+: http://google.com/+euronews
VKontakte: http://vk.com/en.euronews

• Category
  
  News & Politics
  
• License
  
  Standard YouTube License
  

Seeking to burnish his credential as a climate champion before deciding on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project, Secretary of State John F. Kerry warned Indonesians on Saturday that global warming is as big a threat as terrorism. Indonesia is the world's largest exporter of coal for power plants.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/video...#ixzz2tgF585iX
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Really Kerry the scam of the century is more like what climate change is. It is unbelievable what you and your elitists buddies are doing in order to try and con the Public out of their hard earned money. Qorld wide too with your scare tactics and insidious ideas!!!!!

February 18, 2014 Mass Destruction of Science

Charles Battig
Perhaps given the chance to avert public eyes from his lackluster results with containing the deteriorating situation in Syria, nuclear talks with Iran, and the Middle East peace process, Secretary of State Kerry has chosen to flaunt his lack of scientific understanding as a needed diversion.

Kerry described those who do not accept that human activity causes global warming as "shoddy scientists" and "extreme ideologues," and said big companies and special interests should not be allowed to "hijack" the climate debate. "Climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction."

These sound-bite alarmism utterances from an ideologue lacking scientific training himself, shoddy or otherwise, are consistent with a special-interest politician always alert to the political climate. By unilaterally labeling a fundamental, natural feature of Earth itself a "weapon of mass destruction," Kerry has now redefined "original sin" as being the result of excess man-made carbon dioxide. He has removed the path of redemption from the hands of traditional religion and proclaimed salvation in government-imposed "global warming pollution reduction." The failed 2010 Kerry/Lieberman "American Power Act" apparently lives on in Kerry's psyche.

Let Kerry produce the impartial evidence that would quantify how much human activity has caused how much global warming (or cooling). The inherently chaotic nature of climate has defied attempts of climate modelers to accurately predict the future climate. What is "normal climate" is heavily dependent on the time period and geographic place chosen. The scientific record shows no global warming for the past 16 years, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased about 9 percent. True "weapons of mass destruction" have reliable on-off switches, well-calculated destructive impacts, and specific targets.

"Climate change" has been coopted by the progressive/liberal movement as something akin to the "universal solvent." It is the term used to explain any untoward event anywhere, and direct blame to all of mankind...but with the exception of the ruling class. It is the term that brings visions of guaranteed profits to the corporate cronyist, endless government research grants to compliant scientists, and elitist political control of the populace, whose function is reduced to paying for the scam.
Charles Battig, M.D., Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website is www.climateis.wordpress.com


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz2thsTZd2O
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

John Kerry Uses Mockery To Deal With Lack of Evidence Of Global Warming (Postscript)

http://cdn.politicaloutcast.com/wp-c...polar-bear.jpg

Posted on February 18, 2014 by Mark Horne

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vnFl3WZLsY

It is always a wonderful opportunity when the Secretary of State for the Galactic Empire the United States of America goes to some small country whose economy is the fraction of the size of ours, because then he is surrounded by people who are dying to gain his good graces and he can say whatever he wants. It is better than having canned applause. In this case, the captive audience was in Indonesia and the text of John Kerry’s sermon was the idiotic heresy of denying global warming.

Anyone can look up John Kerry’s education and see he has no training at all in climate science. He has no idea what he is talking about. He is completely incapable, for example, of even holding a conversation with Richard Lindzen, the MIT climatologist.
In other words, you have every bit as much right to your opinion as he has to his opinion. The only difference is that he has the power to censor your opinion and all the scientists from any debate and that is exactly what he intends to do.
If Kerry has no education in climate science, what is his education? In a word: Liberalism. From Wikipedia:
In 1962, Kerry entered Yale University, majoring in political science and residing in Jonathan Edwards College. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1966. Kerry played on the soccer, hockey, lacrosse, and fencing teams; in addition, he took flying lessons.
In his sophomore year, Kerry became the Chairman of the Liberal Party of the Yale Political Union, and a year later he served as President of the Union. Amongst his influential teachers in this period was Professor H. Bradford Westerfield, who was himself a former President of the Political Union. His involvement with the Political Union gave him an opportunity to be involved with important issues of the day, such as the civil rights movement and Kennedy's New Frontier program. He also became a member of the secretive Skull and Bones Society. He also traveled to Switzerland through AIESEC Yale.

Under the guidance of the speaking coach and history professor Rollin Osterweis, Kerry won many debates against other college students from across the nation. In March 1965, as the Vietnam War escalated, he won the Ten Eyck prize as the best orator in the junior class for a speech that was critical of U.S. foreign policy. In the speech he said, "It is the specter of Western imperialism that causes more fear among Africans and Asians than communism and thus, it is self-defeating."
So we have here someone who was rather busy in college and, as I already mentioned, did not have time to do intensive study of climate science. It wasn’t his interest. Liberal politics was his interest.
And it is liberal politics that is driving Kerry’s agenda now.
Of course, it would be a disaster for Indonesia or any other developing economy to suddenly have to curtail their CO2 emissions, or to pay a tax for those emissions. It would be far more destructive than any “specter of Western imperialism” that Kerry imagined in his youth. The global warming scam is a rationalization for US aggression.
The good news is that the truth is winning. The fact that Kerry is forced to resort to mockery and baseless smears shows he knows he is losing.

Postscript: I was so angry at Kerry's words that I didn't even think about the so-called "carbon footprint" involved in his climate change international tour. See here for more details and my opinion of what it means.

Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/02/...M4K8H4sWQEo.99

More Hilarious Gore: “The Dust Bowl Is Coming Back, Quickly, Unless We Act”

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/u.../dust_bowl.jpg

I’m confused, I thought we were supposed to be flooded by the melting polar ice caps?
Via Kansas City:

Al Gore has been known for his climate change warnings since the 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.”
But the former vice president, speaking Saturday in Kansas City, cited many more recent examples how heavy use of fossil fuels is contributing to extreme weather events and trends, in his view.


Gore filled a Westin Crown Center ballroom with a 90-minute presentation, using photos and videos to illustrate a litany of floods, wildfires, torrential rains, droughts, dust storms, rising sea levels and increasing world temperatures.


To those attending the Folk Alliance International conference, he noted examples of flooding in locations both remote and closer to home, such as in Manitou Springs, Colo., where high water barreled down mountain highways last year, carrying cars along with it


“They had never seen anything like this in Manitou Springs,” Gore said.


He cited the possibility of how flooding in Pakistan could destabilize that country, a nuclear power, and the possible effect that continuing drought in California might have on the world’s food supply.


“Think about that,” he said. “The Dust Bowl is coming back, quickly, unless we act.”
Keep reading…

http://weaselzippers.us/176063-more-...unless-we-act/




http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2...xlF.St.81.jpeg


Al Gore brings climate change message to Kansas City

February 22

By BRIAN BURNES

The Kansas City Star

Al Gore has been known for his climate change warnings since the 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.”

http://media.kansascity.com/static/v...te-on-blue.png http://media.kansascity.com/static/v...ase/f_logo.png http://media.kansascity.com/static/v...erest_icon.png http://media.kansascity.com/static/v...gplus-icon.png http://media.kansascity.com/static/v...print_icon.png http://media.kansascity.com/static/v...email_icon.png
http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2...xlF.St.81.jpeg Susan Pfannmuller | Special to The Star Former vice president Al Gore spoke about climate change Saturday during the Folk Alliance International conference at the Westin Crown Center hotel.



But the former vice president, speaking Saturday in Kansas City, cited many more recent examples how heavy use of fossil fuels is contributing to extreme weather events and trends, in his view.
Gore filled a Westin Crown Center ballroom with a 90-minute presentation, using photos and videos to illustrate a litany of floods, wildfires, torrential rains, droughts, dust storms, rising sea levels and increasing world temperatures.
To those attending the Folk Alliance International conference, he noted examples of flooding in locations both remote and closer to home, such as in Manitou Springs, Colo., where high water barreled down mountain highways last year, carrying cars along with it.
“They had never seen anything like this in Manitou Springs,” Gore said.
He cited the possibility of how flooding in Pakistan could destabilize that country, a nuclear power, and the possible effect that continuing drought in California might have on the world’s food supply.
“Think about that,” he said. “The Dust Bowl is coming back, quickly, unless we act.”
Gore presented animation from his 2006 film depicting water pushing into the streets of lower Manhattan — much mocked at the time, Gore said — followed by images of water filling New York City subway tunnels during Hurricane Sandy in October 2012.
Gore conceded the possible fatigue some may have with his warnings, as well as the possible sense of powerlessness as to what any one individual can do to affect what appear to be vast, unchangeable trends.
“Do we really have to do this and — if the answer is yes — can we do it?” Gore said, repeating two questions he routinely hears.
“The answer to both of those questions — spoiler alert — is ‘yes.’ ”
Gore cited what he considered the increasing momentum with which renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar power have been embraced.
Just as one telephone company study 25 years ago underestimated the huge increase in the use of cellphones, estimates on the acceptance of wind and solar technology also have been conservative, Gore said.
Among the countries or states turning to renewable energy strategies, Gore mentioned the Vatican’s increasing use of solar technology. Vatican City, Gore said, wants to be the first CO2-neutral sovereign city-state in the world.
“They have two advantages,” Gore said. “It is very small, and they have God on their side.”
He urged his listeners to act on an individual basis.
“The one missing ingredient may well be you, no kidding,” he said.
And, given how he was addressing a room filled with folk music admirers, Gore framed his remarks with references to two singers: Bob Dylan and the late Pete Seeger. Reciting a phrase from “The Times They Are a-Changin’ ” and later invoking Seeger’s memory, Gore urged those in attendance to write songs and spread a renewable energy message “all over this land.”
Folk music, he added, “played a positive role in resolving the central question in civil rights, as to what was truly right and truly wrong.”

To reach Brian Burnes, call 816-234-4120 or send email to bburnes@kcstar.com.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/22...#storylink=cpy

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/22...te-change.html


Can we all say crap and traitor!!!!! Money from our pockets into theirs..

http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-cont...3269020454.jpg
Supreme Court hears arguments on Obama’s global warming agenda

3:07 PM 02/24/2014

Michael Bastasch

President Obama’s plan to fight global warming was on trialhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png Monday. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether the administration had the authority to require that industrial facilities get permits when they emit large amounts of greenhouse gases.

Thirteen states, industrial groups and utility companies have petitioned the Supreme Court to rule that the Environmental Protectionhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png Agency does not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from these facilities. Such a ruling would imperil Obama’s plan to fight global warming, the lynchpin of which is to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

“This case marks an extremely critical point in clarifying just how far the Obama Administration can extend their regulatory overreach, including by rewriting the Clean Air Act to suit its needs,” said Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter in a statement.

“This Administration has led a far-left agenda driven crusade to circumvent Congress at every opportunityhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png, and this case could permit an unprecedented power grab by expanding how far it can go to regulate greenhouse gases,” Vitter said. “Legislative attempts like ‘cap and trade’ have failed because the American public knows these regulations could strangle our economy, and the implications of this case could cripple the democratic process.”

The EPA, environmentalists and public health groups argue that the agency’s requirement of permitting for facilities that emit large amounts of greenhouse gases is within the authority granted to it by the Clean Air Act.

“We need all available safeguards under the Clean Air Act to address the urgent challenge of climate change — including the advanced pollution control measures required as an essential protection in construction permits for large industrial sources,” said Vickie Patton, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund. “These measures are vital if we hope to minimize industrial climate pollution.”

Patton and others have also tried to downplay the importance of the case by arguing that while the case does have major policyhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png implications, it is not challenging the EPA’s underlying authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

“What is not at stake in this case is the EPA’s determination that six greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride — endanger the health and welfare of current and future generations,” Patton added.

The background
At the center of the case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA is the question of whether the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicleshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png allows them to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources.

The case follows the 2007 Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the court ruled that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gas emissions if it was determined that they were harmful to human health and that the agency needed to begin the process of making such a determination. In that case environmentalists, twelve states and several cities sued the EPA to compel them to begin the so-called “endangerment finding.”

It wasn’t until President Obama was in the White Househttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png that the EPA finally came out with its endangerment finding, saying that greenhouse gases from motor vehicles were harmful to human health and, therefore, could be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA moved quickly to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions, first limiting emissions from motor vehicles with its “tailpipe rule.” This rule limited emissions from light-duty trucks and set new fuel efficiency rules for carshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png and trucks. Soon after, the EPA argued that because the Clean Air Act applies to “any air pollution agent,” they had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources.

Next Page

What's really at stake

Video of Scotus:
http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/vi...p&VID=25651048

The problem was that the Clean Air Act Title V permits that the EPA is now applying to greenhouse gases, were created before global warming was viewed as a serious policy issue. Under the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) preconstruction permits are required for stationary sources that emit at least 100 or 250 tons per year of traditional pollutants — not greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide. Stationary facilities that could potentially emit at least 100 tons of pollutants per year need a Clean Air Act Title V permit.

Sounds simple enough, but since greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, are much more common than traditional pollutants and are emitted in much larger amounts. Applying Clean Air Act permitting rules in this way meant that the agency would more than six million facilities across the country, including including schools, hospitals and even some large households.

So the agency tweaked its rule so that only large facilities, like refineries and power plants, which emit more than 75,000 or 100,000 tons per year would need permits for greenhouse gas emissions.

What’s really at stake?
While this Supreme Court case won’t completely prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, it will define what the agency can and can’t do in terms of fighting global warming.

“With the president announcing in his State of the Union address that he plans to expand the use of executive authority, the question of just how far the courts will let administrative agencies go in substituting what the executive wants over what Congress legislated will increasingly come to the fore,” writes attorney Pete Glaser, who helped the the Washington Legal Foundation file two amicus briefs in support of Utility Air Regulatory Group. “If the EPA can ignore numerical statutory permitting thresholds, what else can federal agencies do?”

“While the rule at issue is just one example of the president’s broader executive overreach, the Supreme Court must act to curb abuse of power by the president and his EPA before it escalates any further,” said Laura Sheehan, spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

“Millions of American jobs and the livelihoods of communities and families across the country will be jeopardized if President Obama is granted authority to proceed with his Climate Action Plan, the most radical components of which haven’t yet even been enacted,” Sheehan added.

Follow Michael on Twitter and Facebook
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/24/su...#ixzz2uLRC35cf

"What is crap and traitor"

http://cache-02.cleanprint.net/media...tIcn_32x32.pnghttp://cache-02.cleanprint.net/media...fIcn_32x32.pnghttp://cache-02.cleanprint.net/media...lIcn_32x32.png
More Ironic Bloviations From Hypocrite Al Gore

Posted By Chris Graham on Feb 25, 2014 | 58 Comments
http://cdn.lastresistance.com/wp-con...-gore-fire.jpg

Al Gore was once the Vice President of what was at that time still the most powerful nation on Earth, but he decided to squander his own legacy by becoming the world’s most famous crackpot. Oh well.

Starting over a year ago, according to Oracle Gore, we were supposed to have been living in a world completely free of a northern polar ice cap. No, really, that’s what he warned us about in 2009. It was just supposed to have vanished into thin, hot hair, much like what comes out of Gore himself.

The ice caps are still there and still not going anywhere…again, like Gore. In fact, since 2012, that ice cap has grown by 50 percent, which is very fortunate for those of us who appreciate delicious, chuckle-inducing irony.

And speaking of hot air, Gore was in Kansas City over the weekend to bug everybody about how the world is burning up (can’t you feel it, folks?). He’s like the world’s richest End Times hobo, traveling the land with Power Point presentations declaring the end is nigh, repent, repent!

Gore did in fact make reference to God in his 90-minute presentation, saying that Vatican City wants to be the first CO2-neutral city-state in the world, adding that “they have God on their side.”

It’s a little ambiguous whether Gore even believes in the same God as they do in Vatican City, though. That God declared in the Book of Genesis, “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.” That very clearly is not what Gore believes. In fact, his disbelief in those spoken words of God is how he’s made his millions since the turn of the century.

And no End Times pronouncements are complete without imagery, whether verbal or physical, of destructive forces worldwide. Gore knows the game, has become a professional player of that game, and, as such, laid all those apocalyptic cards on the table.

According to The Kansas City Star, Gore used “photos and videos to illustrate a litany of floods, wildfires, torrential rains, droughts, dust storms, rising sea levels and increasing world temperatures.” You know, things that never happened, no sirree, before humans began heating up the Earth with their gases, like the emissions from Gore’s own private jet and multiple multi-million-dollar mansions that displace acres upon acres upon acres of natural land growth.

Will somebody please do the Earth a favor? Raze this man’s mansions to the ground, plant a forest in their place, and build him a humble tree house. A lean-to in the dirt would be acceptable as well.

Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4858/ironi...SAaEVQfvp7V.99

March 24, 2014

Leading scientific body to review its support for global warming 'consensus'Thomas Lifson

The so-called “consensus” among scientists supporting anthropogenic global warming climate change may take a fatal hit.
The American Physical Society, a leading scientific organization in the field of physics with 50,000 members, has appointed a balanced panel to review its stance. Investors Business Daily reports:

At the risk of being accused of embracing what alarmists call the flat-earth view of climate change, the American Physical Society has appointed a balanced, six-person committee to review its stance on so-called climate change that includes three distinguished skeptics: Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen. Their credentials are impressive.
Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and was a lead author of the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Curry is a professor and chairwoman of the School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Lindzen, an Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT from 1983 to 2013, is currently a distinguished senior fellow in the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.
A question the American Physical Society panel will address is one we ask repeatedly: Why wasn't the current global temperature stasis, with no discernible change in the past 15 years, not predicted by any of the climate models used by the IPCC, part of the United Nations?

Usually, when a scientific theory makes a prediction and that prediction fails to come true, the theory is considered to have been proven false. The warmists argue that something they call a “pause” is underway, but the problem is that nobody predicted such a pause cold be possible.
Other questions the panel will be asked to address:

The APS announcement lists among its questions to be answered: "How long must the stasis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models?"
In a nod to the likelihood that nature, not man, calls the shots, another APS audit question asks the panel: "What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI (total solar irradiance)? Is it coincidence that the stasis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle (i.e., sunspot activity) in about a century?"

Stay tuned. This could be the Waterloo of the warmists.





http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...m_medium=email

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAWbRWlSlpk
Published on Mar 27, 2014
Is Global Warming really happening? There are many voices in opposition to the theory and our guest today is just one of those. His name is John Coleman who was the original weathercaster on "Good Morning, America." After that Coleman founded and served as CEO and President of the Weather Channel.

In 2007, Coleman began to speak out as a skeptic on the issue of global warming. He describes the wave of concern about global warming "a fictional, manufactured crisis."

He believes many scientists and politicians have engaged in fraudulent activity based on bad science in a continuing quest for funding. He also explains the one-world government motive behind the formation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Download your free Next News "Heroes & Villains" Poster here: http://nextnewsnetwork.com/the-2013-h...

Donate USD: http://nnn.is/donate-dollars
Donate BTC: http://nnn.is/donate-bitcoin

LIVE: http://NextNewsNetwork.com
Facebook: http://Facebook.com/NextNewsNet
Twitter: http://Twitter.com/NextNewsNet
Sub: http://NNN.is/the_new_media
Meet the Next News Team: http://youtu.be/2QnNKwQ2WkY
Hashtag: #N3


About:
Next News Network's WHDT World News program airs daily at 6pm and 11pm Eastern on Comcast, DirecTV and Over-the-Air and Online at http://NNN.is/on-WHDT

WHDT World News is available to 6 million viewers from South Beach to Sebastian, Florida and to 2 million viewers in Boston, Massachusetts via WHDN.

WHDT broadcasts on RF channel 44 (virtual channel 9) from Palm City and is carried on cable TV channels 44 (SD) and 1044 (HD) by AT&T, on cable channels 17 (SD) and 438 (HD) in West Palm Beach by Comcast, on satellite channel 44 (SD) in West Palm Beach by DIRECTV, and on WHDN-Boston which broadcasts on RF channel 38 (virtual channel 6) from the Government Center district in downtown Boston.

More about WHDT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHDT
#NNN

• Category
  
  News & Politics
• License
  
  Standard YouTube License

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAWbRWlSlpk


OH NO SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!!!


Now that I think of it they are trying to take the Weather Channel off line on my Direct TV, at least for me they did...I hate the stupid weather station they replaced it with it is a very moronic program!!!

It’s Easy! Steps To a Do-It Yourself Eco-Crisis

By Wes Walker / 4 April 2014


http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...en-630x945.jpg

Global Warming, or Climate Change (or whatever they’ll call it tomorrow) is getting long in the tooth. Sure, it’s still a great revenue source for pressure groups, and is still effective at browbeating the public to accept policy change but it — like alarmist causes before it — has got a Best Before date.

Since “the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal” (not to mention the long, cold winter, some failed predictive models, and Niagara Falls freezing solid… twice) we will need to find our next environment scare. It just won’t do for us to have nothing to panic about.

The good news is, we already know where to look. It’s simple. Just study the enviro-scares of days gone by, copy their playbook, and get back in the game with a new-and-improved panic.

Then it’s just a matter of certifying specialized experts to authenticate it, lining up lobbyists to hijack (sorry … “improve”) policy, mobilizing some (very lucrative) “charity” groups, set up specialized research grants and (for bonus points) cash in on the business side with products or services that just happen to tie in and profit from the original scare. (Right, Algore?)

We’ve seen quite a few come and go. There was the “Population Bomb”, “Global Cooling” (yes, cooling in the ‘70s), we had Ozone, Acid Rain, using (or not using) bottled water, Saving the Whales (or baby seals or the left-handed-purple-spotted-transgendered mole rat or whatever), Rainforest Deforestation, desertification, and acidification. That’s just naming a few off the top of my head.

What ingredients constitute a proper eco-scare? What makes the big ones effective? A variety of elements, taken together, seem to bring it to critical mass.

The one thing you do not want is a dull statistical problem. People, especially GROUPS of people respond poorly to ordinary facts, plainly stated. Even if your crisis is real, they’ll yawn it off. (Think “debt ceiling”.)

Your biggest problem isn’t an information gap. People know — factually — that they should eat right, get some exercise and save for retirement; they also know that, say, smoking crack or random hook-ups can be dangerous.

For some people, knowledge is enough. But many others still over-eat, don’t exercise, waste their money, or take foolish risks. Their problem isn’t ignorance but passion. They DESIRE (emotion) to do something even if they KNOW (reason) that it’s a bad idea.

Your starting point, then, isn’t even the problem. It’s the emotion. You have to “frame the issue” in terms that will generate a specific, useful emotion.
It is important that you trigger the right kind of emotion. Anger, defiance, love, contempt and moral indignation are good if they can be harnessed into action. Passive emotions — like ordinary sadness or happiness — are not.

Now that you have your target emotion, look for issues that can leverage it. There are two elements that will be present in an optimal crisis.
First, the crisis itself should exist as an abstraction. If you select something too specific and measurable, your rate of progress will be evident to all. You risk solving your problem too soon, (cutting off any benefits your crisis was supposed to provide), or having people notice you’re not really solving the problem.

If the problem remains abstract, or requires special instruments and training, the public will have to take someone’s word for it. Then, your crisis can be milked for a long time. For example, cleaning the debris from a local river — not helpful. Solving the problem of the Ozone Hole, or clear-cutting the Rain Forest? Much better.

Second, just like the debt ceiling example, if your crisis is too abstract, nobody will care. This is where “narrative” or “storytelling” plays its role.
Telling someone to put out a campfire? Boring. Nobody cares. But having a bear in a ranger’s hat tell us that only YOU (notice the personal touch?) can prevent forest fires? Suddenly, the viewer is connected to the story, and his actions (now personalized) have greater significance. Do the right thing. The mascot (Smokey) made the abstraction (forest fire) personal. (Which mascot you choose makes a difference. Smokey the Slug would never have worked.)

At this point, things are falling into place. Now just find a story involving those elements, build a movement around it, make it political, and count your money.

Of course, making it political requires another step. You need to frame a moral high ground, set up good guys (you) and scapegoats (not-you).
You need villains to punish, behaviour to censure, virtues to reward (enter: government carrots and sticks where money will change hands as fines and/or grants). Companies that play along will get advantages with preferential laws or tax structures. Those that refuse can be buried in red tape by new, specialized government departments.

Let’s try it out. The old narrative with polar bears in the open water isn’t working anymore, since there is now enough ice that you could skate to Russia. But wait! Seals! Everybody loves seals!

If ice is frozen TOO solid (vague, subjective statement), how shall the poor seal come up for air (emotion)? The ice caps are too frozen! Somebody save the seals! (Narrative, Moral Imperative)

Next steps would be the scapegoat and the miracle snake oil cure. But hey, why should I do ALL the work for you?
Image: Curtesy of: http://a2.moovidadb.com/movies/34751


Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/04/steps-...DyA4UFriids.99

Shutting Down Climate Change Deniers for Politics and Profits

Posted 7 hours ago

It’s funny (not funny ha ha) that leftists must always be fighting against something. They must always have a bogeyman lurking in the shadows that they feel the need to defend the rest of us from.

Liberals can’t just mind their business and live their lives. It might be the mythical separation of church and state, homosexual marriage, or a “woman’s right to choose.” No matter what the wacky cause du jour, there must always be a straw dog oppressor or denier.

Leftists will fight until they get what they want – although it’s hard to tell if they’ve won because they never seem satisfied.
It is, however, easier to know when they are losing. They get even wackier, even more absurd. So I wasn’t surprised when in Britain a government minister (official) wishes simply to “shut down” all dissenting views about climate change.

Andrew Miller, a Minister of the Commons Science and Technology Committee, recently said, “There are dissenting voices inside the government machine… Frankly, the role of a Minister is either to accept collective responsibility or shut up or leave. Climate change is such a hugely important public policy issue and therefore to have inconsistency from within government is extremely dangerous territory.”

And the dissent of the collective is not just from inside government. It seems the BBC is allowing any old skeptic to go on the air and lie about the religion of climate change. Lord Lawson, an official with the global warming policy foundation, had the gall to question, on air, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.

Minister Miller said of this appalling development: “At the very least, put a caption on the bottom of the screen: the global warming policy foundation views are not accepted by 97% of scientists.”

Wow Andrew — way to use those progressive buzzwords, like “machine” and “collective.” No question of who or what you are.

So what’s this guy’s beef? Oh – I shouldn’t say beef – beef makes one think of cows and cows produce flatulence, causing global warming.
What I meant to say, What’s his problem? Well, it seems there is at least one person in government who is not towing the “man-caused” warming line. Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, just last year stated, “People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries.”

What? A differing opinion within the collective? That won’t do. We must not debate the deniers on the merits or facts — we must “shut down” all dissenting opinions, you know, like the Inquisition is accused of doing.

And this is how you know they are losing the argument. They can see more and more people waking up and realizing that man-caused global warming is a scam.

It seems Minister Miller does not have a very high opinion of the British public to form their own opinion on climate change as his committee criticized both the UK Daily Mail and the Telegraph for placing “heavy reliance … on the ability of their readers to distinguish between fact and opinion on climate change.”

We see that leftists are leftists, either European or American. We, the unwashed, uneducated serfs are all too stupid to understand such a complicated subject like global warming. We must be told what to think and there can be no dissenting view. Not from us, the press, or from inside the government “machine.”

Remember . . . Nudge . . . Shove . . . Shoot.

It seems we’ve moved from the nudge phase to the shove phase. Sit down and shut up! We have bills to pass, people to control, and money to spend.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15081/s...tMZyrjEJw0b.99

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...81411525_a.jpg Human Events

"Climate change enthusiasts predict every imaginable disaster, and if any of it actually happens, they’ll expect applause for their prophetic insights:"

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&cfs=1&upscale

The great climate change walkback | Human Events

If the "science is settled," why do these climate change reports keep contradicting each other?

HUMAN EVENTS

WND EXCLUSIVE

Al Gore: Critics are 'immoral, unethical and despicable'

Climate crusader rants: 'The future of civilization is at stake'

Published: 16 hours ago

http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/08/al_gore_21.jpg
Al Gore, known for wild rants about global warming, including one where his foul language earned him the description “mentally unstable,” is at it again.


Only this time he’s complaining about those who put up “barriers” to his agenda that critics say includes cracking down on carbon emissions, buying and selling credits for that activity and putting the American coal industry out of business.
“The ‘barriers’ to doing something about climate change are business and political interests that profit off of fossil fuels – ‘dirty energy that causes dirty weather,’” he said, according to an online report about a recent speech he made.
“He compared fake science from polluters stating that humans are not to blame for the climate to tobacco companies that used to hire actors to play doctors who denied cigarettes were dangerous,” the report said.
“That’s immoral, unethical and despicable,” he said of both.
Gore spoke recently to a crowd at the Stan Sheriff Center at the University of Hawaii.
Speaking largely to supporters and fans, Gore said climate change, the newest evolution of what started out as global warming, is getting worse.
The Civilbeat blog that reported on his visit to the island state said, “Gore’s talk was an updated version of the one he’s been giving for years and that he first laid out in his 1992 book ‘Earth In the Balance.’ The planet is in trouble because humankind burns too much coal and oil, which is trapping greenhouse gases and raising temperatures.”
Gore blamed that for “famine, drought, floods, refugees, species extinction, to name just a few.”
Gore claimed that the number of hotter days over the past 80 years has been growing “alarmingly disproportionate to the number of cooler days and days with average temperatures,” the report said.
“The way we have to respond to this is going to require a set of changes that are beyond our routine,” he said, his voice growing to a shout. “I know that we are capable of that. Our way of life is at stake, our grandchildren are at stake, the future of civilization is at stake.”
The 66-year-old Gore was vice president under Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2001. His 1988 and 2000 presidential bids failed.
WND reported earlier on an earlier Gore rant that prompted Brian Sussman, author of “Eco-Tyranny,” to conclude, “He’s clearly becoming mentally unstable.”
Sussman, a weather expert turned journalist, cited an August 2011 speech Gore gave in Colorado to a gathering of elites at the Aspen Institute, an address that turned into a wild rant filled with repeated obscenities.
During his address, Gore claimed special interest groups “pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’
“Bullsh–!”
“‘It may be sun spots.’
“Bullsh–!”
“‘It’s not getting warmer.’
“Bullsh–!”
“It was a gorebasm in which Al totally lost it,” Sussman said, explaining that gorebasms are Al’s pejorative statements directed toward deniers and skeptics of climate change.
“Listening to audiotape of the speech makes it abundantly evident even the Aspen audience was uncomfortable witnessing the ravings of a madman.”
In case someone had been present with a view contrary to his, Gore then intimidated the crowd, blustering:
“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism” tears the cover off the left’s manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes, showing incontrovertible evidence “catastrophic man-made global warming” is not actual science
“When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again. They have polluted the sh–. There’s no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea!”
Gore continued: “It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the G– damn word ‘climate!’”
An audio clip of Gore’s obscenity-packed address can be heard here: (WARNING: Profane and obscene language is used).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDlduSII5RQ

WND also reported that Marc Morano, editor of ClimateDepot.com, confirmed the chairman of a U.N. panel on climate, Rajendra K. Pachauri, admitted in an interview last September with the London Guardian that the purpose of the periodic U.N. climate report was to make the case that “action is needed on climate change.”
“Top United Nations officials apparently knew years in advance exactly what this new U.N. climate report was going to say,” Morano said. “The U.N. IPCC is guilty of nothing short of making the science fit their political agenda.”
At a press conference in Yokohama, Japan, March 25, Pachauri released the U.N. panel’s fifth climate assessment, which concludes a continued rise in carbon dioxide levels in the earth’s atmosphere threatens the fundamental systems that support human civilization, to the extent “no one will be untouched.”
There also was the recent allegation by an independent data analyst whose work has been published by Principia Scientific that global warming activists were manipulating data.
In this case, lowering the historical temperatures for years prior to 2000. Which makes the temperatures after that look like they’ve risen. Which makes it look like global warming.
http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/04/pol...-ice-large.jpg
“A newly uncovered and monumental calculating error in official U.S. government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official ‘raw’ temperature record,” the report says.
It comes from the discovery by independent data analyst Steven Goddard, who did a study of the official U.S. temperature records used by NASA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and others.
He found that for the records, when global temperatures plummeted in 1999, on the official U.S. chart, they didn’t.
Essentially, he said, the charge was revised downward by one degree for readings before 2000. But they “left post-2000 temperatures more or less intact.”
Also weighing in was well-known scientist Art Robinson, who spearheaded The Petition Project, which to date has gathered the signatures of 31,487 scientists who agree that there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
“This kind of shenanigan has been going on for decades,” he told WND.
WND reported only weeks ago that Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., author of “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future,” says not only has he seen through the “hoax,” but so have his fellow lawmakers.
In that recent interview with Aaron Klein of “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” the host asked Inhofe – in light of Al Gore and other global warming alarmists’ failed predictions – how progressives continue to “get away” with pushing their “green schemes” in the name of climate change.
“They don’t get away with it in the eyes of the American people,” Inhofe answered. “I find fewer and fewer members of the United States Senate that are sympathetic to this whole cause.”
Hear the entire interview below:

video at link below

Just before the end of 2013 came a really bad week for global warming.
Cairo saw its first snow in 100 years. Oregon, like several other states, reached its coldest temperature in 40 years. Chicago saw its coldest days ever, and – as if to add finality to the trend – Antarctica reached the coldest temperature ever recorded anywhere on earth.
Ironically, just a few years ago, believers in anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming – since renamed “climate change” – claimed cold weather and snow would soon be just a memory.
“Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past,” announced the headline in Britain’s newspaper the Independent at the turn of the millennium. The report quoted David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, long considered an authoritative resource for global warming research, as saying snow would soon be “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
However, the authoritative reputation of East Anglia was seriously downgraded in 2009 when leaked emails proved researchers there were engaged in a major scheme to manipulate and suppress evidence against global warming, misconduct London’s Telegraph newspaper called “the worst scientific scandal of our generation.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/al-gore-c...7AOS4RQQSuy.99

Just like a bad penny this guy always turns up and it is still all "crap and traitor"

Al Gore: Extreme Weather Events 100 Times More Common than 30 Years Ago Due to Global Warming : Freedom Outpost http://ow.ly/wbgeg


https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/pr...rwd0=w426-h237

Al Gore: Extreme Weather Events 100 Times More Common than 30 Years Ago Due to Global Warming

Michael Bastasch 15 hours ago

Former Vice President Al Gore made some amazing claims about global warming. The failed presidential candidate told Politico Magazine that extreme weather events are 100 times more common today than they were 30 years ago due to global warming.
But Gore’s claims actually run counter to mounting scientific evidence that global warming is not making the weather more “extreme.”

“The game changer for the first question is the extreme weather events related to climate that are now 100 times more common than they were just 30 years ago,” Gore told Politico. “This is having a huge impact. And they’re getting more frequent. More common. Bigger. More destructive. And people are looking at their hole cards.”

“The extreme weather events and the knock-on effects with the stronger ocean-based storms, the bigger downpours, more floods, mudslides, the saturation of that hillside in Snohomish County, for example – these things are way more common now, because the extremes are more extreme and they are more frequent,” Gore added.

Gore’s claims, however, are not even in line with evidence presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a group often cited by Gore as evidence that global warming could be catastrophic.

The IPCC found that there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century” and current data shows “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century. … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

The IPCC also said “there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale” adding “that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends.”
Extreme weather has been a major talking point for environmentalists and Democrats who want to show evidence that the planet is warming. Last year, politicians jumped on the devastating typhoon that hit the Philippines, saying it was more evidence that human activity was making the weather worse.
“This is all over the world,” Gore said. “In the Philippines, there were four million homeless refugees and still are. That’s twice as many as the Indian Ocean tsunami. The Philippines has always been hit hard by typhoons, but this is something different and the warmer ocean is connected to it. And all over the world, people are saying, ‘Whoa, this is getting pretty crazy.’”

But the IPCC isn’t the only body to counter Gore’s claims. University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. has also presented evidence that weather has not gotten more extreme.

“It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” Dr. Pielke told the Senate last summer. “It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”

“Hurricanes have not increased in the U.S. in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900,” Pielke added. “The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970.”

So far this year, the United States has experienced a record-low number of tornadoes, according to Pielke, and the number of deaths and the amount of property damage from tornadoes has decreased dramatically in the past six decades.

“The average annual U.S. property losses caused by tornadoes, from 1950 to 2013, is $5.9 billion in today’s dollars,” Pielke wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “However, for the first half of the data set (1950-81), the annual average loss was $7.6 billion, and in the second half (1982-2013), it was $4.1 billion—a drop of almost 50%.”

Source

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/al...LbxqApwTD32.99

John Podesta - Obama’s Hit Man For The Global Warming Scam : Freedom Outpost http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/jo...-warming-scam/



https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/pr...sp=w426-h239-p
John Podesta - Obama’s Hit Man For The Global Warming Scam - Freedom Outpost
freedomoutpost.com
John Podesta is now the man in control of the energy policies in the United States. Some will question just who John Podesta is and that is a very good question and we will reveal the man who has "forced' the

John Podesta - Obama’s Hit Man For The Global Warming Scam

Leon Puissegur 15 hours ago

John Podesta is now the man in control of the energy policies in the United States. Some will question just who John Podesta is and that is a very good question and we will reveal the man who has "forced' the challenge of destroying the very Constitution our nation has loved so dearly. John Podesta has been working to circumvent the Constitution of the United States since he began his career working with Senator Patrick Leahy from 1981 to 1988. It was John Podesta, who advocated smearing those who did not agree with the ideas that Senator Leahy produced. A brief recollection of what John Podesta did back then is below.

"Podesta served on the staff of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) from 1981 to 1988. Leahy was an early advocate of circumventing the U.S. Constitution by gaining control over federal courts. Podesta assisted Leahy in pioneering the indiscriminate smearing and filibustering of any and all Republican judicial nominees -- a practice previously unknown in Washington.

In 1988 Podesta teamed up with his brother Anthony to form the Washington lobbying firm Podesta Associates. One of their first clients was Michael Dukakis. John Podesta served as opposition research director -- commonly dubbed a "dirt digger" -- for Dukakis' 1988 presidential campaign."

Today, John Podesta has convinced President Barack Obama to force the ideology of global warming upon the people, which is going to hurt all those that Obama says he wishes to help by forcing them to pay higher electric prices. Remember, Obama stated before being elected president that, "Electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket." This means that those that Obama promised to help will suffer the most as will every United States citizen! We have to note here that it is Obama's plan to destroy the United States, this was revealed by Obama himself during a discussion about Obama's Marxist ideology while he was studying Karl Marx!

According to Discover the Networks:

John Podesta was called back to the White House to "help" Obama and the "scandals" associated with him. John Podesta is very good at deflecting the story since he did this while working in the Clinton White House. Just check out what happened below.

During his years in the Clinton White House, Podesta helped suppress numerous federal investigations into Clinton wrongdoing, and helped short-circuit the Clinton impeachment proceedings through backroom deals.

The Clintons recognized Podesta's talent for scandal-suppression early. While still a mere staff secretary at the White House in 1993, Podesta found himself swamped with so many scandal clean-up assignments that he nicknamed himself, "Secretary of [Expletive]." "He's good at it," James Carville remarked to the Washington Post.

Podesta's most lasting contribution to the leftist cause came through his promotion of a strategy that White House aides dubbed "Project Podesta." This was a system that enabled the Clintons to push through unpopular policies that neither Congress nor the American people wanted. Its implementation marked a dramatic tilt in the balance of power, giving the executive branch an unprecedented ability to force its will on the legislative branch.

Project Podesta enabled the President to bypass Congress through the use of executive orders, presidential decision directives, White-House-sponsored lawsuits, vacancy appointments to high federal office, selective regulatory actions against targeted corporations, and a host of other extra-constitutional tactics.

In short, Podesta showed the Clintons that they could gain by force what they might fail to achieve through legislation. "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool," quipped White House aide Paul Begala to The New York Times on July 5, 1998, in response to questions about the Clintons' growing disdain for the will of Congress.

Project Podesta's most ambitious exercise was the war on Yugoslavia which Clinton launched by executive order on April 13, 1999, in defiance of the U.S. Congress and the United Nations.

This is the very thing that Obama is doing now! Obama has taken John Podesta to run as a rabid dog around Congress in order to force his flawed ideology, even if it is going to hurt millions of United States Citizens, costing them much more on their energy bills when those same costs should be decreasing! As of May 6, 2014 when Obama came out with his "new" plan to stop this fake "global warming," he will alter the entire Constitution by once again doing what John Podesta has hoped to do: Circumvent Congressional authority by forcing new regulations through the EPA's Clean Air Act and abusing this act to continue to force electric companies to make changes that are not needed. In turn, this will force people to pay much higher electric, gasoline and other fuel costs that will cost even more jobs and even more problems than they will solve!

However, John Podesta is now working his evil with the help of Obama, and the connection to one George Soros is now directly linked to not just Obama, but also to John Podesta. This is perhaps the worst part of the problem because George Soros may be the worst person to have the money to back up any problems Obama gets into. This direct connection between George Soros and Obama and Podesta is scary at best. With this moneyman supporting Podesta and Obama, they have the money they need to direct any act against the Constitution Obama swore to, "Protect, preserve and defend." Obama is not doing what he swore under Oath to do, and John Podesta is helping him.

Just a quick look at the very, bad ideas of Podesta shows that if WE THE PEOPLE do not take action now, John Podesta and Obama will destroy the Constitution using their regulations to make him a defacto King! Below, we just have to see that the idea of, "…global warming was a severe national security problem." Notice here that this is nearly the same phrase that John Kerry used. With that in mind, it now looks like John Podesta is working with John Kerry and Obama to "change" the Constitution and the letter of the law!

Again, from Discover the Networks:

Podesta co-founded the Center for American Progress (CAP) on July 7, 2003, and would serve as the organization's president and CEO for the next eight years. He was hand-picked for the job by CAP co-founders George Soros and Morton H. Halperin, according to a March 1, 2004 report in The Nation by Robert Dreyfuss. Inside sources described CAP as "the official Hillary Clinton think tank" -- a media spin machine and policy generator designed to serve as a springboard for Mrs. Clinton's presidential ambitions.

Podesta was a featured speaker at the March 2008 "Take Back America" conference of Campaign for America's Future, where he declared that global warming was a "severe national security problem" that President Bush had failed to address in any meaningful way.

Podesta also has served as an Independent Advisory Council member of the notoriously corrupt community organization ACORN

After Barack Obama was elected President in 2008, Podesta and at least ten additional CAP experts served as some of his most influential advisers. He was the head of the new President's transition team.

Over the years, Podesta has made campaign contributions to numerous Democratic candidates, including Al Franken, Edward Kennedy, Richard Gephardt, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Richard Durbin, Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank, Tammy Duckworth, Rosa DeLauro, Paul Wellstone, Maurice Hinchey, Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Charles Rangel, and Al Gore. In 2002, Podesta also made a $1,000 contribution to the League of Conservation Voters."

In September 2012, Podesta joined representatives of 50 U.S. companies -- 10 of which had ties to the Podesta Group, a Washington, DC-based lobbying firm founded by John Podesta and his brother Tony -- on a State Department- and U.S. Chamber of Commerce-sponsored four-day tour of Cairo, Egypt, which was now led by the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Mohamed Morsi. The purpose of the trip was to deliver the message that "Egypt is open for business, and the U.S. business community is ready to invest."

In February 2013, it was reported that the Podesta Group had just signed a contract to become the first DC lobbying firm to represent the government of Iraq, which had been developing increasingly close ties to the government of Iran. Iraq selected this firm because of its strong links to Democratic Party leaders such as Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden.

On November 15, 2013, Podesta helped launch the Washington Center for Equitable Growth and subsequently served as the organization's chairman.

Now, with John Podesta pulling the strings for Obama, our nation is about to become a third rate nation just as Obama had wished to do back in 1981 when John Drew stated what Barack Obama then wished to do! (The highlighted part is what now President Obama once stated!
According to Dr. Drew:

"I never had face to face after Christmas and in Partolo Valley California which is near Stanford. I basically spent the day with him, Chandoo, and Caroline Boss, I was visiting Boss from Cornell where I was studying. I graduated ahead of them, but I had come back for the trip to be with Caroline. We hung out with Obama and Chandoo for that day and went out to lunch then we ended up arguing pretty late in the evening about Marxist and politics. Whether or not there would be a revolution, a Communist style revolution in the United States. The key takeaway there is that I may have been one of the first people in the world to confront Barack Obama's kind of silly belief, Marxist idea that there was going to be an inevitable Communist revolution coming to the United States. I feel in my heart that I had persuaded him that that wasn't in the cards and it wasn't going to happen and at the end of that time he believed me. I think a bunch of us, Marxist Communist style people were turned off by a Communist style revolution I think that Obama would have heard that from someone else eventually, but from his reaction, I think I was the first person that he could identify as an ally, and a friend and supporter who sincerely believes that there would never be a Communist style revolution. That debate I think helped Obama intellectually, but it helped seal the end of my romantic relationship with Marxism."

President Obama will be taking steps that John Podesta, an unelected White House official, has stated, "Congress will not be able to do zero about this action about global warming! We have a President that for the First time in the history of the United States will be making regulations that are not in line with the Constitution and are, in fact, against the law!

It is time for WE THE PEOPLE to wake up and take action to stop this and nip it now or we will be paying $10.00 a gallon for gasoline and electricity will be available for only those who can afford the very high cost due to the new regulations. President Obama, along with John Podesta, is not just circumventing the Constitution, they are acting in a treasonous manner! Wake up WE THE PEOPLE or the United States will be no more!
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/jo...8JiddiOOUz3.99

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36uSdgPnoI#t=40

Published on Feb 6, 2014
A amazing presentation about geo-engineering, cloud seeding and population control. Plus the environmental effects.
LINKS ARE BELOW:
----------------------------------------*---------------------------------------
http://chemtruth.ning.com/
----------------------------------------*----------------------------
http://weathermodification.com/
----------------------------------------*----------------------------
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ch...
----------------------------------------*----------------------------
http://www.coalitionagainstgeoenginee...
----------------------------------------*---------------------------------------
ThinkOutsideTheTV
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c34U0P...


This is about 1:17 or so...

#ClimateChange

I’m still a Climate Change Denier : Freedom Outpost http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/im...change-denier/



https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/pr...AM=w426-h255-p
I’m still a Climate Change Denier - Freedom Outpost
freedomoutpost.com

I’m still a Climate Change Denier

David Risselada 2 hours ago

In life, there are certain things as adult human beings, that you never expect to hear. You never expect to hear that your teenage son got caught smoking in the school bathroom, for example, or you never expect to hear that your daughter is dating a Democrat. Let's face it, sometimes these things happen. Sometimes, no matter how logical you try to be, there comes a time when you have to realize that you will have to face the illogical. For instance, never in my wildest dreams did I ever think that our government would try to convince us that carbon dioxide is bad. Never in my most imaginative moments did I ever think Americans would be dumb enough to beg the government to initiate policies to regulate carbon dioxide; and yet, here we are.

We have literally arrived at a moment in time where all that once made sense has been completely flipped upside down. When I went to school, trees and plants needed carbon dioxide to produce oxygen; you know, so we could like, breathe and stuff. Somehow, and I guess it has something to do with communist indoctrination or something, carbon dioxide became a poisonous gas that must be regulated, in order for our children to have better weather! Sometimes I wonder who is more stupid, the people who fall for this trash, or the people who believe they have convinced us to fall for it. That's a tough call.

However humorous this may seem on the surface, it is a very serious topic. Not only is it serious because global warming represents nothing but a global power grab, but, the fact that people have forgotten that, without carbon dioxide, our planet would be more like Saturn. Let me say that again, without carbon dioxide, our planet would be more like Jupiter, whoops I meant Saturn; well, what's the difference? Without carbon dioxide, we would not exist! In fact, we have a very low level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compared to other eras of Earth's history, and to think for a moment that the government can tax us to the point of being able to regulate naturally occurring gas, well that's just plain stupid.

This is one of those subjects that really exposes the liberal mind for the cluster of cobwebs and dense fog that it is. Here we have a group of people who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, (most scientists are evolutionists) claiming the earth is billions of years old. They have taught us that the earth has gone through several different "eras," with ninety nine percent of all life that has ever existed already having gone extinct. The earth has survived asteroids, comets, super volcanoes, continents colliding into one another, ice ages, mass extinctions, cataclysmic climate change over billions of years, and yet, life is still thriving on this planet. These people would have you believe that the past couple hundred years of mankind's industrial innovation is enough to do what the forces of nature, over the past couple billion years (according to them), could not do, and that is destroy the climate. Pardon me for retaining my position as a climate change denier, but I'm not buying it. What are they going to do, force me to believe it?

What should really be concerning people is the fact that these radical environmentalists view your exhalations as a means of emitting carbon dioxide into the air. In other words, your breathing contributes to global warming folks. It doesn't matter if you're a Republican or a Democrat, you still exhale carbon dioxide and global warming is your fault. Go ahead, give the government the power to do something about it. Just remember, they already tried to tax a cow's fart. It's only a matter of time before they realize a cow can't pay the tax folks. Do you know what I'm saying here?

Eventually, they will tax you for breathing if you decide to remain sleeping. The United Nations also tried to say that global warming is America's fault because we eat too much meat. People have been cooking meat since we have existed on this earth, and now it contributes to global warming? I think Americans better put their biases aside and realize this one thing above all else. The U.N. publicly announced that they believe global communism is the best way to fight global warming. That kind of makes you wonder where the president's loyalties are after he released the latest climate change report, doesn't it? For those wandering lost souls out there who don't know what to believe, I hope this makes you rethink things.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/im-still-climate-change-denier/#UzGoSfxW1MLSBYSy.99


What is crap and traitor!!!!



https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Z...26-h563/14+-+1

Bought and paid for people.


https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-r...43264799_n.jpg

michael powers's photos


With Obamas Climate Change/Global Warming War we get to see how many fools have their heads up his ass.

Friday, 23 May 2014 11:38 Climate Alarmists Ridiculed Amid Record Cold Year Across U.S.


Written by Alex Newman



http://www.thenewamerican.com/media/...64453678_M.jpg
With supposed “global warming” still on pause for almost 18 years and counting, the United States has seen its coldest year ever so far in 2014, according to U.S. government temperature data compiled by climate researchers. Indeed, parts of the North American continent — particularly around the Great Lakes region — have seen temperatures as far as ten degrees or more below average between January and May. Thousands of new record lows have been recorded so far this year across the country, too.
On the climate-focused website Real Science, independent researcher Steven Goddard used temperature data from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network to produce a graph showing what was happening. Earlier this month, he concluded that through May 6, at least, 2014 had been the “coldest year on record so far” in the United States. The temperature records involved, which critics have said are actually being manipulated in various ways to show warming, go back to the 1890s.
Another graphic posted on Real Science, produced at the High Plains Regional Climate Center, illustrates the year-to-date departure from normal temperatures across the continental United States. With the exception of some parts of Florida and the Southwest, which were very slightly above average, the country experienced temperatures well below normal between January 1 and May 21. The Midwest was especially chilly, with temperatures mostly between five and ten degrees cooler than average.


Across the region, the chill has also been associated with record-setting levels of ice in the Great Lakes. By early March, official data show a stunning 92 percent of the lakes’ surfaces were covered with ice. In mid-April, a record-setting 37 percent of the lakes were still frozen, which analysts said could contribute to making the summer of 2014 even chillier than it might otherwise have been. Since records began, the closest any April had ever come to this year’s record was less than 25 percent ice cover.
If the summer of 2014 is not warmer than average, this year could go down in history as the coldest ever for the United States, according to analysts. “Assertions that warming temperatures in the United States are causing a host of problems are soundly contradicted by the objective temperature data,” explained James Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News. “The U.S. Historical Climatology Network thermometers, which have been measuring U.S. temperatures since the 1890s, show no long-term trend in U.S. temperatures.”
Meanwhile, sea ice levels in Antarctica continue breaking through previous record highs set in recent years. Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSDC) showed that sea ice coverage in April of 2014 smashed through the previous record high for the month, set in 2008, by close to 125,000 square miles. The latest data from this month show new ice records were also reached in May, and those record-setting trends look set to continue. Ice cover has also been “significantly above average” for 16 straight months. The massive levels of sea ice are the highest since records began.
Of course, none of this was supposed to happen. According to the alarmist global-warming theorists at the United Nations and in the Obama administration, as emissions of carbon dioxide continued to grow, the world was supposed to be getting warmer. Instead, global temperatures have remained steady for close to two decades — at least if controversial “official” data are correct. More than a few experts are now even forecasting the dawn of a naturally driven period of global cooling, with potentially devastating consequences for people.
The record cold and the record ice cover experienced recently do not “prove” that the anthropogenic global-warming theories put forward by the UN and Obama are incorrect. However, with every single UN climate model having predicted accelerating warming over the last 18 years — warming that never came — countless independent scientists say the controversial theory is wrong. Desperate alarmists have been scrambling for excuses, with the Obama administration pushing what critics call the “Theory of the Ocean Ate My Global Warming.” Few serious scientists take the claim seriously, and it is not backed up by observable evidence.
Incredibly, despite having predicted warming, a handful of the most devoted global-warming theorists are now trying to claim that the frigid U.S. and Antarctic conditions are actually due to “global warming.” For the most part, though, what critics refer to as the climate “doomsday priesthood” and its mouthpieces in the establishment media have remained strangely silent on all of it. If it was hot, of course, there would be no end to the headlines trumpeting that fact. The record cold has barely been mentioned. And with an El Niño climate cycle potentially coming up, it remains to be seen how the press will react — if at all.
While the United States has been especially cold, global temperatures for 2014 have remained close to the 30-year average, according to researchers. Overall, even the most fanatical global warmists have been forced to concede in recent years that there has been no global warming for at least 17 years and nine months so far. Those trends look set to continue as well — even as Big Government politicians demanding carbon taxes and a UN “climate” regime continue frothing at the mouth over supposed “warming” that simply refuses to come.
Indeed, with developments in recent years, numerous prominent experts say global cooling is probably on the way. “There is overwhelming evidence that global warming no longer exists and that the use of CO2 and the greenhouse gas theory by the UN and our own government represents what I and other scientists believe is the greatest scientific fraud in history,” explained Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) chief John Casey, a former White House space program advisor and climate researcher. “The record winter of 2013-2014 along with others in the past six years is but one example of how this recently started solar hibernation will continue to make the Earth much colder."
Despite having all 73 of its climate models discredited by the actual data, though, the United Nations is still struggling to keep the public in a frenzy based on its “global warming” theories. The Obama administration, which recently released a hysterical “climate” report that was debunked in less than two weeks by independent scientists, also continues to push the “warming” narrative. Some of the most extreme warmists on the fringe of the fringe are even suggesting that those who point out the now-obvious flaws in the UN’s theory are a “danger to national security.” Others have called for re-education and even execution of “heretics” who expose the alarmism.
Public support for global warmism and the proposed “solutions,” though, remains extremely low among Americans, polls show. As the desperate warming faithful become more and more extreme and loony with their easily debunked apocalyptic claims, critics and analysts say they are merely further marginalizing themselves. Still, the UN and numerous national governments around the world are working fiendishly to impose a “global warming” regime on humanity at an upcoming “climate” summit in Paris next year. Obama, meanwhile, is trying to foist much of the agenda on Americans via unconstitutional executive decrees.
As The New American reported recently in a series of magazine articles, 2013 may have been the worst year thus far for what critics refer to as the global-warming cult. Not only were its predictions and forecasts consistently discredited all over the world — from record sea ice coverage to massive snow falls to steady temperatures instead of warming — much of its blatant deception was exposed, too. As The New American also reported last week, the warmists are now threatening to sue a climate blogger who exposed the “97 percent consensus” fraud as a monumental lie not even remotely based on reality.
The bad news for the UN and Obama warming theory just keeps on coming. However, the warmists are extremely determined and, apparently, opposed to traditional notions of science — as evidenced by the deranged attacks on the blogger who exposed the consensus fraud. At least one internationally respected climate scientist is now warning that the “global warming Nazis” pose a major danger to humanity.
The window of opportunity for “global-warming” theorists to impose a UN “climate” regime on humanity to ration energy and control every facet of life is on the verge of being slammed shut forever. As such, expect warmist politicians and the remaining warming faithful to become even shriller, more unhinged, and more vicious in the weeks and months ahead — regardless of how cold it gets.
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.
Related articles:
Global Warming Alarmism Melting as Record Cold Sweeps Nation
Obama’s Alarmist “Climate” Report Debunked by Scientists
Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud
In Bid for More Power, Obama Hypes Alarmist “Climate” Report
Climate Alarmists Push Chinese Communism, Population Control
U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming
NASA Data: Global Warming Still on “Pause,” Sea Ice Hit Record
Global Warming Alarmists, Looking Ridiculous, Double Down
Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling
Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report
UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity
“Climate Science” in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda
Global-warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...fdef-287785873

I’VE GOT YOUR CLIMATE CHANGE: 25 Pics That Show Our Current Hysteria Is Cuckoo

By Clash Daily / 30 May 2014 / 0 Comments

http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...re-630x377.jpg
Why should American taxpayers spend billions, if not trillions, of dollars fighting a quixotic crusade to keep the planet’s climate from changing?
Man’s activities play but a small part in the global scope of things, and 25 graphs show that to be the case.
1. Carbon Dioxide Levels Were Previously Much Higher & Yet Life Survived

http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...w1-630x398.gif
Temperatures rise and fall in the long historical picture regardless of CO2 levels. In fact, CO2 levels are fairly low right now compared to life-flourishing eras.
2. Modern History Shows Similar Temps in Medieval Warm Period

http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...014/05/gw2.jpg
Forget the “hockey stick” graph the IPCC whipped out to stoke fears of a global apocalypse; such warming is not unprecedented.
3. More About the Medieval Warm Period

http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...014/05/gw3.jpg
Before the Industrial Revolution took hold, there was a period of warming that allowed the Vikings to more easily explore the North Atlantic and settle Greenland. Other historical studies, some based on tree-ring data, suggest a similar period of warming in Roman times.
4. Graph from 1990 IPCC contrasted with 2001 IPCC Report

http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...w4-630x272.jpg
The 1990 figure 7c that was subsequently “disappeared” from succeeding IPCC reports followed by the infamous “hockey stick.”
5. Carbon Dioxide’s Contribution to “Thermal Forcing” (Also Dubbed the “Greenhouse Effect”)

http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...014/05/gw5.gif

Mankind has about zero control over the volume of atmospheric water vapor, which is about 90% to 95% (varies by location) of what is commonly referred to as the “greenhouse effect.”
Read more: IJ Review


Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/05/ive-got-climate-change-25-pics-show-current-hysteria-cuckoo/#tJB2FOirQxzO6ZAD.99


What is crap and traitor!!

Break Out the Global Warming Hysteria! Election 2016 Approaches

By ++++Allen / 29 May 2014

http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...-b-630x437.jpg

Tis’ the Season, when the left will be rallying their faithful to action. Once again, the highly debated subject of Global Warming will be rolled out of moth balls, just in the nick of time.


What season you may ask? Well, it’s the warming up to the 2016 elections for our new Grand Poo-Bah. This is the Big Kahuna, the elections of all elections. Therefore it’s time once again to heat-up the battle cry of that pesky — although imaginary — evil enemy, Global Warming.


It has been said to never let a good tragedy go to waste. Or in the Democrats’ case, never let a good video for causing despondency among the
masses go to waste. So via a willing accomplice, a “Wag the Dog” type videographer who will locate or create a piece of ice set to drift, which by the way, takes place every year in its correct season. Cue the cooperative polar bear which will be spotted in a somewhat precarious situation, floating along on that little, ice, ice baby. Ready set, action, can you hear it?

Here comes the mantra now, in perfect pitch, “By golly, we must end Global Warming, (for the bears) for the sake of our children!” The reference to children is to guarantee support from the Sheeple, which then transforms into votes for their evil empire. Having won the victory, Global Warning will once again return to the moth balls, until the need for votes arises…again.

It’s amazing how the slimy left has no shame in using the “for the good of our children” angle, as they will prostitute their political party for votes. Let us not forget in this coming season that this disingenuous Democratic Party is the party which favors eliminating life (children) from the womb before birth. Would this same party truly be interested in “for the good of our children”? Or rather interested in an earth-worship cause, such as Global Warming? My money’s on the ice, ice baby.

Gee, and isn’t it interesting that after Obama got elected, they’ve stopped talking about Global Warming? Put on your thinking caps, because it has been more than five years since Barak first entered the White House — winning on the slogans of “change” and on Al Gore’s shirt tails of the “Global Warming” cause.

We the American public haven’t had to listen to Al Gore’s incessant blabbering on the subject in quite a while; maybe he will be rolled out of moth balls too. Other willing accomplices, Lurch (aka Kerry) and King Obama will be set to bamboozle the Sheeple by chiming in on the warming rhetoric too, in order to “Win one for the Gipper,” whoever that will be for 2016. Got to start now putting that fear back into the Sheeple for all those slimy votes.

P.S. Remember the smoke and mirrors show when G.W. Bush was president? When night after night the Democrat-compliant nightly news channels would run a ticker at the bottom of the screen that would show our American soldier death count totals in the Middle East? Yet suddenly, when Barack entered the White House, the ticker magically disappeared, as if the deaths had stopped. Saying: See there, all fixed now! Actually the figures show there are more soldier deaths per month in Afghanistan, since Barack Obama became King.
Image: Courtesy of: http://wikifreaky5d.wikispaces.com/

Image: Joan of Arc; Courtesy of: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of...ne_d%27arc.jpg

Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/05/break-...O4sZjmRWLbW.99

Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt: EPA’s 'Cap and Trade Scheme' Would Violate the Clean Air Act

Michael Bastasch 2 hours ago


The Environmental Protection Agency's upcoming climate rule that would push policies like cap and trade violates the Clean Air Act and will be challenged in court by the states, said Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt.

News reports have said the EPA's carbon dioxide regulations would force states to significantly lower their emissions from existing power plants. The agency will reportedly give the states a menu of options to choose from to lower emissions, including cap-and-trade schemes.

But cajoling the states into imposing cap-and-trade on their energy sectors would be in violation of the Clean Air Act and almost certainly face numerous legal challenges from states and the coal industry, said Pruitt.

"The Clean Air Act clearly sets out a role for EPA to suggest guidelines, while granting states authority to develop and implement specific proposals to achieve the goals of the Clean Air Act," Pruitt told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

"Should the EPA's proposed regulation force states to adopt a 'cap and trade' scheme or any other specific proposal, it would violate the law and likely be challenged in court," he said.

Pruitt has set out a plan which he says "properly construes" the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act. Pruitt's plan, called OKAG Plan, would have the EPA design the guidelines for emissions reductions and the states set the actual emissions standards for their power plants.

OKAG Plan differs from what others have argued the EPA should do in that it institutes what's called a unit-by-unit plan — which means that each power plant would have their own unique emissions standards as opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach.

"It is not feasible for EPA to establish any assumed numeric efficiency to any existing unit, much less a numerical standard for the approximately 1,200 coal-fired EGUs in the country," wrote a coalition of states' environmental protection agency heads.

Environmental regulators from nine states — including North Carolina, Alabama and West Virginia — said, "the EPA should ensure that its guidelines allow States to set GHG performance standards that are based on measures that can be applied at each EGU rather than include activities beyond the unit itself."

"The OKAG Plan preserves State primacy and does not turn over management of local generation fleets to EPA under the guise of 'flexibility,'" according to OKAG Plan.

But news reports about the EPA's upcoming rules for existing power plants suggest the agency did not consider the wishes of some states. The Wall Street Journal reported the proposal will "include a cap-and-trade component where a limit is set on emissions and companies can trade allowances or credits for emissions" to meet new federal rules.

Power plant operators could also "trade emissions credits or use other offsets in the power sector, such as renewable energy or energy-efficiency programs, to meet the target," according to the Journal.

This would be a boon to states that already have cap-and-trade systems, like California and a group of nine east coast states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The White House is selling this option as a "flexible" one, even though it would likely result in the closing of more coal-fired power plants.

White House energy and climate adviser Dan Utech said the rule is "going to enable states to move forward in a way that works best for them with the energy resources they have."

But a U.S. Chamber of Commerce report from Wednesday found that EPA's climate rule would cost $50 billion per year — the most expensive the agency has come up with. The Chamber report also found that an additional 114 gigawatts of coal-fired power would be shut down — 40 percent of the coal fleet.

Even the drastic cuts to carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. would do nothing to lower global emissions. Developing nations' rapidly increasing carbon dioxide emissions will outpace any cuts made here in the U.S. — negating efforts to fight global warming.

"To put this in perspective, the International Energy Agency estimates that over the 2011-30 forecast period, the rest of the world will increase its power sector CO2 emissions by nearly 4,700 million metric tons (MMT), or 44%," the Chamber noted. "Those non-U.S. global emissions increases are more than six times larger than the U.S. reductions achieved in the Policy Case from 2014-30."

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/oklahoma-ag-scott-pruitt-epas-cap-and-trade-scheme-violate-clean-air-act/#6wRLJDu3uyrS4zPi.99

EPA another 3 letter agency!!! Tell you anything yet???

Obama To Sign Crippling Executive Order

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/pr...JA=w426-h255-pPresident Obama plans to announce on Monday that he will be using his pen to sign an executive order that would put in place strict regulations on energy producers and have a potentially crippling effect on the economy.
Drafted by the Environmental Protection Agency, the regulations would require coal-fired plants to reduce carbon emissions by up to 20% while also forcing the industry to pay for its emissions through a cap-and-trade system.
The move has the potential to shut down hundreds of coal-fired plants across the nation as well as send energy prices soaring as the cost of producing energy is driven up. People familiar with the regulations say that it will set a national limit on carbon emissions from coal-fired plants as well as allowing each state to come up with its own plan to reduce emissions based on several options such as adding wind turbines, solar power, and other energy efficient technologies or joining other state cap-and-trade programs that specifically tax carbon emissions.
Republicans say that the regulations would effectively be back-dooring Congress since a similar plan failed to pass in 2010.
According to the New York Times:
“Cap and trade was born in 1990 during the administration of President George Bush as a centerpiece of amendments to the 1970 Clean Air Act. Conceived as a business-friendly way to cut pollution without heavy-handed regulation, the idea was that the cap would ratchet down each year, allowing less pollution while market forces drive up the price of permits, creating an incentive for industries to invest in lower-polluting sources of energy. In 2006 in California, Mr. Schwarzenegger signed a pioneering state cap-and-trade law. As the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, Senator John McCain of Arizona pledged to put in effect a nationwide cap-and-trade law.”
H/T: Mr. Conservative

http://tellmenow.com/2014/05/obama-t...ecutive-order/

Obama to Take Action to Slash Coal Pollution


By CORAL DAVENPORT JUNE 1, 2014


Photo http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/...-master675.jpg

Coal-fired power plants, like this one near St. Marys, Kan., are at the center of the debate on climate change. Credit Charlie Riedel/Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Monday will announce one of the strongest actions ever taken by the United States government to fight climate change, a proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulation to cut carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, according to people briefed on the plan who spoke anonymously because they had been asked not to reveal details.

The regulation takes aim at the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States, the nation’s more than 600 coal-fired power plants. If it withstands an expected onslaught of legal and legislative attacks, experts say that it could close hundreds of the plants and also lead, over the course of decades, to systemic changes in the American electricity industry, including transformations in how power is generated and used.
Related Coverage

• http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/...tandard-v3.jpg video
  
  Video: The Politics of Obama’s Climate MoveMAY 31, 2014
  
  
• http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/...tandard-v2.jpg
  News Analysis: Trying to Reclaim Leadership on Climate ChangeJUNE 1, 2014
  
  
• http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/...tandard-v3.jpg
  Using Executive Powers, Obama Begins His Last Big Push on Climate PolicyMAY 31, 2014
  
  
• http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/...tandard-v2.jpg
  Environmental Groups Focus on Change by Strengthening Their Political OperationsMAY 31, 2014
  
  
• http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/...mbStandard.jpg
  The Big Fix: A Price Tag on Carbon as a Climate Rescue PlanMAY 30, 2014
  
  
• http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/...tandard-v2.png
  
  U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds, Citing Heat and FloodsMAY 6, 2014
  
  

It is also likely to stand as President Obama’s last chance to substantially shape domestic policy and as a defining element of his legacy. The president, who failed to push a sweeping climate change bill through Congress in his first term, is now acting on his own by using his executive authority under the 1970 Clean Air Act to issue the regulation.

Photo http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/...ticleLarge.jpg

Coal-fired plants like the Morgantown Generating Station in Newburg, Md., in the background, would be affected by the rule. Credit Mark Wilson/Getty Images Under the rule, states will be given a wide menu of policy options to achieve the pollution cuts. Rather than immediately shutting down coal plants, states would be allowed to reduce emissions by making changes across their electricity systems — by installing new wind and solar generation or energy-efficiency technology, and by starting or joining state and regional “cap and trade” programs, in which states agree to cap carbon pollution and buy and sell permits to pollute.
E.P.A. officials have said they hope the flexible approach will allow states to comply with the regulation more easily and cost-effectively, by adopting policies best tailored to regional economies and energy mixes. But industry groups planning to sue to block or delay the rule have said that approach makes the rule more legally vulnerable.
The details of the proposed regulation were first reported Sunday afternoon by The Wall Street Journal online.
Because burning coal is the largest source of the greenhouse gas emissions that scientists blame for trapping heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet, the rule is expected to have a powerful environmental impact. It comes on top of a regulation Mr. Obama issued in his first term that sharply increased the required fuel economy of vehicles, the second-largest source of carbon pollution in the United States.
Experts said that the new regulation would set the United States on track to meet its target set forth in a United Nations accord in 2009, when Mr. Obama pledged that the United States would cut its greenhouse gas pollution 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by 2050.
On Sunday, environmental advocates praised the proposed rule for its breadth and reach while the coal industry attacked it as a symbol of executive overreach that could wreak economic havoc. Republican campaigns plan to use the rule to attack incumbent Democrats in this fall’s midterm elections.
“This momentous announcement raises the bar for controlling carbon emissions in the United States,” said Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute, a Washington research organization, adding, “These new standards send a powerful message around the world.”

Scott Segal, a lawyer with the firm Bracewell & Giuliani, which represents coal companies and plans to sue over the rule, wrote in an email, “Clearly, it is designed to materially damage the ability of conventional energy sources to provide reliable and affordable power, which in turn can inflict serious damage on everything from household budgets to industrial jobs.”
Last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a report warning that the rule could lower the gross domestic product by $50 billion annually.
Recent Comments

taylor

YesterdayThe Republicans have kids also, don't you care about them?
Mr. Gadsden

YesterdayDemocrats say: "We fight for the middle class" Democrats do: 1) destroy middle-class jobs (imposing regulations that coal plants can't...
Jim

YesterdayI hope everyone here understands by taking 600 Coal plants off line with no replacement or little replacement. We will have rolling...

• See All Comments

The proposal to be unveiled Monday will be a draft, open to public comment, and is certain to set off a wave of lobbying from states, industry groups and environmentalists seeking to shape the final version of the rule. While there is no legal deadline for finalizing the regulation, Mr. Obama has directed the E.P.A. to issue the rule by June 2015 so that the administration can begin putting the program in place before he leaves office.

Nations around the world are closely scrutinizing the climate change rule and its prospects.

The timing of the rule signals that Mr. Obama may be more interested in achieving a legacy-making global deal on climate change than in short-term political concerns. While the rule could make things politically difficult for incumbent Democrats from coal states in November, it could make things easier for American climate change negotiators this fall at the United Nations General Assembly, where governments are expected to hold side meetings intended to forge a global climate change treaty that negotiators hope to have signed by 2015.

Over the long term, the United States has been the world’s largest emitter of carbon pollution, but today China is the largest, with India and other developing Asian countries poised to see an explosion in their carbon pollution in the coming years as millions of people join the middle class and begin enjoying cheap coal-fired electricity.

But China and India have resisted American pressure to cut their own carbon pollution because, they have said, the United States has no moral authority to push other nations to cut pollution when it fails to do so at home.

State Department climate negotiators hope that by bringing the new E.P.A. rule to the table, they will be able to demonstrate significant action and have fresh leverage to broker a deal.

“I fully expect action by the United States to spur others in taking concrete action,” Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change, said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/us/politics/epa-to-seek-30-percent-cut-in-carbon-emissions.html?_r=0






https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/pr...JA=w426-h255-p


What is crap and traitor!!!

June 4, 2014

My Two Favorite Questions for Global Warmists

By Paul Jacobson


So, I find myself sitting around a patio table next Independence Day sipping on the perfect mimosa with some friends and a couple of folks I haven’t met before. One of the new acquaintances brings up the subject of “climate change.” I know from the term used that this one is probably a sorta believer but not a hard-core, unshakable advocate; were that so, he would have used the latest, hippest, most with-it name-change term “climate disruption.” Now it’s time for my Favorite Global Warmism Question #1:

• Did you know that there’s no such thing as a greenhouse gas?

The conversation around the table stops dead in its tracks. Everybody’s looking quizzically at each other. No one is looking at me. After a few seconds, a dear friend of many years says, “C’mon, Flyoverpen, you must be kidding. Everybody knows greenhouse gasses exist.” I cross my arms, put on a smug pursed-lip smile and repeat, “Nope, there’s no such thing as a greenhouse gas.”
I then proceed to explain that the word “greenhouse” in that term is a misnomer. In a real-world earthbound greenhouse -- we all know what they look like even though there aren’t many in existence anymore -- the sun’s short-wave infrared light penetrates through the glass roof, warming up what’s inside the greenhouse: air, plants, soil, etc.
As the things inside the greenhouse absorb the short-wave infrared, they convert it into heat -- long-wave infrared. This long-wave infrared, instead of readily penetrating glass on the way out, is partially blocked; greenhouse glass is said to be opaque to long-wave infrared. Inside heat can escape from a greenhouse more readily if the temperature between inside and outside air increases. However, the mechanism -- convection -- by which the greenhouse cools under such circumstances is altogether different from what the sun does to heat up the greenhouse.
And, of course, if that bratty neighbor kid pitches a rock at the greenhouse roof and breaks a glass pane, warm air escapes, by air convection, in a hurry. In other words, a real greenhouse does its job primarily by suppressing convection.
Not so with the so-called “greenhouse” gasses, among them water vapor, methane (CH4) and, most controversially, carbon dioxide (CO2). In this case, long-wave infrared radiation radiating back from earth is absorbed by these gasses; some of it is then radiated out into space, and some is radiated back to earth, creating more warmth here. There is no phenomenon quite like this that we experience in everyday human life, which is probably why we don’t have an apt word for it in common discourse. Maybe someday somebody smarter than I am will come up with such a word, one that really fits. Until then I’ll keep using the term “greenhouse” gas but not without the irony quotes; take those quotes to mean “not really.”
Hey, I admit it: Question #1 is something of a semantic teaser. But now it’s time for Favorite Global Warmism Question #2, and this one is really serious:

• How much actual CO2 is there in the atmosphere?

Shoulders are shrugging all around the table, and folks are muttering, “I have no idea… not a clue… beats me,” the way just about any normal citizen would respond to this question… except the other new acquaintance, whose arms are folded and whose face is bearing a smug pursed-lip smile. “That’s one I happen to know: the actual CO2 in the atmosphere today is 379ppm.” Aha! Now I strongly suspect that I have a global warmism true believer in front of me, so I’m gonna have to be careful. I respond, “You’re absolutely right! And that number is virtually undisputed.” And it so happens that number comes straight from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a notoriously pro-global-warmism U.N. entity.
At this point, I’m going to depart from the fantasy conversation in order to play some games with that number. The IPCC, along with the rest of the global-warming “consensus,” would just as soon nobody even be aware of that IPCC number; notice how global warmists never refer to it in their advocacy propaganda. However, if somebody has to know, best that the data be presented in the format of their choice. They wouldn’t like one bit what I’m about to do with it.
First, let’s take a look at IPCC presentation of present-day CO2 (actual data from 2005) compared with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750):

• CO2 2005=379ppm
• CO2 1750=280ppm
• Increase: 99ppm

A normal citizen looking at these numbers would probably be thinking, “Hmm, those are pretty good size numbers, several hundred; the difference between them is substantial. But, uh, what does ‘ppm’ mean? Oh, yes, parts per million, I get it.” But even following that cognitive eureka, the full import of the data is unlikely to really sink in: people can come close to conceiving a hundred in human experiential terms, but a million? That will always remain an abstraction. So far so good for the cause of global warmism: the truth is still very opaque if not completely disguised.
To get closer to human experience, we need to play with the IPCC data format by presenting the numbers like this:

• CO2 2005=379ppm=0.000379=ca 4/100,000
• CO2 1750=280ppm=0.000280=ca 3/100,000
• Increase: 99ppm=0.000099=ca 1/100,000

Whoa! You’re trying to tell me a change of one part in a hundred thousand threatens to plunge the earth into climate catastrophe? That CO2 is just a trace gas and a miniscule one at that. What kind of a super-mega gas is that CO2, anyway? This whole “climate disruption” thing is preposterous before it even gets out of the starting gate.
OK, I’ve calmed down. Now I’ll try to speak rationally.
New scientific inquiries often as not entail a form of logic known as abduction, or abductive reasoning. Another name for this is “inference to the best explanation.” Another way of putting it might be“make your best guess with the data you’ve got.” Inquiries that rely on historical data often begin and end at the level of abduction if there’s no possibility of acquiring new evidence.
Abduction can also sometimes act as a hypothesis gateway, giving cause for acceptance, even if only provisional, of a hypothesis… or dismissal of a hypothesis as prima facie implausible. Global warmism manifestly deserves the second response. The poison pill is the sheer paucity of CO2 in the atmosphere. Just in case you’re still not convinced of the magnitude of that paucity, consider this image:

http://admin.americanthinker.com/ima.../192514_5_.png

While water vapor is known to be a less potent “greenhouse” gas than CO2, it utterly dwarfs puny little CO2 in terms of sheer quantity.
This much we -- skeptics and advocates of global warmism alike -- agree on: CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas (the simplest high school science project can demonstrate that); atmospheric CO2 has increased during the industrial era due to human activity; this has added more heat energy to earth’s atmosphere and surface than previously. However, this is not enough to break through the paucity-implausibility gateway. To accept the global warmist hypothesis that anthropogenic global warming is leading to climate catastrophe, we need to know not just that industrial-era anthropogenic CO2 emissions are merely effectual; this variable must be shown to be determinative.
This means that anthropogenic CO2 emissions must be examined in full context with numerous other climate variables such as solar activity, volcanism, magnetic field shifts, etc. An inquiry like this is certain to be dauntingly, perhaps overwhelmingly, complex if conducted like authentic, inductive science. Global warmism advocates have shamelessly evaded this monumental evidence burden -- and the burden is entirely on them -- by resorting to garbage-in-garbage-out computer models, even outright data fraud and deceitfulness.
Global warmism remains the most colossal hoax ever perpetrated.

Paul Jacobson blogs underthe nom de plume Flyoverpen. He resides in Deepmidwest, FO.




http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/..._warmists.html

Aussies to Form Alliance to Thwart Obama’s Climate Goals

Michael Bastasch 18 hours ago

Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott is seeking out "like-minded" countries to form an alliance to thwart climate policies being pushed by President Obama and other world leaders.
Abbott announced his intention to stymie efforts to push climate policies on unwilling countries as he met with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Monday. Abbott said he seeks to build a conservative alliance with Canada, Britain, India and New Zealand.

All are Commonwealth countries that were formerly part of the British Empire and are led by center-right governments, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.
President Obama's recently announced regulations on power plants have gained international recognition from the United Nations and some European countries. The White House hopes its new regulations will give the U.S. leverage when negotiating a new international climate deal in 2015.
But Abbott's planned coalition aims to counter Obama's push to get the international community to adopt climate policies, like carbon taxes and cap-and-trade schemes.
Abbott's conservative Liberal-National coalition won a landslide victory in Australia's elections last year, on a limited government platform that included repealing the country's carbon tax and cutting green energy and global warming spending.
Abbott's government is set to slash global warming spending by 90 percent over the next four years. Efforts to repeal the country's carbon tax have also moved forward as Labor Party Senators have begun to buckle under pressure to get rid of the tax.
"The carbon tax is an act of economic vandalism," Abbott said in March. "You can't trust [Labor] anywhere near an economy."

A study from last year by Dr. Alex Robson, an economist at Griffith University found that after just one year, the carbon tax increased taxes on 2.2 million Australians while doing nothing to decrease the country's carbon emissions.
Robson's study also found the carbon tax raised electricity prices 15 percent while the country's unemployment rate shot up by 10 percent after the carbon tax was implemented.
But while Australia has been ditching its climate policies, the U.S. has been pushing ahead. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that U.S. officials have been pushing the G20 to include global warming on the agenda for the group's meeting in Australia this fall.
Even though Abbott is targeting conservative governments for his anti-Obama alliance, it may be difficult to find takers. Britain and New Zealand both have cap-and-trade schemes. British Prime Minister David Cameron has also stressed his support for tackling global warming.
Source
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/au...QeRiMIoYOiB.99


Crap and Traitor!!! Money from your pocket into theirs, WORLD WIDE !!

June 26, 2014

Capturing Carbon Drives up Energy Costs

By Sierra Rayne



Some odd discussions are taking place on the right side of the political spectrum surrounding climate change policies and energy prices.

Claims by Roger Meiners -- a Professor of Economics at the University of Texas at Arlington -- that "the latest salvo [by the Obama administration] against fossil fuels, announced this week, ensures higher energy prices in the future. This will discourage domestic investment in favor of going to countries such as China, India, and South Africa that are not shy about building new coal-fired power plants" are fundamentally correct. Efforts by the Obama administration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, and will increase, energy prices above the non-GHG reduction counter-factual. And, indeed, raising energy prices slows economic growth and discourages domestic investment.
When Professor Meiners states that "domestic reductions in carbon emissions, which will damage the economy long after Mr. Obama is gone, will be swamped by new emissions from emerging nations," he is also accurately describing the state of global GHG emissions.
So far we're on a logical track, but here is where I have concerns with Professor Meiners' reasoning:

"If we are serious about reducing carbon emissions, reducing the size of our economy will not help. We need to find ways to capture the carbon. Unfortunately, the administration only pays lip service to carbon capture, focusing instead on policies that run up energy costs.
What nation is doing serious research on what is supposed to be the biggest long-term environmental threat?
The answer, of course, is China. It is pouring serious money into carbon capture projects. The Obama Administration talks a lot about climate change but does little to help produce the technology that can solve the problem."

Yes, China's communist government is "pouring serious money into carbon capture projects." But this is supposed to be a role model for the American economy? The Obama administration should be following communist China's lead and massively subsidizing the fossil fuel industry by "pouring serious money" from taxpayers into developing carbon capture technology? This doesn't sound like a rational free market approach.
Some harsh economic realities need to be brought into focus. Carbon capture costs money, and a lot of it. Full stop. And by costing money, carbon capture drives up energy prices. A case study of this is currently taking place in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. The government-owned provincial power agency spent well over a billion dollars -- in a province with a population of only one million -- to install a carbon capture system on a coal-fired power plant, and corresponding electricity prices in the province are now going through the roof.
Carbon taxation is carbon taxation is carbon taxation. If your proposal to capture carbon costs money relative to the non-capturing option, then your proposal involves carbon pricing (aka, taxation) and inevitably leads to higher energy prices than the alternative in which you do not capture carbon. And as we all know, higher energy prices equal lower economic growth -- all other factors being equal. Economies don't just need plentiful energy in order to prosper. They require plentiful cheap energy.
How much does capturing carbon cost? A lot. ICO2N -- "the Integrated CO2 Network, a group of Canadian companies representing multiple industries, including coal and the oil sands" that includes members such as BP Canada, ConocoPhillips, Husky Energy, Shell Canada, Statoil, Suncor Energy, Syncrude, and Total -- estimates the "total cost per tonne of CO2 abated ranges from $70 to $250 depending heavily on the capture process and CO2 source."
If ICO2N is still estimating that it costs $70 to $250 per tonne to capture carbon, and the province of Saskatchewan is apparently only receiving $20 per tonne for its captured carbon that is subsequently used for nearby enhanced oil recovery efforts, this suggests the province's taxpayers are losing anywhere from $50 to $230 per tonne (e.g., $50 to $230 million annually since the Boundary Dam plant captures one million tonnes per year) on the carbon capture project. No wonder electricity prices are skyrocketing. Ratepayers will need to cover any such financial shortfalls.
Some perspective required. In 2012, the U.S. emitted "5,400 million metric tons" of carbon dioxide. If your price on carbon per tonne "ranges from $70 to $250," that equates to a carbon tax cost of $378 billion to $1.35 trillion per year, or up to nearly 10 percent of the USA's annual GDP. Capturing only a small proportion of total U.S. emissions each year is still a massive tax.
Even advocates for climate change mitigation don't hide the fact that "carbon capture raises power plant costs by requiring capital investment in carbon capture equipment and by reducing the quantity of useful electricity. Additional generation capacity is needed at a power plant to power capture equipment, and incorporating CCS [carbon capture and storage] at a power plant could decrease its net power output by as much 30 percent. Overall, in 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Energy Technology Laboratory estimated that 'CCS technologies would add around 80 percent to the cost of electricity for a new pulverized coal plant, and around 35 percent to the cost of electricity for a new advanced gasification-based plant.'" Energy cost increases of 35 to 80 percent will have a major negative impact on economic growth.
There is a broad literature on the high costs of carbon capture, and it is currently unclear -- and not getting clearer over time -- whether it is more economical to (1) continue using fossil fuels but capture the carbon emissions or (2) move almost entirely over to low carbon (e.g., nuclear) and renewable energy sources. Both these options, of course, assume that your goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and that you are seeking the least costly means of doing so. But make no mistake about it: both options will be very costly, will dramatically increase the cost of energy, and will harm the economy.
The following third option is the one I prefer: until it becomes unambiguously clear that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are exerting a net negative cost on society, do nothing and continue with business as usual.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/capturing_carbon_drives_up_energy_costs.html

What part of crap and traitor do people still not get!!!!

World Bank and UN carbon offset scheme ‘complicit’ in genocidal land grabs

http://wtfrly.wpengine.netdna-cdn.co...carbon-tax.jpg
The Guardian

Plight of Kenya’s indigenous Sengwer shows carbon offsets are empowering corporate recolonisation of the South
UN’s REDD scheme promises carbon offsetting will empower local communities in the developing world while conserving forests – but critics say the scheme is fuelling genocidal evictions of indigenous people from their lands. Photograph: Tony Karumba/AFP


Between 2000 and 2010, a total of 500 million acres of land in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean was acquired or negotiated under deals brokered on behalf of foreign governments or transnational corporations.
Many such deals are geared toward growing crops or biofuels for export to richer, developed countries – with the consequence that small-holder farmers are displaced from their land and lose their livelihood while local communities go hungry.
The concentration of ownership of the world’s farmland in the hands of powerful investors and corporations is rapidly accelerating, driven by resource scarcity and, thus, rising prices. According to a new report by the US land rights organisation Grain: “The powerful demands of food and energy industries are shifting farmland and water away from direct local food production to the production of commodities for industrial processing.”
Less known factors, however, include ‘conservation‘ and ‘carbon offsetting.’

- See more at: http://thedailysmug.blogspot.com/2014/07/world-bank-and-un-carbon-offset-scheme.html#sthash.5CL4xk5R.dpuf


Crap and Traitor!!!!!

Yes Obama, We Can Read All About Your Global Warming Hoax!

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/07/ye...-warming-hoax/



https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/pr...Lw=w426-h255-p
Yes Obama, We Can Read All About Your Global Warming Hoax! - Freedom Outpost
freedomoutpost.com
Yes Obama, We Can Read All About Your Global Warming Hoax!




Yes Obama, We Can Read All About Your Global Warming Hoax!

The Common Constitutionalist 56 mins ago

In a speech to the League of Conservation Voters, a wacky environmental activist organization, Barack Obama said: "Republicans have ducked the question and said, hey, I'm not a scientist, which really translates into, I accept that man-made climate change is real, and if I say so I will be run out of town by a bunch of fringe elements, so I am just going to pretend like – I don't know – I can't read."
Well, yes we can.
We can read that America's National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is funded by NASA, revealed that ice around the southern continent (Antarctica) covers about 16,000,000 km², more than 2.1 million more than is usual for this time of year.
We can read that government scientists have falsified some of the world's most often cited climate records by replacing actual temperature readings in the United States, Iceland and Australia with hypothetical numbers derived from computer models. It has been revealed that as much as 40% of temperature data are not real thermometer readings, but simply computer generated fiction.
The result has been a distorted view of temperature trends, according to Real Science, who first assembled the evidence, changing a steady temperature decline into an ominous looking warming. The measured USHCN (United States Historical Climatology Network) daily temperature data shows a decline in US temperatures since the 1930s. But before they released it to the public, they put it through a series of computer adjustments which magically changed it from a cooling trend to a warming trend.
In his speech, Obama just ignored the new evidence, the "inconvenient truth," that American scientists have been altering climate data for years.
What else can we read, el Presidente?
We can read about warmest nut jobs touting the decline in Arctic sea ice but refusing to discuss the long-term increase in the southern hemisphere. In fact, across the globe, there is quite a bit more sea ice than 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began.
We can read that North Pole temperatures have been below normal every day of the summer thus far. So how is all this ice melting?
That has to be it, right?

Um…no. There's more.
We can read that an American "climate scientist" was quietly forced into retirement after falsifying data to show polar bears were drowning because of melting sea ice.
We can read that a bunch of leftist activists and lawyers, not scientists, from the NRDC, the National Resources Defense Council, wrote Obama's "Climate Action Plan," proving yet again that the "climate science" of the left has nothing at all to do with "science."
We can read from the New York Times no less, that under the "Climate Action Plan," the EPA "could do far more than just shut down coal plants; it could spur a transformation of the nation's energy sector."
Yikes! Yes, the EPA could transform us from a Superpower to No Power.
So you see Mr. President- some of us can read about all the deals you made with leftist climate groups, about all the falsified data and all the lies you, and they, have been covering up or glossing over to advance your stated goal of transforming this country.
Attribution: Real Science, MailOnline
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.


Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/07/yes-obama-can-read-global-warming-hoax/#JgJlgB9FfW6hEDms.99


Crap and Traitor = Money from you, to them, World Wide.. 1 2 3, all together now, can we say

SCAM..