noworldsystem.com


Cap and Trade Carbon Tax Coming Next Month

Cap and Trade Carbon Tax Coming Next Month

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR-l3BOwXpc

Bilderberg: Raise Taxes, Cut Services in U.S. and Europe

Carbon Gases “Saved Us From A New Ice Age”

Goldman Sachs Next Scam: Carbon Credits

 



Goldman Sachs Next Scam: Carbon Credits

Goldman Sachs Next Scam: Carbon Credits

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdjVISS6NP0

Cap and Trade is a Goldman Sachs and Enron Scam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C28avoSrYyQ

SEC Orders AIG Info Sealed Until 2018

Americans getting raped by Goldman Sachs mafia

Obama’s sellout to Wall Street creates ‘permanent bailout’

 



Pelosi spent $1 million taxpayer money on Copenhagen trip

Pelosi spent $1 million taxpayer money on Copenhagen trip

Jack Cafferty
CNN
January 26, 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6_xgKWzhRw

Hundreds of thousands of dollars.

That’s how much it cost for a delegation of 59 people – led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi along with members of Congress, staff and in some cases spouses and kids – to go to Copenhagen, site of the Climate Summit, just before Christmas.

House Speaker Pelosi attends a press conference at the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

CBS News reports that for 21 Congressmen, food and rooms for two nights cost $4,400; and the Total hotel bill – including meeting rooms – was more than $400,000.

Pelosi used two military jets for herself and her party at a cost of more than $100,000 dollars in flight time.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money. This has nothing to do with the Obama administration officials who went to Denmark to actually attend the summit.

Pelosi filed the required expense report – but so far has failed to explain why it was necessary for her and her colleagues to make the trip to Copenhagen in the first place. Her arrogance is absolutely breathtaking. As for the high hotel charges, Pelosi’s office says those who stayed two nights were charged a six-night minimum at the five-star Marriott. Information that was probably available before Pelosi and the freeloaders made their vacation plans.

Note to the House Speaker: We have skyrocketing deficits and national debt in this country. The President is talking about reigning in discretionary spending. I wonder if that would have included this junket by Pelosi and her colleagues. I would be curious to know where Nancy Pelosi gets her sense of entitlement to simply blow hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money at Christmas time so she and her colleagues can take a little trip to Copenhagen.

 



America’s Impending Master Class Dictatorship

America’s Impending Master Class Dictatorship

cryptogon.com
January 23, 2010

Holy shit, this one will scorch your eyeballs!

Forget my excerpts. Click through and read the whole thing. Highly recommended.

Via: Kitco:

Thanks to the endless barrage of feel-good propaganda that daily assaults the American mind, best epitomized a few months ago by the “green shoots,” everything’s-coming-up-roses propaganda touted by Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, the citizens have no idea how disastrous the country’s fiscal, monetary and economic problems truly are. Nor do they perceive the rapidly increasing risk of a totalitarian nightmare descending upon the American Republic.

One stark and sobering way to frame the crisis is this: if the United States government were to nationalize (in other words, steal) every penny of private wealth accumulated by America’s citizens since the nation’s founding 235 years ago, the government would remain totally bankrupt.

According to the Federal Reserve’s most recent report on wealth, America’s private net worth was $53.4 trillion as of September, 2009. But at the same time, America’s debt and unfunded liabilities totaled at least $120,000,000,000,000.00 ($120 trillion), or 225% of the citizens’ net worth. Even if the government expropriated every dollar of private wealth in the nation, it would still have a deficit of $66,600,000,000,000.00 ($66.6 trillion), equal to $214,286.00 for every man, woman and child in America and roughly 500% of GDP. If the government does not directly seize the nation’s private wealth, then it will require $389,610 from each and every citizen to balance the country’s books. State, county and municipal debts and deficits are additional, already elephantine in many states (e.g., California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York) and growing at an alarming rate nationwide. In addition to the federal government, dozens of states are already bankrupt and sinking deeper into the morass every day.

It is estimated that the top 1% of Americans control roughly 40% of the nation’s wealth. In other words, 3 million people own $21,400,000,000,000.00 ($21.4 trillion) in net private assets, while the other 305 million own the remaining $32,000,000,000,000.00 ($32 trillion). 77,000,000 (77 million) Americans (the lowest 25%) have mean net assets of minus $2,300 ($-2,300.00) per person; they live from paycheck to paycheck, or on public assistance. The lower 50% of Americans own mean net assets of $27,800 each, about enough to purchase a modest car. Obviously, it would be impossible to retire on such an amount without significant government or other assistance. Meanwhile, the richest 10% of Americans possess mean net assets of $3,976,000.00 each, or 143 times those of the bottom 50%; the top 2% control assets worth more than 1,500 times those in the bottom 50%. When you combine these facts with Wall Street’s typical multi-million dollar annual bonuses, you get an idea of wealth inequality in America. Historically, such extreme inequality has been a well-documented breeding ground for totalitarianism.

If the government decides to expropriate (steal) or commandeer (e.g., force into Treasuries) America’s private wealth in order to buy survival time, such a measure will be designed to destroy the common citizens, not the elite. Insiders will be given advance warning about any such plan, and will be able to transfer their money offshore or into financial vehicles immune from harm. Assuming that the elite moves its money to safety, there would then be $120,000,000,000,000.00 ($120 trillion) in American debt and liabilities supported by only $32,000,000,000,000.00 ($32 trillion) in private net worth, for a deficit of $88,000,000,000,000.00 ($88 trillion). In that case, each American would owe $285,714.29 to balance the country’s books. (Remember to multiply this amount by every person in your household, including any infant children.)

If the common people suspect that something diabolical was in the works, a portion of the $32 trillion in non-elite wealth could be evacuated as well prior to a government expropriation and/or currency devaluation, resulting in less money for the government to steal. What these statistics mean is that it is absolutely impossible for the government to fund its debt and deficits, even if it steals all of the nation’s private wealth. Therefore, the government’s only solutions are either formal bankruptcy (outright debt repudiation and the dismantling of bankrupt government programs) or unprecedented American monetary inflation and debt monetization. If the government chooses to inflate its way out of this fiscal catastrophe, the United States dollar will essentially become worthless. You can be absolutely certain that a PhD. in economics, such as Dr. Bernanke, is well aware of these realities, despite what he might say in speeches. For that matter, so are Chinese schoolchildren, who, when patronized by Treasury Secretary Geithner about America’s “strong dollar,” laughed in his face. One day, perhaps America’s school children will receive a real education so that they, too, will know when to laugh at absurd propaganda.

These deficits and debts are now so gargantuan that they have become surreal abstractions impossible even for sophisticated financiers to begin to comprehend. The common citizen has absolutely no idea what these numbers mean, or imply for his or her future. The people have been deluded into thinking that America’s arrogant, egomaniacal, always-wrong-but-never-in-doubt fiscal witch doctors and charlatans, including Greenspan, Rubin, Summers, Geithner and Ponce de Bernanke, have discovered a Monetary Fountain of Youth that endlessly spits up free money from the center of earth, in a geyser of good will toward the United States. Unfortunately, this delusion is false: there is no Monetary Fountain of Youth, and contrary to the apparent beliefs of the self-deified man-gods in Washington, D.C., the debt and deficits are real, completely out of control, and 100% guaranteed to create catastrophic consequences for the nation and its people.

When government “representatives” deliberately sell into slavery the citizens of a so-called free Republic, they have committed treason against those people. This is exactly what has happened in the United States: the citizens have been sold into debt slavery that they and their descendants can never escape, because the debts piled onto their backs can never, ever be paid. Despite expensive and sophisticated brainwashing campaigns emanating from Washington, claiming that America can “grow” out of its deficits and debt, it is arithmetically impossible for the country to do so. The government’s statements that it can dig the nation out of its fiscal hole by digging an even deeper chasm have become parodies and perversions of even totally discredited and morally disgusting Keynesianism.

The people no longer have elected representatives; they have elected traitors.

The enslavement of the American people has been orchestrated by a pernicious Master Class that has taken the United States by the throat. This Master Class is now choking the nation to death as it accelerates its master plan to plunder the people’s dwindling remaining assets. The Master Class comprises politicians, the Wall Street money elite, the Federal Reserve, high-end government (including military) officials, government lobbyists and their paymasters, military suppliers and media oligarchs. The interests and mindset of the Master Class are so totally divorced from those of the average American citizen that it is utterly tone deaf and blind to the justifiable rage sweeping the nation. Its guiding ethics of greed, plunder, power, control and violence are so alien to mainstream American culture and thought that the Master Class might as well be an enemy invader from Mars. But the Master Class here, it is real and it is laying waste to America. To the members of the Master Class, the people are not fellow-citizens; they are instruments of labor, servitude and profit. At first, the Master Class viewed the citizens as serfs; now that they have raped and destroyed the national economy, while in the process amassing unprecedented wealth and power for themselves, they see the people as nothing more than slaves.

 

Know Your Enemy-The Oligarchs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR9JQAl519Y

 



The Church of Global Warming

The Church of Global Warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QL_HaYgLYA

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lE81_rWvZU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV2Wp3BpDKU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qZvCpWM6uA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0iOvWlR6qE

 



EPA Says Co2 is Deadly, But Fuel is Good to Drink!

EPA HYPOCRISY

EPA: CO2 is a deadly gas, but uranium, mercury, arsenic, rocket-fuel and drugs in drinking water is perfectly safe.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
December 8, 2009

While the EPA declares the gas that we exhale to be a deadly poison, as protesters at Copenhagen decry the suffering of polar bears as their population figures increase to record levels, and as delegates in the Danish capital warn of the dastardly peril of cows farting, a New York Times report confirming that U.S. drinking water contains dangerous levels of arsenic, uranium and other radioactive substances barely gets noticed.

Furthermore, the new study shows that the Environmental Protection Agency knew that water systems all over the United States were contaminated with dangerous levels of numerous toxic substances, yet failed to punish the vast majority of water authorities involved.

Since the environmental movement was completely hijacked by globalists hell bent on world government and devastating carbon taxes, real environmental problems have been swept aside as the contrived scam of man-made global warming swallows up all the attention.

Our drinking water is contaminated with toxic waste, our food supply is poisoned by genetically modified garbage, and our consumer products are laced with cancer-causing chemicals, but who cares right? Surely all this pales in comparison to the effort to stop the world warming by a percentage of a degree over the next 100 years?

    More than 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data.

    That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents. But since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in sewage.

But unlike the mammoth threat posed by the life-giving gas carbon dioxide, which the EPA yesterday classified as a health threat to the same humans that exhale it, the Environmental Protection Agency is noticeably less concerned about the fact that our water is filled with contaminants that are “linked to millions of instances of illness within the United States each year.”

Indeed, records show that fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever punished or fined by the EPA.

“In some instances, drinking water violations were one-time events, and probably posed little risk. But for hundreds of other systems, illegal contamination persisted for years, records show,” according to the article.

The Senate Environment and Public Works committee will question a high-ranking E.P.A. official about why they allowed water companies to continue such contamination without punishment at a hearing today.

According to the study, not only were water systems contaminated with radioactive substances like uranium as well as arsenic, but they were also found to contain cancer-causing solvents and illegal amounts of bacteria.

“The amount of radium detected in drinking water was 2,000 percent higher than the legal limit,” adds the report. Radium is described as “extremely radioactive” and has a half-life of 1602 years. People exposed to radium suffer serious health effects including sores, anemia and bone cancer. The use of radium in paints as late as the 1950’s was eventually halted after many deaths were attributed to exposure to the chemical.

True to form, the NY Times chooses to characterize water which contains deadly radioactive chemicals as “dirty” in its headline!

Millions in U.S. Drink Dirty Water, Records Show – oh its just a bit of dirt you know! Cancer-causing radioactive toxins and poisonous arsenic – its just a little dirty!

“The problem, say current and former government officials, is that enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act has not been a federal priority,” reports the Times, adding that current and former EPA officials who attempted to make the agency enforce the drinking water law were targeted.

“I proposed drinking water cases, but they got shut down so fast that I’ve pretty much stopped even looking at the violations,” said one longtime E.P.A. enforcement official who, like others, requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. “The top people want big headlines and million-dollar settlements. That’s not drinking-water cases.”

So there you have it – according to the EPA – breathing is a threat to human health – but drinking water laced with arsenic, cancerous carcinogens, and radioactive chemicals is perfectly nutritious!

So pour a fresh glass of toxic tap water, drink up and say cheers to the fact that the government really cares about our health and the real environmental issues – before you drop dead.

Millions in U.S. Drink Dirty Water, Records Show

Court strikes down EPA’s plan on mercury

EPA: American lives less valuable

EPA won’t remove rocket fuel from drinking water

41 Million Americans Have 56 Types of Drugs in Tap Water

 



Cap and Trade is a Goldman Sachs and Enron Scam

Cap and Trade is a Goldman Sachs and Enron Scam

NoWorldSystem.com
December 8, 2009

Rolling Stone’s author Matt Taibbi wrote an article about Goldman Sachs titled, “The Great American Bubble Machine“, he writes how they are about to engineer the next great bubble — the trillion dollar carbon cap and credit market.

To my surprise, Enron, one of the most corrupt gangsters besides the Goldman Sachs mafia also take part in this new carbon-credit scheme. (pay no mind to the AGW propaganda):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA6FSy6EKrM

“the first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it is everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” -Matt Taibbi

UPDATE:

When Al Gore was vice-president in 1997 he met Enron CEO Ken Lay at the White House to discuss the development of a new carbon-cap and tax scam.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH0Ryek7rHk

Gore’s Inconvenient Truth: Enron and Goldman Sachs Crooks Created His Cap-and-Tax Scam!

Aaron Dykes
TruthNews.us
April 27, 2009

After insisting once again that there is a consensus on man-made global warming (while paradoxically comparing those not in consensus with those who deny the moon landing), Al Gore obfuscates, downplays and refuses to discuss the role that CEOs have played in crafting his Cap-and-Trade C02 trading schemes and carbon swapping systems.

Al Gore tries to put a lid in Congressional committee testimony on a little reported but vitally important subject in the global warming, carbon-tax ‘debate’– the new derivatives bubble in the emerging green-energy credit-swap market.

Gore’s body language makes clear he does not want to dwell on the issue, as he spins every point critical of the carbon-schemes’ financial structure in light of the current financial meltdown into another dire warning about the much-heralded global warming meltdown that is said to be coming.

But Rep. Scalise and others try to turn focus on the huge financial burden that will be pinned on American taxpayers and U.S. industry. Scalise claims that President Obama has already scheduled in his budget an estimated $650 billion that would be generated under the carbon taxes proposed in the bill.

The point from Rep. Scalise that is gaveled over by the chairman and stuttered-over by Gore is that many of the Congressmen are ‘concerned about turning over our energy economy over to firms like Enron and some of these Wall Street firms that wrecked out financial economy.’

Fmr. Vice President Al Gore denies that Ken Lay and other CEOs developed carbon scheme: “I didn’t know him well enough to call him ‘Kenny-boy’.”

But the point is a fair one. Gore’s founding partner in his carbon-trading / sustainability investment firm is none other than David Blood, CEO of Goldman Sachs’ asset-management division until 2003.

Gore & Blood founded Generation Investment Management, LLC in 2004– giving Gore an obvious conflict of interest in pushing a carbon tax.

Yet Gore ridicules the question: “I guess what you’re trying to say– state there is… some kind of guilt by association- is that–”

“I’m saying there are going to be big winners and big losers in this bill– big winners and big losers. Some of the big winners are some of the very financial experts that helped destroy our financial marketplace. And I think it should be noted that companies like Enron helped come up with this trading scheme that we’ve got,” Scalise notes.

Read Full Article Here

 



ClimateGate CRU Sought Funds From Shell Oil

ClimateGate CRU Sought Funds From Shell Oil

News Busters
December 5, 2009

The Climatic Research Unit at the heart of the ClimateGate scandal sought funds from Shell Oil in the year 2000.

Other e-mail messages obtained from the University of East Anglia’s computers also showed officials at the school’s CRU solicited support from ExxonMobil and BP Amoco, although the nature of this support was not identified.

As climate alarmists and their media minions love to claim that global warming skeptics are all paid shills of Big Oil, it makes one wonder how the press will report these startling revelations discovered by Anthony Watts Friday:

Mick Kelley to Mike Hulme

    Mike
    Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
    agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
    partner and will contribute to a studentship fund
    though under certain
    conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
    after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
    asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
    etc. By email? In person?
    I hear that Shell’s name came up at the TC meeting. I’m ccing this to Tim
    who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
    make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
    I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team but this approach
    will do equally for the new foundation as it’s only one step or so off
    Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
    what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
    new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s
    within the remit.
    Regards
    Mick

Earlier that same year, the recipient of this e-mail message, Mike Hulme, sent a message of his own concerning getting “support” from a number of entities (emphasis added):

Mike Hulme to Simon Shackley

    Simon,

    I have talked with Tim O’Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:

    – Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
    – Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International
    – Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
    – ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me.
    […]
    >SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme
    >sponsors which will help beef things up. (Frans: is the Alsthom
    >contact the same as Nick Jenkin’s below? Also, do you have a BP
    >Amoco
    contact? The name I’ve come up with is Paul Rutter, chief
    >engineer, but he is not a personal contact]
    >
    >We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector.
    >Does anyone know any investment bankers?
    >
    >Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can
    >finalise the list.
    >
    >I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting
    >support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be
    >used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person
    >in brackets).
    >
    >Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
    >Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
    >Jenkins]
    >Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John
    >Shepherd]
    >Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water
    >[Mike Hulme]
    >Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
    >Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon
    >Shackley]
    >Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
    >Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
    >Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]
    >
    >
    >Possibles:
    >Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM [Nick Jenkins]
    >Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation [Nick
    >Jenkins]
    >Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen
    >[Nick Jenkins]
    >Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust [Melvin
    >Cannell]
    >Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]
    >
    >With kind regards
    >
    >Simon Shackley

Now who is the shill for Big Oil again? Next time somebody brings up that ridiculous argument about skeptics, show them this.

Read Full Article Here

Exxon Calls for a Carbon Tax, Again.

Oil Companies Support Global Warming Hoax, Not Skeptics!

Shell calls for derivatives on carbon trading

 



Gore Confonted on Global Warming Hoax

Gore Confonted on Global Warming Hoax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja8TIeaH2pk

 



Exxon Calls for a Carbon Tax, Again.

Exxon Calls for a Carbon Tax, Again.

TreeHugger
August 17, 2009

Exxon, the largest oil company in the world has stated that it prefers a carbon tax to a cap and trade system–again–this time, specifically in Australia. This comes on the heels of news last week that Australia’s parliament rejected a cap and trade system for curbing emissions–there won’t be another vote on the bill for at least 3 months (Aussies voted ‘no’ again!). So what’s behind Exxon’s vocal pro-carbon tax stance?

From Bloomberg:

    “A carbon tax is more transparent to consumers, will achieve greater environmental benefits and is more difficult to manipulate than a cap-and-trade program,” John Dashwood, chairman of Exxon’s Australian unit, said in speech notes e- mailed ahead of an address today in Melbourne.

A little puzzling is the fact that Australia’s proposed carbon cap featured relatively low emission reduction targets–as low as 5% reduction from 2000 levels by 2020. Hardly a demanding commitment, at least in the short term (this is why many members of Australia’s own Green party voted against the cap and trade themselves–it wasn’t strict enough).

Nonetheless, some economists, along with experts like James Hansen and Al Gore, prefer the carbon tax option. Throw in Exxon Mobil, and you’ve got yourself an eclectic band of misfits. Economists (and presumably Exxon) argue that the tax is a more efficient and inexpensive way to curb carbon. From Bloomberg:

    Imposing a global carbon tax would ease pressure on the climate more cheaply than emissions trading, according to a study released last week by Danish professor Bjoern Lomborg. A $0.50 tax for each ton of emissions may generate $1.51 in avoided climate damage, compared with costs as high as $68 per ton, resulting in 2 cents of avoided damage, under some emissions-mitigations models, the study said.

Another possible reason for Exxon’s sudden support could be good old fashioned political gamesmanship–the idea of a carbon tax is potentially extremely unpopular (as is anything that includes the word “tax” in its moniker). If the company has reason to believe a carbon tax is very unlikely to actually pass Australian parliament, it can voice support for it and appear environmentally inclined without having to make any actual adjustments. However, Exxon makes for a powerful voice of support, and having the oil giant in favor could draw other businesses’, politicians’, and citizen support for a carbon tax, which could eventually create stricter regulations on the oil giant than a cap would.

Oil Companies Support Global Warming Hoax, Not Skeptics

Shell calls for derivatives on carbon trading

 



Australian Senate defeats carbon trading bill

Australian Senate defeats carbon trading bill

Guardian
December 2, 2009

The Senate, where the government of the prime minister, Kevin Rudd, does not hold a majority, rejected 41-33 his administration’s proposal for Australia to become one of the first countries to install a so-called cap-and-trade system to slash the amount of heat-trapping pollution that industries pump into the air.

It follows a tumultuous week in Australian politics, which saw the ousting of Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader, after he had pledged to support the government’s plans for the trading scheme.

The defeat further undermines Australia’s already ailing credibility at the upcoming UN climate change talks in Copenhagen.

Read Full Article Here

 



Why Global Warming is a Hoax

Why Global Warming is a Hoax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb-1Qfcy0fY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BFKI2hjsPE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIt_LQeslL4

 



Al Gore Set To Make Billions On Carbon Tax Scam

Al Gore Set To Make Billions On Carbon Tax Scam


Obama to help Gore’s pocketbook by signing the ‘global climate treaty’ in Copenhagen, Denmark on Dec.7-18

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 3, 2009

The New York Times has lifted the lid on how Al Gore stands to benefit to the tune of billions of dollars if the carbon tax proposals he is pushing come to fruition in the United States, while documenting how he has already lined his pockets on the back of exaggerated fearmongering about global warming.

As is to be expected, the article is largely a whitewash and takes an apologist stance in defense of Gore.

However, the NY Times‘ John M. Broder does reveal how one of the companies Gore invested in, Silver Spring Networks, recently received a contract worth $560 million dollars from the Energy Department to install “smart meters” in people’s homes that record (and critics fear could eventually regulate) energy usage.

“Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years,” states the report, highlighting the fact that Gore is “well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.”

“Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in,” writes Broder.

Since he left office, Gore’s personal net worth has skyrocketed on the back of his advocacy for global warming issues and the financial dividends this has reaped. Gore’s assets totaled less than $2 million in 2001 and although he refuses to give a figure for his current net worth, a recent single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund, illustrates just how fast Gore has enriched himself from his climate change bandwagon.

The Times report notes how Gore “has a stake in the world’s pre-eminent carbon credit trading market.” As we reported back in March, before he became President Barack Obama also helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to implement as law.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

Read Full Article Here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGN8_YvQdbM

 

ClimateGate: Phil Jones has collected a staggering $22.6 million in grants

IceAge Now
November 21, 2009

Excerpts from a post by Michael Shedlock – “It’s now official. Much of the hype about global warming is nothing but a complete scam. The global warming thesis was completely fabricated.

“Inquiring minds are reading Hacked: Hadley CRU FOI2009 Files on The Reference Frame by Luboš Motl, a physicist from the Czech Republic.

“So far, the most interesting file I found in the “documents” directory is pdj_grant_since1990.xls which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected a staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.

“Phil Jones, the main criminal according to this correspondence, has personally confirmed that the website was hacked and that the documents are authentic. See Briefing Room.

 



Al Gore Confronted on ClimateGate

Al Gore Confronted on ClimateGate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwkR3uuZMIM

 



Stephanopoulos: ClimateGate Complicates Copenhagen for Obama

Stephanopoulos: ClimateGate Complicates Copenhagen for Obama

News Busters
November 29, 2009

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos actually brought up the ClimateGate scandal as a topic for discussion during the Roundtable segment on Sunday’s “This Week.”

As NewsBusters has been reporting since this story broke more than a week ago, television news outlets have been quite disinterested in the controversy now growing with each passing day.

Breaking this trend, Stephanopoulos aggressively waded into this seemingly verboten subject by mentioning how it complicates President Obama’s trip to “Copenhagen to deal with climate change.”

George Will of course agreed saying that the release of these e-mail messages raises a serious question about why America should “wager trillions of dollars and substantially curtail freedom on climate models that are imperfect and unproven.”

Not surprisingly, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman found “not a single smoking gun” in those e-mail messages (video in two parts embedded below the fold with transcript and commentary by myself and others involved in this debate):

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

 



Oil Companies Support Global Warming Hoax, Not Skeptics

Oil Companies Support Global Warming Hoax, Not Skeptics

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 3, 2009

A common charge leveled against global warming skeptics is that they are on the payroll of transnational oil companies, when in fact the opposite is true, oil companies are amongst the biggest promoters of climate change propaganda, emphasized recently by Exxon Mobil’s call for a global carbon tax.

According to Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, the cap and trade nightmare being primed for passage in the Senate doesn’t go far enough – Tillerson wants a direct tax on carbon dioxide emissions, essentially a tax on breathing since we all exhale this life-giving gas.

In a speech last month, Tillerson brazenly called out the cap and trade agenda for what it was, an effort to impose a carbon tax camouflaged only by a slick sales pitch and deceptive rhetoric.

“It is easier and more politically expedient to support a cap-and-trade approach, because the public will never figure out where it is hitting them,” said Tillerson. “They will just know they hurt somewhere in their pocketbook,” he added, pointing out that he disagreed with this convoluted method of introducing a carbon tax, arguing instead that it would be more successful to openly propose a straight carbon tax.

Tillerson firmly expressed Exxon’s support for climate change alarmists in stating, “I firmly believe it is not too late for Congress to consider a carbon tax as the better policy approach for addressing the risks of climate change.”

Exxon’s push for a carbon tax was restated last week by its vice president for public affairs Ken Cohen, who told a conference call that he wants a climate policy that creates “certainty and predictability, which is why we advocate a carbon tax.”

Exxon Mobil and their ilk are not concerned about a carbon tax eating into their profits because they know they won’t have to pay it – the tab will be picked up by the ignorant taxpayer at the fuel pump at an inflated cost which if anything will hand the transnational oil cartels an even bigger cut.

Ideologically, Al Gore and Exxon Mobil are on exactly the same page – the only difference between the oil companies and global warming alarmists is the squabble over who will get to sink their teeth into the taxpayer and reap the dividends of the climate change scam.

Read Full Article Here

 



Obama’s Science Czar Linked to Climategate Scandal

Obama’s Science Czar Linked to Climategate Scandal

News Busters
November 26, 2009

Yesterday Brian Williams delivered an NBC Nightly News report about President Obama attending the Copenhagen global warming summit. Guess what hot topic was left untouched? If you had guessed Climategate you would have been correct. Not only Williams but also the other TV networks, with the exception of FOX News, have completely ignored what is considered to be the biggest scientific scandal in history. However, new Climategate revelations made by the Canada Free Press about a White House connection to the scandal will soon make it much more difficult (and ridiculous) for the networks to ignore.

Canada Free Press editor Judi McLeod and Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball reveal the involvement of White House Science Czar John Holdren (photo) in the Climategate Scandal. The picture presented of Holdren is not a pretty one:

    Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as “Climategate”.

    Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

Read Full Article Here

Climate ‘czar’ says hacked e-mails don’t change anything

 



Five Aussie MPs QUIT in Protest Against Carbon Tax Scam

Five Aussie MPs QUIT in Protest Against Carbon Tax Scam

James Delingpole
London Telegraph
November 27, 2009

Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.

ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.

    The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.

    Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.

    Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.

The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots.

Read Full Article Here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo4lkpomWqc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh8PvLXsEco

 



Prominent Scientists Call CRU Scientists “Criminals”

Another Prominent Scientist Calls CRU Scientists “Criminals”

Leaked documents prove alarmists planned to seek funding from “energy agencies”

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
November 25, 2009

A prominent scientist has called for criminal prosecutions to be brought against the UN affiliated scientists involved in what has been termed “ClimateGate”.

Australian geologist and long time opponent of anthropogenic global warming theory, Ian Plimer, has condemned what he describes as “alarmism underpinned by fraud”.

“This behavior is that of criminals and all the data from the UK Hadley Centre and the US GISS must now be rejected. These crooks perpetrated these crimes at the expense of the British and U.S. taxpayers.” Plimer writes in a commentary piece.

“The same crooks control the IPCC and the fraudulent data in IPCC reports. The same crooks meet in Copenhagen next week and want 0.7% of the Western world’s GDP to pass through an unelected UN government, and then on to sticky fingers in the developing world.” Plimer continues.

He points out that the emails intimate that figures were manipulated to cover up the medieval warming period, and continued global cooling, in addition to artificially inflated data to emphasize warming during the 20th century.

Plimer, author of the best selling book on the global warming debate, Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science, has long been a vocal critic of what he describes as the hijacked environmental movement.

Plimer has stated many times that he feels vast swathes of the scientific community have been co-opted to manipulate data in return for millions in continued research funding.

The leaked emails from the Hadley centre reveal that CRU chief P.D. Jones has received 55 endowments since 1990 from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth a total of £13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million.

Another document titled (potential-funding.doc) lists sources of potential funding and shows that the scientists considered pressing “energy agencies” that specifically deal in new technology to reduce carbon emissions.

Three agencies listed as potential sources of funding are UK based Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative, and the Energy Saving Trust. Renewables North West, an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind, and geothermal energy, is listed as a fourth potential benefactor.

Of course, all these potential financial backers have a vested interest in maintaining the conception that human-induced global warming is a reality backed by science.

Anthropogenic global warming theorists have long attacked skeptical scientists, claiming they are bought and paid for by oil companies, yet here we have the most influential group of climate scientists acknowledging that they are a shoe-in to receive funding from energy companies with vested interests.

Ian Plimer joins another prominent figure in the debate, Lord Christopher Monckton, who called for a full investigation and criminal prosecutions earlier this week.

 

Climate Expert: “Compromised” UN Scientists should be excluded from IPCC, Peer-Review Process

Says “Gatekeepers” have been exposed, should be barred

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
November 24, 2009

A prominent German scientist who was attacked in the leaked CRU emails by UN affiliated climate scientists has stated that the group should be barred from taking part in the peer-review process and excluded from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Hans von Storch, who is referred to in very unflattering terms several times in the leaked emails, points out that the CRU scientists acted as “gatekeepers”.

“Mike Mann [climate scientist at Penn State University] was successful to exclude me from a review-type meeting on historical reconstructions in Wengen,” von Storch comments on his blog.

“I found the style of communication revealing, speaking about other people and their ideas, joining forces to “kill” papers, exchanges of “improving” presentations without explaining.”

“Interesting exchanges, and evidences, are contained about efforts to destroy Climate Research’” von Storch writes.

“… scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC. […]” the professor concludes.

Yesterday we reported on the fact that the leaked emails revealed the warming alarmist scientists effectively hijacked the peer-review process as they alluded several times to efforts to shut down evidence they did not agree with, regardless of its scientific merit.

In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to Michael Mann, We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

 



Congress may investigate global warming e-mails

Global Warming On Trial: Inhofe Calls For Investigation Of UN IPCC

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 23, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH6_hmEgfCs

In response to the astounding revelations arising out of the hacked CRU emails, Senator Jim Inhofe has stated that unless something is done within the next seven days, he will lead the call for a rigorous investigation into mounting evidence that top climate scientists conspired to manipulate data to hide evidence of global cooling while engaging in academic witch hunts to eliminate scientists skeptical of man-made climate change.

Speaking on the Americas Morning Show earlier today, Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the new revelations proved what he has been warning about for over four years, that politicians and bias-driven climate scientists affiliated with the UN IPCC have been fraudulently “cooking the science” to conform to their agenda.

“If nothing happens in the next seven days when we go back into session a week from today that would change this situation, I will call for an investigation,” said Inhofe. “Cause this thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with.”

Asked what he would call for an investigation of, Inhofe responded, “On the IPCC and on the United Nations on the way that they cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.”

Meanwhile, even some pro-man made global warming advocates have conceded that an investigation is necessary.

Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, told the London Guardian that only a rigorous investigation could clear the names of those accused of manipulating the data, admitting that the emails “created the impression of impropriety,” which is a lot further than most have gone in accepting the damning nature of the hacked data.

Indeed, the British Met Office performed the equivalent of a child sticking his fingers in his ears by merely attempting to dismiss the emails altogether, without even explaining what was meant when scientists at CRU talked about pulling “tricks” to “hide the decline” in temperatures.

A spokesman at the Met Office, which jointly produces global temperature datasets with the Climate Research Unit, said there was no need for an inquiry. “If you look at the emails, there isn’t any evidence that the data was falsified and there’s no evidence that climate change is a hoax. It’s a shame that some of the sceptics have had to take this rather shallow attempt to discredit robust science undertaken by some of the world’s most respected scientists. The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be. It’s no surprise, with the Copenhagen talks just days away, that this has happened now.”

As James Delingpole of the Telegraph highlights, alarmists are not going to be effected by the scandal, because they will allow nothing whatsoever to corrupt their religious belief system. “They’ve made up their minds and no quantity of contrary evidence, however devastating, is going to shake their considered position of “Nyah nyah nyah. Got my fingers in my ears. Not listening. The world IS warming and it’s man’s fault. Must tax carbon now….”

However, there seems little doubt that this bombshell will go a long way to derailing, or at least delaying the agenda for a global carbon tax that will be collected by the very same elitists aggressively pushing the fraud of global warming.

 



Environmentalists Get Angry Over Climategate Scandal

Environmentalists Get Angry Over Climategate Scandal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=429xoDtqS-A

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

 



Leaked Emails Prove Global Warming is a Hoax

MUST READ!
CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker Leaks E-Mails Exposing the Global Warming Hoax

Corbett Report / Taxpayers’ Alliance
November 20, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac

A hacker has leaked thousands of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University that appear to show how climate change data was fudged and the peer review process skewed to favor the manmade climate change hypothesis.

The link to the data appears to have been posted to a number of climate science websites yesterday by an anonymous hacker or insider going by the name “FOIA,” an apparent allusion to the Freedom of Information Act in the United States. One of the first sites where the 62 MB file was posted was The Air Vent. It was soon picked up by Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and other climate science sites.

The information contained in the leaked emails and documents are as shocking as they are damning of the scientists who have been most vocal about the manmade global warming scare. Some of the excerpts include this email, from one of the world’s leading climate scientists, Phil Jones writing to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist Michael Mann of “Mann’s hockey stick” fame to “hide the decline” in recent global temperatures. The recent global temperatures show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but Jones ADMITS in this excerpt that he replaced the real global temperatures with Mann’s “hockey-stick” up-slope to fit their climate change viewpoints.:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

In another email from Phil Jones to climate scientist Michael Mann about ousting academics that question the link between human activities and global warming out of any peer-reviewed IPCC reports.:

    “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

More evidence of the ousting of global warming skeptics is found in this excerpt in which researchers appear to discuss ways to discredit James Saiers of the Geophysical Research Letters journal because he seems to be sympathetic to global warming skeptics.:

    “Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.< Even this would be difficult."

The scientists at the CRU have been waging a running battle against releasing any information under the Freedom of Information Act. A number of people had been making requests for the release of their data and correspondence – a legitimate target for an FoI, particularly given the large amounts of taxpayers’ money flowing into the CRU, the controversy of the topic and the sizeable impact on public policy that the Unit seeks to have.

These emails reveal the horrendous attitude of the CRU towards these requests behind the scenes, and their furious efforts to defy and even break the FoI Act.

Prof Jones’s colleague, Prof. Keith Briffa – who is a Reader at the CRU – spells out their attitude towards Freedom of Information quite neatly.:

    “I have been of the opinion right from the start of these FOI requests, that our private ,
    inter-collegial discussion is just that – PRIVATE. Your communication with individual
    colleagues was on the same basis as that for any other person and it discredits the IPCC
    process not one iota not to reveal the details. On the contrary, submitting to these
    “demands” undermines the wider scientific expectation of personal confidentiality . It is
    for this reason, and not because we have or have not got anything to hide, that I believe
    none of us should submit to these “requests”.”

This is of course absolutely disgraceful behaviour on the part of these academics and their institution. They might have felt this was an imposition or an invasion, and they may have felt that their research should have been out of the grubby grasp of the general public, but the law is clear.

This is a rare insight into the attitude within many public bodies towards transparency, and the refusal to accept the principle of the FoIA is undoubtedly all too common. While the people and the media love FoI for the power it disseminates, those who have lost their privileged status still resent it deeply.

Even more serious than their appalling attitude is the instruction by Prof Jones to his colleagues to delete emails that are apparently subject to an FoI request! Which is illegal. . .

In a January 2nd, 2005 Prof Phil Jones tells colleague Michael Mann in an email that he should delete CRU station data before climate skeptics can get a hold of it via Freedom of Information Act.:

    don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it!

Jones just admitted he was warned by his own university against deleting data subjected to an FOI request from McIntyre (MM), but that’s not the only evidence of ‘cooking the books’. On May 29th 2008, Prof Jones instructs colleagues to delete emails in a message helpfully titled “IPCC & FOI”:

    “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

AR4 is an IPCC report that Keith Briffa and others at the CRU worked on together, and at least one FoI request on exactly this correspondence had apparently been submitted by a David Holland on May 5th 2008.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 expressly forbids – on pain of criminal conviction – destroying information that has been requested under FoI. As the Information Commissioner puts it:

If information is held when a FOIA request is received, destroying it outside of your normal records management policies will result in a breach of the Act. You must confirm that you hold the information and consider disclosure, subject to any exemption. It will also be a criminal offence to conceal or destroy information if this is done with the intention of preventing disclosure under either FOIA or EIR.

This offence is punishable with a fine of up to £5,000.

Tellingly, another email from Prof Jones later that year shows that UEA’s internal FoI team had evidently become concerned about his secretive actions:

    “I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails”

If the FoI team were concerned that Prof Jones might be breaking the law – and even committing a criminal offence – on an area that they are legally responsible for, they should have reported him to the Information Commissioner. Perhaps his flowering relationship with the FoI officer and the Chief Librarian precluded this.

Happily, he’s never tried to become matey with us, so we’re reporting him and his colleagues to the Information Commissioner this afternoon.

Irrespective of how important your subject area is, what your views on the topic might be, or how much you dislike the person making the request, Freedom of Information is too valuable and too important to just be ridden over roughshod like this. [Source]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8CVh2deXTI

Unsurprisingly, there has so far been deafening silence on this issue in the controlled corporate media, but in light of the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty talks, it is imperative that we have a true and open debate about climate change before we make potentially world-changing decisions based on this science. It is up to all of us to push this story and its staggering implications into the mainstream.

 

Climategate: Why it matters

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
November 23, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx3q2arm_ek

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4f98fBCfk

Globalist minion Al Gore and the United Nations climate change shysters led by Phil Jones are in trouble. Last week hackers uncovered a pile of email and documents revealing what many of us already knew — the climate change agenda is based not only on easily debunked junk science, but outright lies and deception.

In the wake of the damning revelations exposed by these anonymous hackers, the climate change snake oil salesmen Gore and his complaisant entourage of now discredited scientists are in full retreat. Even the corporate media — guilty of peddling the fabrication of man-made climate change for years with the best propaganda money can buy — are desperately scrambling to put the best spin possible on the emerging travesty.

In the above video, Alex Jones examines the startling revelations of the CRU files and spells out what it means for the global elite who have planned to use the ruse to impose crippling carbon taxes and put the finishing touches on their global totalitarian super-state and its accompanying control and slave grid.

Infowars and Prison Planet are now feverishly going through the documents and will post the result in the hours and days ahead. In the meantime, here are a few quotes from the perpetrators:

Kevin Trenberth
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Phil Jones
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don’t want to give them something clearly tangible.

Mike MacCracken
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.

Tim Johns
Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also – relevant to your statement – A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world… (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published).

Christoph Kull
Looks pretty good to me. Only one issue. In our discussion of possible participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (w/ question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to concensus [sic] and progress.

Keith Briffa
Mike, I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent concensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in series (such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest contradiction where it does not exist.

Michael E. Mann
The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.

Ben Santer
I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

“Climategate”: Peer-Review System Was Hijacked By Warming Alarmists

 



EU President: 2009 is the “first year of global governance”

New EU President: 2009 is the “first year of global governance”
Sees Copenhagen as step towards global management

Old-Thinker News
November 20, 2009

The new EU President, Herman Van Rompuy, has proclaimed 2009 as the “first year of global governance.” During Rompuy’s intervention as President on November 19th, he stated,

“2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”

Rompuy attended a Bilderberg dinner at Hertoginnendal, Brussels on November 15th, during which he announced a plan to implement EU wide taxes that will be paid directly to Brussels. Recently Mario Borghezio (Italy), member of the European Parliament, spoke openly against the influence of globalist organizations such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. “Is it possible that no one has noticed that all 3 (EU Presidential candidates) frequently attend Bilderberg or Trilateral meetings?,” asked Borghezio. Rompuy will undoubtedly serve globalist interests during his reign of the European Union.

 

The Road to Copenhagen part III: A “Planetary Regime” in the Making

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
November 22, 2009

“It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.” George H.W. Bush addressing the General Assembly of the U.N, February 1, 1992

The machine of mass media is working overdrive now that the Copenhagen summit is approaching. All major media outlets have by now obviously received their talking-points which have an strangely similar ring about them all across the board. Even a superficial comparative study in the overall reporting reveals not only a stunning disregard for national sovereignty, but a willingness to support carbon-taxes imposed by a- as John P. Holdren puts it- “planetary regime”.

Last month experts told the Second Committee Panel Discussion of the UN General Assembly that “a new regime of governance was under way in the global financial system.” The same is being said about global climate measures, global resource management and global development.

The mass media is not only setting the agenda themselves, they more often than not simply parrot the globalists that are being shoved in our face on a daily basis. Many of whom have a Ph.D. behind their name. Under the header ‘Carbon Tax’ is sensible, and perhaps inevitable, advocate says‘, the Los Angeles Times quotes Oxford professor Dieter Helm stating:

“(..) I’m in favor of quite a low carbon tax to start with – for political economy reasons, to get it in place, (…). Across Europe, my guess is within five years everybody will have a carbon tax…”

This, according to Helm, will make sure that the United States will eventually be forced into the global carbon tax policy as well:

“(…) is everybody else doing it? That’s a very good protection for politicians. The answer is yes, they are.”

Back in December of 2001, the Africa division of the UN Development Programme apparently already seriously considered such a tax:

“The main energy sources that would be affected by a carbon tax include coal, petroleum, kerosene and natural gas. The tax would be reflected in an increase in their price, at a level based on the capacity of each type of fuel to emit carbon dioxide.”

Answering the question who would collect the taxes and enforce such a global tax policy, the UN panel was quite clear:

“The panel said a new international tax organization should be created to assume all functions performed by existing institutions. It would serve as a global intergovernmental forum for international cooperation on all tax issues. It would also help resolve conflicts between countries and help them to increase tax revenue by fostering information exchanges and measures that could reduce tax evasion on investment and personal income earned at home and abroad.”

This sounds a lot like John P. Holdren doesn’t it, exclaiming in Ecoscience that “a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment” could impose global policy and enforce it. “Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime”, said Holdren, “could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.”

Furthermore, the UN panel advocated in 2001:

“We thus endorse the Commission’s proposal to create a global council at the highest political level to provide leadership on issues of global governance. The proposed council would be more broadly based than the G7 or the Bretton Woods institutions.”

In 2007, Reuters quoted Mr. Global Warming Himself, Al Gore as saying that a global carbon trading scheme could be “quite efficient if the world’s top polluters, the United States and China, fully joined.” Gore also stated that a direct tax on carbon would certainly be “an even simpler and more direct measure.”

It was the Bilderberg-appointed Herman Van Rompuy- the new EU-president- who stated recently that “The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.” He also announced that 2009 would be the “first year of global governance.” And he’s not the first to call for such global management. All people who occupy a position of power in the infrastructure of the New World Order have called for it since its very conception shortly after World War II.

As a preface to the coming Copenhagen summit in December, the United Nations Population Fund in a recently published ‘ State of the Population 2009‘ is pushing for global reproductive health services. This means not only universal access to ‘family planning’ but also better access to abortion facilities. Humans, after all, are supposed to be the prime driver of climate change and therefore: less humans means honouring Mother Earth.

In the foreword, the executive director of the UNFPA, Thoraya Obaid addresses the fake global warming hype, saying that “floods, storms and rising seas” will soon envelope the planet if not for quick, decisive and global efforts to combat these calamities.

“A Copenhagen agreement that helps people to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and adapt to climate change by harnessing the insight and creativity of women and men would launch a genuinely effective long-term global strategy to deal with climate change.”

Global strategy. That’s the talking point we hear over and over again from all agencies, UN or otherwise, who have an interest in profiting from the deal they are proposing. Never mind that all nation-states who sign on to the Copenhagen treaty will effectively forfeit their representative systems to this global authority, deciding which taxes will be paid by which nation-state. In the end, all roads seem to lead to a “planetary regime” envisioned by the elite long before “global warming” was even heard of.


Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home

Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home

Nachi.org
November 19, 2009

We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington!

This Congress and whoever on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle class of the USA….

A License Required for your house

Thinking about selling your house – A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!

Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.

The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded.

However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.

But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this:

* A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right.

The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes (”mobile homes”) are included.

* In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
* To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured.
* Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.
* Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner.
* If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.

The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″) and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements are set low initial y so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.

The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.

Sect. 202:

Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America .

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.

You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants.

You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that’s YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants. Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.”

Sect. 204:

Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.

Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label.

And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often – maybe every year.

But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time.

Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.

Sect. 304:

Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d), Application of National Code to State and Local Jurisdictions, that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.

 



Bilderberg Van Rompuy the New EU President

Bilderberg Van Rompuy the New EU President

NoWorldSystem.com
November 20, 2009


Herman Van Rompuy (L)

Herman Van Rompuy (Bilderberg member) has been selected to be the first president of the European Union. A man who has been given everything by the oligarchical elite of Europe such as the seat of Prime Minister of Belgium has now been chosen to take one of the top jobs in Europe. The selection was made during a dinner meeting in Brussels by the leaders of the 27 EU member states.

The new positions include; President of the European Council and Foreign Affairs Chief and comes into effects on December 1, 2009. Van Rompuy will take his post as the first president of Europe on January 1, 2010.

The permanent EU president seat was created by the Lisbon Treaty that was finally ratified by the member states, including Ireland that was passed in early October, Ireland first refused to give away its sovereignty to the EU in the first referendum, but the Irish voters overwhelmingly supported the second referendum due to the promise of jobs.

It no longer seems like a coincidence that Bilderberg meetings are the place where candidates are positioned in high-places of government. According to ‘De Tijd‘, Van Rompuy attended a Bilderberg dinner in Brussels just days before he was selected as EU president.

At the meeting Van Rompuy gave a speech about the implementation of new taxes on shopping items (value added tax), airline travel (aviation tax) and petrol stations (fuel duty tax) that will go directly to Brussels as an “EU tax”. He said: “The possibilities of financial levies at European level must be seriously examined and for the first time the large countries in the union are open to that,”, credit to the newspaper De Tijd.

 



The U.S. Constitution Overrules Any Treaty

The U.S. Constitution Overrules Any Treaty

Cassandr Anderson
Infowars
October 21, 2009

Lord Monckton of England, who is a man made global warming (MMGW) critic, recently made a speech regarding a climate change treaty (Copenhagen Treaty) which he believes Obama will sign at the UNFCCC in December 2009 (1). According to Lord Monckton this treaty will subjugate America to Communist rule and will transfer American wealth to third world countries.

While Monckton is a hero for promoting truth about MMGW, and claims to have been involved in the funding of a lawsuit against showing Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” movie to British school children that resulted in a mandatory disclaimer of the movie when shown, Monckton has misunderstood a few facts about the Copenhagen Treaty.

Watch the 4 minute video:

Firstly, he has understated the necessity of getting into action now. The ’sleeping giant’ of the American masses must awaken now! (See the action list below). He also failed to mention in this clip that this IS Agenda 21 Sustainable Development being imposed in real time.

Secondly, he blames the proposed Communist One World Government upon those who “piled over the Berlin Wall”, when, in fact, the culpability lies squarely in the lap of the usual suspects- the bankers: this is a UN inspired treaty and the global warming lies are based on the UN’s IPCC corrupt science (remember that the Rockefellers fund and design most UN programs). Also, the Rothschilds have set up a carbon credit banking scheme (2). Follow the money.

Lastly, Lord Monckton unfortunately mistated that treaties supersede the Constitution and that once Obama signs this treaty, there is no recourse against the treaty other than agreement in partisan between all 50 states. This is not true, as the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Article IV, paragraph 2, reads as follows:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

The Supremacy Clause has been misinterpreted and twisted to mean that treaties supersede the Constitution. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has a hand in accrediting schools; it’s now wonder that many “well educated” attorneys misinterpret the Constitution (3). It is also interesting to note that the Rockefellers have debased American education and history as outlined in G. Edward Griffin’s shocking interview with the late Senator, Norman Dodd: http://www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html .

As a result, the Supremacy Clause is misunderstood and has yet to be clearly defined, though many have tried to get a Supreme Court decision on this matter. Constitutional expert, former Sheriff Richard Mack is emphatic that treaties are subservient to the Constitution, and that many lawyers are misinformed.

Watch his short video explaining the Supremacy Clause:

Further proof that the Constitution outranks treaties can be extrapolated from the Supreme Court decision Reid v Covert, which states, “This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty”, although the ruling was applied to an executive agreement, not a treaty.

Knowledge about the global warming scam and our Constitution are the way out of this trap that has been set for us. It will be much easier to stop this treaty based on lies now, rather than later. The future is in your hands; it’s time to stand up for our country by doing the following:

1. E-mail Sheriff Mack’s video and this article to your family and friends.

2. Then e-mail the same to your National and State Legislators, including your Governor.

3. Share this information with everyone you know, especially attorneys.

4. Sign the petition to prevent Obama from signing away our country:

www.globalwarmingscam.com

5. You can download great information for politicians about Agenda 21 Susutainable Development at this website: www.freedomadvocates.org

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change

2. http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=90090

3. http://www.chea.org/international/OECD_JEPaper_0803.pdf

(check out the bottom of page 6)

 



Gore heckled at climate speech

Gore heckled at climate speech

Sun Sentinel
November 14, 2009

Former Vice President Al Gore’s global-warming speech Saturday night at Mizner Park drew about a thousand attendees, as well as more than 200 loud protesters.

Stationed outside the Mizner Park Amphitheater, the protesters jeered at Gore as he took the podium and at those walking into the open-air venue to listen to the speech.

“This is the most dangerous crisis we’ve ever faced,” Gore said of climate change. He spoke over a chorus of boos from protesters, who were monitored by at least a dozen uniformed city police officers.

Many of the protesters were with the groups Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow and South Florida Tea Party, the latter of which feels that Gore’s views will eventually lead to increased taxes and flawed business legislation.

The protesters carried drums, bullhorns and posters. One read “Practice what you preach,” accusing Gore of not living a green lifestyle. Another poster read “The masses follow the asses,” depicting the protesters’ opinion that Gore’s message is not backed by scientific evidence.

Gore, meanwhile, in his presentation laid out data that he said was compiled by the world’s leading scientists and supports the theory of global warming. The speech carried much of the same content and rhythm as Gore’s Oscar-winning 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, which turned him into a leading international voice on the issue of climate change.

Gore’s latest book on the subject, titled Our Choice, was published earlier this month.