Global Warming or Ignorance Gone to Seed

Here’s a great article by Tom DeWeese on the fallacy  of Global Warming. I’m adding one more evidence not covered in this article… 31,000 scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda

OBAMA WANTS A CLIMATE CZAR..

By Tom DeWeese
December 8, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

…but Al Gore has no Consensus

Former Vice President Al Gore had quite a year. He produced an Oscar-winning film warning of the coming global warming Armageddon. The film and his activism led to a Nobel Prize. Flush from those victories, Gore “took the Hill,” as he testified before a hushed hearing room in his old Senate haunt, predicting more dire consequences if global warming isn’t stopped. All of that was followed by mass rallies across the nation, with energized college students; editorials and magazine covers, and even legislation in Congress to curtail the use of carbon fuels. Gore concluded his triumphant moment in the spotlight with a major address in Washington on July 17, 2008, in which he boldly laid out his plan for a “wrenching transformation” of society he deemed necessary for man to survive.

That was the highlight of his life and probably his last hurrah, because ever since, an inconvenient truth found in science is showing (as I’ve reported over and over on these pages) that global warming is not man-made. In addition, scientists are finding more global cooling than heating – and that too is not man-made. To add insult to injury for poor Al, the legislation in Congress was defeated with the help of 30% of Democrats. Now scientists around the world have begun to speak out against Gore’s zealotry. In short, Al has no scientific consensus.

In his dramatic road show, Gore warns, “The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes on our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis.” Of course, Gore has been warning of a “10 year tipping point” for several years.

In fact, the UN started to warn of a 10-year countdown in 1989. That’s when the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) warned that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend was not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos.

Twenty years later – and as Al continues to issue the same tired warning, there has been no chaos, no flooding and no eco-refugees. However, what has occurred is an outpouring of dissent against the theory of human caused global warming fears.

Here is just a sample of the headlines in the global warming story in 2008:

RUSSIAN SCIENTISTS CHALLENGE CLIMATE CHANGE CONSENSUS – Russian scientists ‘reject the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming’ – The Hindu – India’s National Newspaper: July 10, 2008:

‘Considerable presence’ of global warming skeptics exist, science group admits – July 16, 2008 – Australian Herald

India Issues Report Challenging Global Warming Fears – July 9, 2008

Team of 13 International Scientists Write Letter To UN Sec. Gen. – IPCC ‘Must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices’ – 14th of July, 2008)

Australian scientist reverses view on man-made warming! Now says ‘new evidence has seriously weakened’ the case – (By Mathematician, Rocket Scientist & Engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government) – July 18, 2008)

Nobel Prize Winner for Physics Declares Himself Dissenter ‘I am a skeptic’ – July 2, 2008

Top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Turns on IPCC. Calls Warming Fears: ‘Worst scientific scandal in the history’ – June 27, 2008 – By Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the Yokohama National University, also contributed to the 2007 UN IPCC AR4 (fourth assessment report) as an expert reviewer.)

New scientific paper shows CO2’s effect on temperature was overstated 500-2000% – Published in Physics and Society journal of the American Physical Society – July 2008)

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, presented ‘smoking gun’ analysis showing UN IPCC models–significantly overstated climate sensitivity to human climate forcings’ – June 17, 2008

Arctic ice INCREASES by nearly a half million square miles over this time last year – July 18, 2008

New Study Exposes UN IPCC as ‘single-interest organization’ with echo chamber process – July 15, 2008 – By Climate data analyst John McLean

Atmospheric Physicist James Peden Dissents from man-made CO2 Fears – ‘The so-called Greenhouse Effect is a Myth’ – Peden is formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere.)

South African Scientist: ‘There is no evidence man-made CO2 causes climate change’ – By Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation.

Climatologist dismisses extreme weather predictions due to man-made warming as ‘complete nonsense’ – Climatologist Stewart Franks

Another Scientist Smacks Down Fear Mongers: Midwest Floods and ‘Completely Unjustified’ Climate Change Fear Mongering – June 22, 2008 – By Mike Smith is a certified consulting meteorologist and a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society He is CEO of WeatherData Services, Inc., an AccuWeather Company, based in Wichita.

Advertisement

Another scientist Dissents: MIT’s Rose: Cooler heads needed in global warming debate (By Robert Rose is a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific disciplines at the graduate and undergraduate levels)

Veteran UN Climate Scientist Resigns Science Group in Protest: “AN ORCHESTRATED LITANY OF LIES” By UN IPCC Chemist Dr. Vincent Gray

Prominent scientist refutes his own theory, finds warming does not increase hurricanes – July 15, 2008 – Dr. Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric science

Another prominent hurricane expert reconsiders view: New study says global warming not worsening hurricanes – May 19, 2008 – By Meteorologist Tom Knutson of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J.

Arctic ice has actually increased by nearly a half million square miles over this time last year – July 18, 2008

Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way

UK Scientist Calls Man-Made Warming Fears ‘Dangerous Nonsense of the Age’ – July 17, 2008 – By Biogeography Professor Philip Stott, emeritus of the University of London

Oceans Cooling! Scientists puzzled by “mystery of global warming’s missing heat” – Marc 19, 2008

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, found not one peer-reviewed paper has ‘ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth’ – March 20, 2008

UN IPCC in ‘Panic Mode’ as Earth Fails to Warm, Scientist says – March 25, 2008

Scientists find dust free atmosphere may be responsible for up to .36 F rise in global temps – March 3, 2008

Analysis in peer-reviewed journal finds cold periods – not warm periods – see increase in floods, droughts, storms, famine – April 24, 2008

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.”

An International team of scientists released a March 2008 report to counter UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”

Emitting MORE CO2 may ‘be good for life on Earth’, says climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA in May 2008.

New Report finds global sea ice GROWING: ‘World sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were ‘unprecedented’ for the month of April in over 25 years.’

Former Colorado State Climatologist Pielke Sr. Rails Against ‘Abuse of the scientific method’ in global warming study

Swedish scientists: ‘No concrete global warming proof in polar region’ – June 21, 2008

Study: ‘Absolutely no evidence of warming for all of Antarctica’ – July 1, 2008 – Study conducted by Vesa Laine of the Finnish Meteorological Institute in Helsinki; the work was funded by the Academy of Finland and the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation

Flashback: ‘Global Warming Will Stop,’ New Peer-Reviewed Study Says – Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years?

Cooling Underway: Global Temperature Continues to Drop in May – ‘Significantly Colder’ – 16-month temperature drop of -0.774°C!

Alaska sees ‘longest stretch of no-nineties in the Alaska climate record, since 1904’ – June 25, 2008 – By Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Peru declares state of emergency due to record-breaking cold spell – 61 children die – June 19, 2008

Meteorologist says Man-Made Global Warming Movement ‘Rapidly Running Out of Gas’ – In past year (By Meteorologist James Spann) – June 17, 2008

And yet, Al Gore and his legions continue to pass global warming off as the greatest threat ever to man’s survival. Not only have they called for “Nuremburg-type trials to silence skeptics – but even for civil disobedience “to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration.”

Why does he continue the campaign in light of so much proof to the contrary? Why does new President Barack Obama want to create a cabinet position for a “Climate Czar” even though there is so much proof that man-made global warming is little more than a hoax? Because the issue is not, and never has been about saving the planet. It is about enforcing a new economic “ecologarchy” that seeks to control our every action from the top. We used to call it socialism, now we call it going green.

© 2008 Tom DeWeese – All Rights Reserved

Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy Center and Editor of The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia.
(540) 341-8911

E-Mail: ampolicycenter@hotmail.com

Website: www.americanpolicy.org

Constitutional Crisis with Obama,McCain,Bush and Others

Selective Constitutionalism by Chuck Baldwin December 9, 2008 Many conservatives are up in arms regarding the charge that President-elect Barack Obama may not have been born in the United States and is, therefore, not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States. Article. II. Section. 1. of the U.S. Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” Some accuse Mr. Obama of not being born in the State of Hawaii as claimed, but in Kenya, Africa. Several people have filed various lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama’s U.S. citizenship. Historically, “natural born Citizen” has always been understood to mean someone born in the United States of America. If Barack Obama was not born in the United States, he is absolutely unqualified to be President. Hawaii’s secretary of state says Obama was indeed born in that state. However, to date, Obama’s actual birth certificate has not been publicly released, which only serves to add fuel to the accusations that he was not born in Hawaii. Many conservatives seem to be obsessed with this controversy, calling it a “constitutional crisis.” The fact is, however, we have been in a “constitutional crisis” for years! The problem is, most conservatives only get worked up over a potential abridgement of constitutional government when it serves their partisan political purposes. In other words, when a Democrat appears guilty of constitutional conflict, conservatives “go ballistic,” but when Republicans are equally culpable of constitutional conflict, they yawn with utter indifference. For example, the one man who has the notoriety and political clout to actually bring about some meaningful investigation and resolution to the Obama citizenship brouhaha is none other than Senator John McCain. After all, he was Obama’s principal opponent in the race for the White House. Plus, as the standard-bearer for the only other major political party, he has the attention of the national media, as well as the national legislative and judicial branches of government. So, why is John McCain not at all interested in the Obama citizenship issue? Perhaps one reason that John McCain is so uninterested in where Barack Obama was born is because he, John McCain, was not born in the United States. He was born in the country of Panama. So, let me ask readers a question: Does anyone believe if John McCain had been elected President instead of Barack Obama that any notable conservative would have been distressed about a “constitutional crisis”? Get real! Yes, I know McCain was born to a naval officer serving in Panama at the time. That fact changes nothing. John McCain was still born in a foreign country, and under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is not qualified to be President of the United States. Even our current State Department policy (7 FAM 1100) reads: “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.” Does anyone not remember the controversy surrounding the potential Presidential campaign of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? Born in Austria, Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen of the United States and is now Governor of California. However, since Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen, but not a natural born citizen, he is considered unqualified to run for President. But, again, most conservatives care little about the Constitution’s requirement that a President be a “natural born Citizen.” Like liberals, most conservatives are afflicted with a very debilitating disease that I call Selective Constitutionalism. They only want to apply constitutional government when it helps Republicans or hurts Democrats. Most of them really could not care less about adherence to the Constitution. If they did, they would have been up in arms for the last eight years as President George W. Bush repeatedly ignored–and even trampled–the U.S. Constitution. (I’ll add a big AMEN ! to that !!) Where were these “constitutional” conservatives when George W. Bush was assuming dictatorial-style powers and contravening Fourth Amendment prohibitions against warrantless searches and seizures? Where were they when Bush was ordering our emails, letters, and phone calls to be intercepted by federal police agencies without court oversight? Where were they when Bush was obliterating the Fifth and Eighth Amendments? Where were they when Bush overturned Posse Comitatus by Executive Order? Where were they when Bush dismantled the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus? Where were they when Bush lied to the American people about the invasion of Iraq and took the United States to war without a Declaration of War from Congress? Where were conservatives when Bush turned nine U.S. military installations over to the United Arab Emirates? Where were they when Bush ordered his Department of Transportation to open up America’s airlines to foreign ownership? Where were they when President Bush nullified (using “signing statements”) over 1,100 statutes he did not like? Mike says,(Unlike vetoes, signing statements are not part of the legislative process as set forth in the Constitution, and have no legal effect. A signed law is still a law regardless of what the President says in an accompanying signing statement.) Where were they as President Bush and his fellow Republicans reauthorized one of the most egregiously unconstitutional pieces of legislation in modern memory: the USA Patriot Act? Where were they when Bush signed the blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold Act? I could go on and on. Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has been just as culpable in violating constitutional government as the Democrat Party has–maybe more so! If the Republican and Democrat parties had any allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama would have been chosen as their respective Presidential nominees. While we are on the subject, if anyone cared about constitutional government, Hillary Clinton (or any other U.S. Senator or House Member) would obviously be determined as ineligible to be given any appointment in the Obama administration under Article. I. Section. 6. of the U.S. Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution prohibits House or Senate members taking Presidential posts if the salary of the job they would take was raised while they were in Congress. However, several past Presidents have skirted this constitutional prohibition (including Presidents Taft, Nixon, and Carter) by lowering the salary of the job back to what it was so the nominee could accept the job without receiving the pay increase that was approved while the appointee was in Congress. In fact, this sleight of hand actually has a political name. It is called “the Saxbe fix,” after Nixon’s appointment of Senator William Saxbe to be attorney general. Do we have a “constitutional crisis”? You bet we do; but it is not limited to Barack Obama or the Democrat Party. The real constitutional crisis is the manner in which the American people have, for years, allowed civil magistrates from both major parties to routinely violate their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. God help us! © Chuck Baldwin Read this great article @ Chuck Baldwin Live.com

Gee, Where Have You Been?

How many years have we been fighting in the trenches telling everyone that our government was moving us toward a new world order?  How many ways can you say Free Trade, NAFTA, CAFTA, EU, AU, etc., etc., et al?  I caught this article in the Financial Times today:

Steve

And now for a world government

By Gideon Rachman

Published: December 8 2008 19:13 | Last updated: December 8 2008 19:13

  

I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.