Climategate: Oops We Got Caught

Well guess they’ll have to call in Al Gore for help here as well.

One of the most striking revelations to immediately emerge from the “climategate” scandal has been references to efforts by scientists espousing the human-caused warming theory to exclude contrary viewpoints from important scientific publications.

Among the thousands of emails and documents hacked or leaked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University last week are several references to an agenda to shut down scientific debate on global warming by stifling counter-evidence from other scientists.

Dating back to 1996, the emails show that both U.S. and U.K. based scientists referred to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation”,“misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain.

The emails include deliberations amongst the scientists regarding efforts to make sure that reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change include their own research and exclude that of dissenting scientists.

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

This is a startling quote, given that Jones and Mann as climate scientists have the authority to review papers and determine whether they are eligible to be published by scientific journals.

Mann even discussed how to destroy a journal that had published papers with contrary views, telling his colleagues that he believed it had been “hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board” who had “staged a coup”.

“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Mann wrote.

In another of the emails, Tom Wigley, climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), says that the journal in question, Climate Research, “encourages the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’”.

Other emails show that some of the scientists declined to make their data available to independent scientists whose views they disagreed with, clear evidence that they were simply unwilling to engage in scientific debate – a core ethic of the scientific community.

Renowned climate scientist Dr Tim Ball sums up the stunning gravitas of the leaks with regards to the process of peer-reviewing and the publication of papers on climate change in journals.

“What you’ve got here is confirmation of the small group of scientists who, by the way, Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey stick, he identified 42 people who were publishing together and also peer-reviewing each other’s literature.” Dr Ball explains.

“So there’s a classic example of the kind of thing that bothered me. About twenty years ago, I started saying ‘Well why are they pushing the peer review?’… And now of course we realise it’s because they had control of their own process. That’s clearly exposed in these emails.”

“On a global scale it’s frightening because this group of people not only control the Hadley Centre, which controls the data on global temperature through the Hadley Climate Research Unit but they also control the IPCC and they’ve manipulated that. And of course the IPCC has become the basis in all governments for the Kyoto protocol, the Copenhagen accord and so on….”

We have long covered the fact that the so called “scientific consensus” on global warming is wholly manufactured and that there are thousands of scientists who have differing viewpoints to the human-induced warming theorists.

We now have clear evidence that a concerted effort has been made by the IPCC connected climate scientists to block dissenting opinion on climate change, regardless of it’s scientific merit.

“This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is directly threatened with physical violence in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include dissenting viewpoints, said, “It’s disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested.”

InfoWars.com

 

Obama Will Surrender America To World Government

To think a few years ago one was labelled crazy when one spoke about this. Now I see it all coming into play right before our eyes. Obama has to obey the globalists or suffer the consequences.

“Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a New World Order – can emerge. . . Now, we can see a New World Order coming into view. A world in which there is a very real prospect for a New World Order. . .A world where the United Nations, freed from a Cold War stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders.” -George H.W. Bush

The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, warned the American people to stop Obama from signing a ‘global climate treaty’ at the climate change conference in Copenhagen in December that will ultimately surrender U.S. sovereignty to a World Government under the guise of helping the environment.

(Before you listen to this video I want you to know that…. Lord Christopher Monckton does make one statement that isn’t true. He said this treaty if signed will super-cede the US Constitution. That is not true…..treaties don’t super-cede the Constitution….nothing does that. Treaties become supreme law of the land according to the  Constitution like any other bill would, but that doesn’t mean they’re above the Constitution. Treaties we sign still have to abide by the Constitution, they can’t violate it or they’ll be like any other law……..unConstitutional.)

With every passing day it becomes more evident that Obama is nothing more than a globalist, it is obvious from health care reform that he doesn’t care about the middle class, he is in the pocket of the internationalist elite like Kissinger and the rest of the global elite that wish to establish a World Government Dictatorship under the auspices of the United Nations.

If this international climate change treaty passes, Americans will have no choice but to pay a global climate tax that will be paid directly to the United Nations, at first the tax will be introduced to the public gradually such as a barely noticeable tax at the gas pump, which will later be increased once it has been officially established.

The Bilderberg Group has discussed this new global tax this year among many other things like creating a fast-but-painful depression to better establish a New World Order. The IMF, a United Nations entity has already declared itself the global central bank that will set regulations and issue a global currency to the nations. People like George Soros, IMF and the World Bank are betting against the dollar and with the help of the Federal Reserve will topple the dominance of the U.S. dollar in the world market to destroy the U.S. economy and force the global dictatorship on the western hemisphere.

We are beginning to see the emergence of a New World Order this year, with talks of a new global currency, a global climate tax, a global police force with access to a worldwide database of DNA, biometric and fingerprint records, an international gun-control treaty, an international criminal court treaty, the internet moving towards world government it’s crystal clear what is about to happen in this country. ( Unless like I was talking to Cashu earlier this week, if the American people will stand up to this and at least slow it down or maybe stop it over here. Like in the Tea Parties standing up and demanding some of this stuff stop and let Congress know we mean business.)

NoWorldSystem.com

Arizona Looks to Outlaw Global Warming Legislation

Maybe more states will start doing this to put brakes on our out of control federal government. Another states rights and sovereignty issue under the 9th and 10th amendment. Sounds like a good idea.

Arizona may become the first state to ban costly legislation based on climate change theory.

One state looks to ensure its citizens do not have to pay for climate change efforts

Climate change is a controversial topic.  Some believe man is causing the world to warm.  Others point out that the Earth has undergone solar warming and cooling for millions of years and that current temperatures are well within historic levels.  A recent report challenging AGW theory showed significant support with 31,478 U.S. researchers and scientists, many of whom hold Ph.D’s, signing a statement that they believe that man has not played a part in the current warming trend.

Arizona is now close to becoming the first state to outlaw climate change legislation.  The state Senate voted Monday, 19-10 to approve a bill banning the Department of Environmental Quality from enacting or enforcing measures with language pertaining to climate change.  The bill is now awaiting House approval.

The bill will likely pass and be signed into law thanks to a switch in power.  Formerly, Janet Napolitano (D) was governor of the state, but she left to join Barack Obama’s Cabinet.  Napolitano was replaced by Jan Brewer (R), who has not indicated a strong desire to support AGW theorists.

If Senate Bill 1147 passes it will block rules passed by the DEQ that set harsher emission standards.  The proposed increases were hastily pushed through by the former governor, despite complaints from industry leaders.  It would also end work on “cap and trade” carbon legislation, which has been opposed by the utility industry.  Such a scheme could help to raise power prices for the state’s citizens significantly.

A passage could also give the state means to challenge the federal government in court over the proposed Waxman-Markey bill, which would put over $1,600 in yearly costs on American citizens to cut carbon emissions.  The legislation, which has also received criticism for potentially hurting farmers, is currently making its way through a Democrat controlled House and Senate, awaiting Barack Obama’s approval.

DailyTech.com

Bureaucrats Will Carry Out Mandatory Home Inspections Under Climate Bill

Well now we’re learning why 300 pages were added at 3 a.m. and the Congress wasn’t allowed time to read this bill. The climate bill  will legislate home inspections by government regulators who will demand to audit every aspect of your property under the threat of substantial and repeated fines if their visits are denied or their demands not satisfied. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma,  said that the “razor-thin vote in the House spells doom in the Senate.” Let’s hope he’s right.

H.R. 2454 is a 1400-page promise to audit every aspect of your home and life under the guise of creating jobs, clean energy and a sustainable world. However, before we get into the bill lets examine the way it’s been handled.

The secrecy of the bill and the speed of which the legislation is being railroaded is quite alarming. The last two times I’ve seen this was with the Patriot Act and TARP legislation.

Congressman Ron Paul told the Washington Times that no one was allowed to read the Patriot Act, and for that, we received one of the most anti-American legislations we’ve ever seen.

TARP had similar shenanigans, it was rushed through the house, no one could read it.

There are several problems with this bill, however I’ll only address the first two, as the third is self-explanatory;

1)  The bill makes the assumption that man-made climate change is undisputed and widely accepted as fact.

2)  The bill unleashes bureaucrats to audit and judge your lifestyle.

3)  The bill will drive the last remaining manufacturing jobs out of the country to unregulated countries.

Home Audit: A Look into the Future

The bill states every home owner will receive an energy audit. What is a home energy audit? It is an intrusive visit made by the bureaucrats at the Home Energy Team or a similar group.  They will examine and report the way you live your life directly to RESNET (Residential Energy Services Network)

. Light fixtures, socket types, spas, hot tubs, windows, appliances, walls and roofs will all be under review. Energy tests will be conducted throughout your house. At the end of the visit you will receive a report and a rating. The report will focus on the changes you need to make and the rating is called a HERS rating (Home Energy Rating System). RESNET will perform the audits through authorized contractors. RESNET has adopted the Mortgage Industry National Home Energy Rating Standards. The standards set the national procedures for home energy ratings.

According to RESNET, an audit consists of:

Comprehensive Home Energy Audit - A level of the RESNET Home Energy Audit process defined by this standard to include the evaluation, diagnosis and proposed treatment of an existing home. The Comprehensive Home Energy Audit may be based on a Home Performance Assessment (“Comprehensive Home Performance Energy Audit”) or Home Energy Rating (“Comprehensive HERS Audit”), in accordance with the criteria established by this Standard. A homeowner may elect to go through this process with or without a prior Home Energy Survey or Diagnostic Home Energy Survey.

Here is an in-depth breakdown of the audit:

704.1.2.3 The Home Energy Survey Professional shall request copies of utility bills or

written permission to obtain the energy use information from the utility company, and use

them to produce an estimate of generalized end-uses (base, heating, and cooling).

704.1.2.5. Minimum Procedures for an In-Home Energy Survey:

704.1.2.5.1.1 R-values of wall/ceiling/floor insulation

704.1.2.5.1.2 Square footage and approximate age of home

704.1.2.5.1.3 Type of windows: glazing type(s) and frame material(s)

704.1.2.5.1.4 Type, model number, and location of heating/cooling system(s)

704.1.2.5.1.5 Type of ductwork, location and R-value of duct insulation, and any

indications of previous duct sealing

704.1.2.5.1.6 Type of foundation is crawl, basement, or slab

704.1.2.5.1.7 Checklist of common air-leakage sites indicating likely opportunities for leakage reduction

704.1.2.5.1.8 Estimated age and efficiency of major appliances such as

dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, washing machines and dryers

704.1.2.5.1.9 Number and type of hardwired light fixtures and screw-in bulbs in portable lamps suitable for energy efficient re-lamping

704.1.2.5.1.10 Visual indications of condensation

704.1.2.5.1.11 Presence and location of exhaust fans, and determination of whether they are vented outdoors

704.1.2.5.1.12 Number and type of water fixtures (e.g. faucets, showerheads)

704.1.2.5.1.13 Presence and type(s) of combustion equipment; identification of visually identifiable evidence of flame rollout, blocked chimney, and corroded or missing vent connector.

There is no doubt homes need to be more efficient, however, this audit will drain the pockets of the unlucky people whose houses are older and/or cheaply made due to builder irresponsibility. Let’s say your builder used cheap windows, very little insulation or a high-water toilet, the cost of those upgrades will be in the thousands of dollars. By making the recommended changes, you will receive a tax credit for improvements made under the energy star program.

Please note, most rebates are 30% of cost, maximum $1500. Good luck if your central air is deemed unacceptable.  After the upgrades are completed, you must have the auditors back out to your property for a final inspection. Early reports of denying audits carry a misdemeanor charge and a $2000 fine for each count.  The more you deny, the more you pay.

As mentioned before, we do need clean energy, less fossil fuel, more efficient homes and cars, but not this way.  Make no mistake, we do have real environmental crises; drugs in the water, cloning, species extinction, genocide and genetically modified food are all very real.  Let’s focus on those, before you focus on the kind of faucet I have in the bathroom. Recycle, walk, ride a bike from time-to-time, open your windows, tune-up your car and plant a garden, but please, stay out of my house!

Contact your Senator and tell them to vote this down or you’ll vote them out.

Examiner.com

Hey, not my burger!

Don’t think they’re going to continue to meddle in your lives all you closet libs?  Still think Democrat was the way to go.  Here’ s one from the Washington post.  Best hang on to your cheap bulbs.

White House announces new lighting standards
By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009 4:46 PM

 

WASHINGTON — Aiming to keep the focus on climate change legislation, President Barack Obama put a plug in for administration efforts to make lamps and lighting equipment use less energy.

“I know light bulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and businesses,” the president said, standing alongside Energy Secretary Steven Chu at the White House.

Obama said the new efficiency standards he was announcing for lamps would result in substantial savings between 2012 and 2042, saving consumers up to $4 billion annually, conserving enough energy to power every U.S. home for 10 months, reducing emissions equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars a year, and eliminating the need for as many as 14 coal-fired power plants.

The president also said he was speeding the delivery of $346 million in economic stimulus money to help improve energy efficiency in new and existing commercial buildings.

Republicans took issue with Obama’s pitch.

“Conservation is only half the equation. Even as we use less energy, we need to produce more of our own,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “We have to admit there’s a gap between the clean, renewable fuel we want and the reliable energy we need.”

The White House added the event to the president’s schedule at the last minute, just three days after the House narrowly approved the first energy legislation designed to curb global warming following furious lobbying by White House advisers and personal pressure by the president himself.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that in phone calls to reluctant Democrats in endangered districts, Obama “affirmed his commitment to support the policy position that they were taking in helping to explain to their constituents and to the American public the great benefit of this bill.”

The measure’s fate is less certain in the Senate, where Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to block a certain filibuster.

Still, in an interview with a small group of reporters, Obama energy adviser Carol Browner said: “I am confident that comprehensive energy legislation will pass the Senate.” But she repeatedly refused to say exactly when the White House expected the Senate to pass the measure, and she wouldn’t speculate on whether Obama would have legislation sent to his desk by year’s end.

The White House is working to keep energy in the spotlight even as Congress takes a break this week for the July 4 holiday. Obama has spent the past few days pressuring the Senate to follow the House while also seeking to show that the administration is making quick, clear progress on energy reform without legislation.

In February, the president directed the Energy Department to update its energy conservation standards for everyday household appliances such as dishwashers, lamps and microwave ovens. Laws on the books already required new efficiency standards for household and commercial appliances. But they have been backlogged in a tangle of missed deadlines, bureaucratic disputes and litigation.

The administration already had released new standards on commercial refrigeration. Lamps were next.

EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

“How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?” Is 32,000 enough?

The Petition reads:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

YOU CAN READ THE SUPPRESSED EMAILS  & COMMENTS HERE:

Global Warming Consensus Gone Up in Flames

The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.  Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward… and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency — and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. “It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else,” Carlin said. “That was obviously coming from higher levels.”

E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to “have any direct communication” with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.

“I was told for probably the first time in I don’t know how many years exactly what I was to work on,” said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. “And it was not to work on climate change.” One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.

Carlin’s report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there’s “little evidence” that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth’s temperature.

In the last few days, Republicans have begun to raise questions about the report and e-mail messages, but it was insufficient to derail the so-called cap and trade bill from being approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.

The revelations could prove embarrassing to Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said in January: “I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” Similarly, Mr. Obama claimed that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over… To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life.”

“All this talk from the president and (EPA administrator) Lisa Jackson about integrity, transparency, and increased EPA protection for whistleblowers — you’ve got a bouquet of ironies here,” said Kazman, the CEI attorney.

CBSNews.com/blogs

Callers against climate bill crash phone system

This was barely voted for 219-212……maybe it can be killed in the Senate. Don’t forget the Spanish Study Shows Green Jobs Could Lead To 11m More Lost US Jobs Just what we need more job losses.

A coordinated conservative push to kill a climate change bill took down the House of Representatives’ phone switchboard.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A coordinated conservative push to kill a climate change bill managed to at least take down the House of Representatives’ phone switchboard.

The volume of calls to House members Friday was so high that a spokesman for the House chief administrative officer told CNN Radio the system could not handle it.

“Phone traffic has increased to a level where some callers are receiving an ‘all circuits are busy now, please try back again later’ message,” communications director Jeff Ventura wrote in an e-mail response.

This came as conservative radio hosts and congressmen made direct pleas for voters to dial the Capitol and oppose a Democratic bill that would set strict limits on carbon emissions. Both sides believed the bill was within a few votes of passing or failing.

“Call your congressman, right now!” urged Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, from the House floor as the chamber seemed to near a vote.

Ventura said the bill was likely behind the phone-line crash. “The suspected cause … is believed to be interest and inquiries regarding the expected vote on the climate bill,” he wrote.

Busy signals blared from congressional offices beginning Friday morning. Traffic was especially jammed at key committees and in offices of potential swing voters, including Democrats from traditionally Republican states, like Texas.

“I can’t begin to tell you how many calls we’ve received,” said Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, D-Texas, “and it’s disproportionately vote ‘no.’” Gonzalez said calls were disproportionately “yes” during the committee process and he planned to support the bill.

Ventura said technical staff was working to try and resolve the issue late Friday.

CNN.com

Obama’s New New Global Warming Treaty Would Impose Stricter Rules on U.S. Than on China or Saudi Arabia

More fair and balanced treatment from our great United Nations.

In an interesting turn of events during the debate, Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) issued a warning saying, “we’re setting up a global warming Gestapo.”  The comment was made in reference to Section 201 of the act which establishes a national building code.  Under that code, the Secretary of Energy would have the power to assess civil penalties for buildings that do not meet the new code.

Scalise described a situation where a home that was destroyed by a natural disaster was rebuilt but with superior material than were dictated by the new national building code.  According to Scalise, the homeowner would be in violation of federal law, even if the material exceeded the federal standard.

Now living in your home is considered unlawful under this bill.
~ Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)

“The federal government can come in and inspect your house and send you the bill. And if they find that you’re out of compliance with this new federal code, ‘The Secretary shall assess a civil penalty for violations of this section,’” Scalise said. ”Now living in your home is considered unlawful under this bill. This is ludicrous.”

Taking his argument a step further, Scalise called into question the very constitutionality of the measure.  He reminded his fellow congressmen that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to states respectively or to the people.”

This bill comes in and basically says throw out the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
~ Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)

By creating its own enforcement measures and own building code that will usurp those which states have already established, the act stands to violate the Constitution.  Scalise said, “This bill comes in and basically says throw out the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the federal government’s gonna throw out your building code.”

ClimateChangeFraud.com

Obama Administration Proposes Text for New Global Warming Treaty That Would Impose Stricter Rules on U.S. Than on China or Saudi Arabia

UNFCC logo

(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. State Department has provided the United Nations with proposed text for a new global warming treaty that would require the United States to comply with stricter carbon emissions standards than most other countries in the world–including, for example, China and Saudi Arabia--and that anticipates that U.S. taxpayers will provide foreign aid to support efforts to control carbon emissions in developing nations.

The text, obtained by CNSNews.com, was submitted in early May to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is developing a new international global warming treaty that is expected to be finalized at an international conference to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December.

The treaty will reduce carbon emissions from the U.S. and other “developed” countries while allowing ”developing” countries–which include the world’s largest polluter, China, and oil-rich nations such as Saudi Arabia–to avoid equal restrictions.

Under the UNFCCC, only 40 of the world’s nations are considered developed countries, while the remainder are considered developing countries.  The “developing” countries include not only the Communist People’s Republic of  China and Saudi Arabia, but also other oil-rich states in the Persian Gulf, including the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Iran.  Oil-rich Venezuela is also considered a developing nation.

The proposed text reveals the administration’s intention to sign a treaty that will reduce U.S. carbon emissions while considering the “common but differentiated responsibilities” of “developing nations” where the cost and implementation of emission restrictions allegedly would limit development or harm “economies in transition.”

The draft says that the treaty should recognize “that the levels of ambition expected of Parties will necessarily evolve over time as their respective national circumstances and respective capabilities change.”

Specifically, developed countries are expected to meet higher standards than developing countries.

“With respect to developing country Parties whose national circumstances reflect greater responsibility or capability,” says the draft, “… Each such Party shall formulate and submit a low-carbon strategy for long-term net emissions reductions by 2050, consistent with the levels of ambition needed to contribute to meeting the objective of the Convention.”

Another set of developing countries will only need to achieve whatever standard is deemed “consistent with their capacity.”

The climate change conference in Copenhagen in December will build on the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which the Bush administration opposed because it would have allowed countries like China and India to continue polluting while legally binding the United States and other industrialized nations to strict emissions controls and reductions.

As CNSNews.com reported earlier, some of the countries named by the Union of Concerned Scientists as the Top 20 polluters in the world are considered “developing” by the UNFCCC, including China (No. 1), India, (No. 4), South Korea (No. 9), Mexico (No. 13) and Saudi Arabia (No. 14).

Read entire article at CNS News.com

US firms offshore 22,000 green jobs to India

Well this is no real surprise ……looks like  whatever Obama says, the opposite is the truth. Remember all those green jobs Obama was going to create? Well they’re being created alright, but not all in the US. A lot are going to India probably because they are cheaper as usual.I’ve nothing against developing countries, but why are they being developed by dismantling of ours? Remember this article: Spanish Study Shows Green Jobs Could Lead To 11m More Lost US Jobs

Barack Obama and his green guru, Van Jones, have a green-collar job plan that they believe will solve the two biggest crises of our time: 5 million new green-collar jobs will directly stimulate the economy and will contribute to a more sustainable future in the face of coming climate change. But the 2009 Green Outsourcing Report, an annual industry study conducted by Brown-Wilson Group, found that green technology jobs are being created faster in India than in the US since Obama took office.

The report, which was released two weeks ago, surveyed 4,000 businesses around the world, including Xerox, Accenture, IBM Global, CSC, Capgemini, Oracle, HP/ ED S, Aramark, SITEL and Perot. Doug Brown, co-author of the Green Outsourcing Report, told The New Indian Express, “We see the (green job offshoring) trend increasing. There are few suppliers who match credentials and outcomes of Indian firms.”

Soaring energy costs and regulatory pressure have put pressure on firms in the US and Europe to embrace green technologies. 84% of companies outsourcing green jobs are doing so because of skyrocketing energy costs, compared to 12% and 18% in the past few years, respectively. Most corporations seeking to outsource a service or product require impeccable green credentials in their suppliers before handing over work, the report says.

US corporations, focusing on survival strategies during the long-lasting recession, have offshored more than 22,000 new green-collar jobs to India alone. Firms seeking stabilized energy and labor costs while trying to convince consumers of their eco-friendly practices are more often turning to Indian green-collar workers than American ones, according to Brown-Wilson Group. Indian labor suppliers have become popular with American businesses over the last few years by aggressively investing in appropriate hardware, waste disposal, recycling, eco-friendly buildings and other green technologies.

Surprisingly, just a year ago, India was remarked to be among the world’s highest polluting nations and suffering from offshore aversion and reverse outsourcing.

Raw Story.com

And now, the new “PC” cleaned Global errrr Warming!

This just in from the New York Times!!!!

Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus

By JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON — The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”

The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.

Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely.

The research directly parallels marketing studies conducted by oil companies, utilities and coal mining concerns that are trying to “green” their images with consumers and sway public policy.

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”

“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.

Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.

Opponents of legislation to combat global warming are engaged in a similar effort. Trying to head off a cap-and-trade system, in which government would cap the amount of heat-trapping emissions allowed and let industry trade permits to emit those gases, they are coaching Republicans to refer to any such system as a giant tax that would kill jobs. Coal companies are taking out full-page advertisements promising “clean, green coal.” The natural gas industry refers to its product as “clean fuel green fuel.” Oil companies advertise their investments in alternative energy.

Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, said ecoAmerica’s campaign was a mirror image of what industry and political conservatives were doing. “The form is the same; the message is just flipped,” he said. “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. It’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.”

He said the approach was cynical and, worse, ineffective. “The right uses it, the left uses it, but it doesn’t engage people in a face-to-face manner,” he said, “and that’s the only way to achieve real, lasting social change.”

Frank Luntz, a Republican communications consultant, prepared a strikingly similar memorandum in 2002, telling his clients that they were losing the environmental debate and advising them to adjust their language. He suggested referring to themselves as “conservationists” rather than “environmentalists,” and emphasizing “common sense” over scientific argument.

And, Mr. Luntz and Mr. Perkowitz agree, “climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”