“CLIMATE CHANGE” TREATY: The Supreme Law Of The Land? Or Lawless Usurpation?

Comments Off on “CLIMATE CHANGE” TREATY: The Supreme Law Of The Land? Or Lawless Usurpation?

Another great article from my friend Publius Huldah…a retired Constitutional lawyer from the great State of Tennessee.

A Defense of the U.S. Constitution From Its Domestic Enemies.

by Publius Huldah

If President Obama signs a “global warming” treaty at the United Nations’ “Climate Change” Conference in Copenhagen this December; and if the U.S. Senate ratifies it, will it become part of the supreme Law of  the Land?

We hear it said that whenever the President signs, and the Senate ratifies, a Treaty, it becomes part of “the supreme law of the land”.  But is that True?  Not necessarily!  Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.

Continue reading

Dick “Turban” Durbin on Tornadoes and Hybrids…

Comments Off on Dick “Turban” Durbin on Tornadoes and Hybrids…

Senator Dick Durban needs to go back to Illinois and retire. He’s losing it. Don’t believe me? (Don’t look for the science to back it, he didn’t need it since he’s the authority I guess…)

Durbin Says We Must Buy Hybrid Cars Because Of Tornadoes: “It’s Your Money Or Your Life”

Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.

“It’s your money or your life,” he said a press conference. “We are either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet and accept the initial investment necessary or we’re going to pay a heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs associated with it.”

You can hear him say it yourself, the video is at Real Clear Politics….http://bit.ly/If8A5a

FLASHBACK: Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud

Comments Off on FLASHBACK: Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud

EPA declares hay a pollutant in effort to drive small, mid-sized family cattle ranchers out of business

Comments Off on EPA declares hay a pollutant in effort to drive small, mid-sized family cattle ranchers out of business

You just couldn’t make this stuff up….No, this is not a joke….wish it was………

The assault against American industry and individual livelihood continues — and no, it is not coming from Al-Qaeda or other foreign terrorists. A recent report from R-CALF USA, an advocacy group for American cattle producers, says the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared harmless cattle hay a “pollutant,” which is part of the agency’s agenda to squelch family-scale cattle ranches in favor of corporately-owned, mega-sized feedlot operations.

At the recent 12th Annual R-CALF USA Convention in Rapid City, SD, an audience member asked Mike Callicrate, a Kansas cattle feeder, if the EPA had, indeed, declared hay a pollutant. His affirmative answer was startling to many, but not necessarily surprising in light of the US government’s apparent agenda to destroy every single producing sector in the nation and to reduce the country to a poverty-stricken, corporately-dominated wasteland.
Hay Bales

“Now that EPA has declared hay a pollutant, every farmer and rancher that stores hay, or that leaves a broken hay bale in the field, is potentially violating EPA rules and subject to an EPA enforcement action,” responded Callicrate. “How far are we going to let this agency go before we stand up and do something about it?”

“EPA is turning a blind eye toward the mega-feedlots that are a real risk for pollution and, instead, is antagonizing small to mid-sized family operations in an effort to help their packer-partners capture the entire live cattle supply chain away from family farm and ranch operations.”

Sources for this story include:

http://r-calfusa.com/news_releases/…

Read more @ Natural News

Yeah, the Heat is caused by Global Warming….NOT!

Comments Off on Yeah, the Heat is caused by Global Warming….NOT!

Well, bet you won’t hear a lot of water cooler talk about this one…but if there was a good movie plot for the disaster movies on the scify channel, it would be. How many congressional hearings will get generated on this one??? Where’s the material for the Goracles next novel? Somebody needs to issue a recall on that Emmy!!!

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

ForbesBy James Taylor | Forbes – Wed, Jul 27, 2011

  • New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

    New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is “not much”). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

Can geoengineering put the freeze on global warming?

2 Comments

Global Warming? Pleeeze ….it’s been admitted several times there is no such thing as Global Warming, even by the IPPC people at the UN in a big uproar at the end of 2009.

As you read this article see if you remember this from the article referred to above:

Global warming alarmists are scrambling to save face after hackers stole hundreds of incriminating e-mails from a British university and published them on the Internet. 

The messages were pirated from the Climatic Research Unit
(CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and reveal correspondence
between British and American researchers engaged in fraudulent reporting
of data to favor their own climate change agenda. UEA officials
confirmed one of their servers was hacked, and several of the scientists
involved admitted the authenticity of the messages, according to the New York Times.
The article opined, “The evidence pointing to a growing human
contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked
material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.”

Climatologist
Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. “This is not a smoking
gun, this is a mushroom cloud.” The e-mails implicate scores of
researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe
was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global
warming (AGW).

Can geoengineering put the freeze on global warming?

Scientists call it “geoengineering,” but in plain speak, it means things
like this: blasting tons of sulfate particles into the sky to reflect
sunlight away from Earth; filling the ocean with iron filings to grow plankton that will suck up carbon; even dimming sunlight with space shades.

Each brings its own set of risks, but in a world
fretting about the consequences of global warming, are these ideas whose
time has come?

 

With 2010 tying as the world’s warmest year on
record and efforts to slow greenhouse gas emissions looking stymied,
calls are rising for research into engineering our way out of global
warming — everything from launching solar shade spacecraft to
genetically engineering green deserts. An international consortium of 12
universities and research institutes on Tuesday, for example, announced
plans to pioneer large-scale “ocean fertilization” experiments aimed at
using the sea to pull more greenhouse gases out of the sky.

 

Once the domain of scientists’ off-hours schemes
scrawled on cocktail napkins, such geoengineering is getting a serious
look in the political realm.

 

“We’re moving into a different kind of world,” says environmental economist Scott Barrett of Columbia University. “Better we turn to asking if ‘geoengineering’ could work, than waiting until it becomes a necessity.”

 

A National Academy of Sciences
best estimate has global warming bumping up average temperatures by 3
to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Meanwhile, greenhouse
gas emissions that are largely responsible, most from burning the
modern economy’s main fuels, coal and oil, look set to continue to rise
for the next quarter-century, according to Energy Information Agency
estimates.

 

“That’s where geoengineering comes in,” says
international relations expert David Victor of the University of
California-San Diego. “Research into geoengineering creates another
option for the public.”

No longer eyed askance

 

“Geoengineering is no longer a taboo topic at
scientific meetings. They are looking at it as one more policy
prescription,” says Science magazine reporter Eli Kintisch, author of Hack the Planet: Science’s Best Hope — Or Worst Nightmare — For Averting Climate Catastrophe. “But it is yet to become a household word.”

 

That may be changing, as the terms of debate
about geoengineering become clear. On the pro-research side, this
October the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology called for
more research into geoengineering, “to better understand which
technologies or methods, if any, represent viable stopgap strategies for
managing our changing climate and which pose unacceptable risks.” On
the more cautious side, a United Nations Environment Programme species
conservation meeting in Nagoya, Japan, ended that same month with a call
for, “no climate-related geoengineering activities,” without
environmental and scientific review.

What are the actual geoengineering proposals?

Ocean fertilization. Dumping iron filings
into the ocean to spur phytoplankton blooms is the saltwater version of
forestation. The increased mass of the plankton’s cells would swell
with carbon pulled from the air. On the downside, it may kill fish,
belch out other greenhouse gases such as methane, and hasn’t worked very
well in small trials.

 

Forestation. Intense planting of trees
and reclaiming deserts with hardier plants is one of the ideas endorsed
at the recent Cancun, Mexico, climate meeting, where representatives of
192 nations made some progress on an international climate agreement.
More fantastic versions, endorsed by Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson,
would rely on genetic engineering to produce trees that act as natural
carbon scrubbers, their trunks swollen with carbon pulled from the air.

 

Cloud engineering. Painting rooftops
white, genetically engineering crops to have shinier surfaces, and
floating blocks of white Styrofoam in the oceans are all proposals to
mimic the effects of clouds, whose white surfaces reflect sunlight.
Pumping sea salt into the sky from thousands of “spray ships” could
increase clouds themselves. Cost-effectiveness aside, such cloud-seeding
might end up dumping rain on the ocean or already soggy regions,
instead of where it’s needed.

 

Pinatubo a-go-go. As mentioned above, sulfur aerosols could be fired into the sky by cannons, released by balloons or dropped from planes.

 

Space mirrors. Hundreds of thousands of
thin reflective yard-long disks fired into a gravitational balance point
between the sun and Earth could dim sunlight. Cost aside, rocket
failures or collisions might lead to a tremendous orbital debris cloud
circling the Earth. And a recent Geophysical Research Letters space
tourism report suggests the rocket fuel burned to launch the needed
number of shades would dump enough black soot — which absorbs sunlight
and heats the atmosphere — to increase average global temperatures about
1.4 degrees.

 

“Most of the technologies are not yet proven and
are at the theoretical or research phase,” an August Congressional
Research Service report noted.

Entire article at USA Today

Senators unveil anti-WikiLeaks bill

Comments Off on Senators unveil anti-WikiLeaks bill

No matter how distasteful this Wikileaks thing is to many and how much this sounds like a good idea, you must remember;

1st Amendment ~ Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of The Press. These timeless rights are far more important than any temporary problem. If a bill like this is passed, it is unconstitutional. If the government wants to prosecute someone for the leaks, it should not be the press, because of the 1st amendment, but it should be the person that is giving the info to Wikileaks.

If you want to change the 1st amendment, you have to write a new amendment ratified by 3/4 of the States.

Senators unveil anti-WikiLeaks bill

Sens. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) introduced a bill Thursday aimed at stopping WikiLeaks by making it illegal to publish the names of military or intelligence community informants.(So, it’ll be illegal for Wikileaks publish names of the intelligence community. But if the administration outs a Valerie Plame, well that’s OK. No, putting exceptions on the 1st amendment is a bad idea and unconstitutional.)

Ensign accused WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and his “cronies” of hindering America’s war efforts and creating a “hit list” for U.S. enemies by outing intelligence sources.

“Our sources are bravely risking their lives when they stand up against the tyranny of al Qaeda, the Taliban and murderous regimes, and I simply will not stand idly by as they become death targets because of Julian Assange,” Ensign said. “Let me be very clear, WikiLeaks is not a whistleblower website and Assange is not a journalist.”

Assange has been under fire in recent weeks thanks to his site’s dissemination of thousands of classified diplomatic cables, some of which have proved embarrassing to the Obama administration because of their frank tone. Attorney General Eric Holder recently pledged to close gaps in the law that allow sites like WikiLeaks to continue to operate.

The Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination Act (SHIELD) would give the government the flexibility to pursue Assange for allegedly outing confidential U.S. informants. Brown said the law would prevent anyone from compromising national security in a similar manner, while Lieberman said its passage was essential to restore the international diplomatic community’s faith in the U.S.

“Our foreign representatives, allies and intelligence sources must have the clear assurance that their lives will not be endangered by those with opposing agendas, whether they are Americans or not, and our government must make it clear that revealing the identities of these individuals will not be tolerated,” Lieberman said.

Earlier this week, Lieberman reportedly convinced Amazon.com to stop hosting WikiLeaks, forcing the website to relocate to Switzerland.

Amazon denied government pressure influenced the decision, which they attributed to WikiLeaks’s violating the company’s terms of service and putting innocent lives at risk.

“It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content,” Amazon said in a statement. “Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy.”

WikiLeaks responded on Twitter by calling Amazon cowardly and dishonest.

“Amazon’s press release does not accord with the facts on public record. It is one thing to be cowardly. Another to lie about it.”

Assange is also currently facing a warrant in Sweden concerning accusations of sexual assault of two young women. Assange has said the encounters were consensual and has called the investigation an international plot to stop WikiLeaks.

A well-known recluse, Assange has gone underground, only resurfacing to conduct remote interviews with the press.

The Hill

Older Entries