Browner, Socialist Or EPA Czar

“The president’s climate czar, former EPA administrator Carol Browner, said she’s sticking with scientists who believe in man’s impact on global warming. And the White House is also shrugging off the e-mails.“

Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and cozy inside? Whatever would we do without all these people in D.C. making these life changing decisions for us based on theories instead of facts? Me? I was always taught to make my decisions based on fact. Silly me!

What kind of drugs are these people on?! I want some. Seriously…if it can make you forget that the whole climate thing is just a scare tactic so you’ll give up your freedom and you don’t care…it must be good!

And Carol Browner is a real winner! She’s the one who was pushing for the sale of port management businesses in six major U.S. seaports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) back in 2006.

According to the website of P&O Ports, the port-operations subsidiary of P&O, DPW would have taken over stevedore services at 12 East Coast ports including Portland, Maine; Boston, Massachusetts; Davisville, Rhode Island; New York City; Newark, New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Camden, New Jersey; Wilmington, Delaware; Baltimore, Maryland; and Virginia locations at Newport News, Norfolk, and Portsmouth.

Additionally, DPW would have taken over P&O stevedoring operations at nine ports along the Gulf of Mexico including the Texas ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur, Galveston, Houston, Freeport, and Corpus Christi, plus the Louisiana ports of Lake Charles and New Orleans.

Thank God we caught that in time! Real smart for Homeland Security, huh. Browner is also a founding member of the Albright Group, a “global strategy group” headed by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. As a Principal in that firm, Browner assists businesses and other organizations with the challenges of operating internationally, including the challenges of complying with environmental regulations and climate change. Coca-Cola and Merck have been among the clients for such international assistance.

No conflict of interest here…no sireee! Even though Browner joined the board of the National Audubon Society in 2001 and became chair in 2003; her term expired in 2008. She also joined the board of the Alliance for Climate Protection, an organization founded by Gore in 2006. In 2008 she joined the board of APX, Inc., which specializes in technology infrastructure for the environmental commodities markets, including those for carbon offsets and the CDM Gold Standard. She was also on the boards of the Center for American Progress, the Alliance for Climate Protection, and the League of Conservation Voters. She left all of these boards in late 2008 when she was named to serve in the Obama administration. Until summer 2008 she was a member of Socialist International’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, although the commission’s web site still had her listed as a member in January 2009.

Do you think she might have an agenda here? She seems to be terribly fixed on socialism and global economies. I thought she was worried about global warming! So, as you can see, at the very least her motives are questionable! And since the White House seems to agree with her then their motives must be questioned, too!

Our Senile Uncle

Safeguarding Our Heritage

by Andrea Shea King

At the Thanksgiving dinner table we sat back, sated with turkey and all the fixins’. And as is our custom, we began reminiscing of times gone by, family members who have passed on, and others we’ve not seen for a time.

The discussion around the dinner table this year was no different. Over coffee and pie, we talked of old times, fond memories, laughter, wistfulness, future prospects, and hope mingled with thanks for our blessings, past, present and future.

The conversation turned to news of an elderly relative, a self-made man whose manner and behavior had changed markedly over the past few years. Now well into his years, this man had always been a rugged sort, a man of the earth who made a living by the sweat of his brow and the brawn of his muscle, tending his large farm and considerable holdings. His thriftiness is legendary among relatives and friends who joke that he still has his first dollar. He worked long hours from sun-up to sundown, so his financial conservatism was understandable and in many ways laudable.

He remains on the farm and today still maintains his independence, managing his land as well as the fruit of his lifelong labors — a sizeable portfolio accrued from decades of hard work, savings, and sensible investments.

Yet in the past few years, family members closest to him have noticed a change in him, something uncharacteristic of a man who was loathe to part with a dime unless it was for a necessary and sensible purpose. He had survived through many hard times — the Great Depression, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the gas crisis and recession of the Carter years, and was especially careful with every dollar earned. So when it came to their attention that he was spending huge sums to pay off loans for some folks, buying automobiles for others, as well as other extraordinary expenditures, the family became concerned. They agreed that giving unto others was an admirable quality and that he had every right to disperse his fortune in whatever way he saw fit. But what concerned them were the sums he was spending. They grew alarmed that he might squander his hard-earned nest egg on frivolities and folks who didn’t deserve or warrant the benefit of his charity. And they were distressed that his spending of an exorbitant amount of money would lead him into bankruptcy.

Some family members who had worked the farm with our great-uncle, helping him grow it and tend it, also worried there might be little to be passed on to succeeding generations, especially those seated at the children’s table this Thanksgiving. So they convened a family meeting where it was suggested that our dear great-uncle, though still healthy and strong despite his advanced age, might be growing senile and incompetent in the conduct of his affairs. They decided to have him evaluated, understanding that if a judge rules him no longer competent to manage his affairs, steps will be taken through appropriate means to safeguard his assets and oversee his spending.

The competency hearing is scheduled for election day, November 2nd, 2010. Because you see, our uncle is your uncle too. His name is Sam. Uncle Sam. And not only our family, but millions more like ours across the country are concerned that Uncle Sam is no longer competent to conduct the affairs of this great nation. And the voters — the American family — will take charge of Uncle Sam and oversee his financial dealings because he is squandering our nation’s treasure to such an extent there soon will no longer be the American spirit, a legacy of the American dream to pass on from our founding fathers to posterity — our children and grandchildren.

We will be vigilant. We will conduct a follow-up evaluation of Uncle Sam in 2012.

To us lies the responsibility to safeguard the fortune of freedom for which “Uncle Sam” and so many Americans fought and died. To us has been given the duty to keep alive the promise of liberty given to us by previous generations for those who follow.

Ronald Reagan reminded us that freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.

As a family protects and safeguards its heritage for posterity so shall we, beginning on November 2, 2010. Our founders gave it all — their lives, their treasure, their sacred honor. We can do no less.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/29/safeguarding-our-heritage/

I found this article and was quite impressed with it so I thought I would share it with you. Ms. King is an exceptional writer and well worth watching. Enjoy!

Governmental Punishments

I’m a member of “Asamom.org” and proud of it. We discuss many issues daily and the discussions are very lively. One mom, Linda J. Squire, wrote the following letter to be used by all:

Thoughts of One of Your Constituents on the Subject of “Punishment”

During the last election campaign, many candidates spoke with fervor of a goal to “punish businesses that ship jobs overseas” and now many elected officials are frequently bringing up the idea of continuing to “tax the rich,” punishing them with higher and higher tax brackets and percentages.  Instead of being rewarded, or at least being treated the same as all other taxpayers for their productivity, creativity and hard work, certain individuals are being targeted to bear a huge and disproportionate burden for the funding of government.  Elected officials are actually punishing and discriminating against these individuals with laws that confiscate and redistribute their wealth, laws that punish good, positive attributes and behaviors.

The economy is in shambles and working people are having a hard time making ends meet.  Simultaneously, in the name of almost unilaterally reducing carbon emissions and perhaps buying into the greatest hoax ever perpetrated, many legislators support imposing “Cap and Trade” legislation on the American people.  This would result in even more economic “punishment” in the form of higher taxes and energy costs imposed on all businesses and ultimately, on all consumers. Business people and economists understand that lay-offs, pay cuts, and job terminations or eliminations will almost certainly become reality as businesses try to adapt and cope with the higher operating costs imposed upon them.  As if this assault of our economy was not enough punishment for the American People, consider the damage done when the governments of China and India refuse to buy into the “global warming” idea at all and continue growing their economies while we are drastically shrinking ours.  We are already increasing our trade deficits and further increasing our debt and interest loads to absolutely shocking levels and this legislation would only add to these problems.  This legislation would punish our children and grandchildren because they would be the ones forced to deal with this mess and their lives, not ours, would be defined by it!

Meanwhile, plans are being made to confiscate even more dollars and more freedoms from the American people and from American businesses to fund a costly and invasive healthcare system that many, probably a majority, do not want.  Proposed legislation includes provisions not only to coerce individuals and small businesses into the system, but financial “punishments” and fines of up to $25,000 and up to a year of jail time for those individuals who dare to “disobey”.  Responsible and thoughtful people who have already sacrificed their own income to pay for health insurance for their own families will be punished for their efforts, being slapped with a 40% tax added to their premiums!   Medicare cuts will punish the elderly and go back on promises made to them. Within various versions of proposed healthcare legislation, a host of new punishments and fines have been advocated, with clear intent to punish patients for bodily functions, or for being stricken with certain illnesses and disabilities, with taxes on widely used medical devices and certain procedures. This is only a preview of the unfairness, layers of bureaucracy, and invasiveness a government-run health care system would entail.

With the redistribution of taxpayer dollars in a manner that favors and grossly rewards certain businesses, banks, executives and workers, that have been irresponsible or performed poorly, government is essentially “punishing” the sound, efficient fiscally responsible businesses and the people who run them. The playing field is not only being tilted, it is being ripped out from under the competitors, ironically using their own tax dollars against them in the process. Once again, good qualities and behaviors and hard work and initiative are not being encouraged or rewarded. These qualities are being punished and disadvantaged in a very unfair and negative way.

Recently, House Judiciary Committee member, Jerrold Nadler, in discussing the ban on funding for ACORN, stated that Congress must not be in the business of “punishing individual organizations or people” without a trial. How strange and utterly sad that our elected representatives whip out the Constitution and hold it up as a reason to avoid punishing ACORN, while continuing an ongoing push to heap all kinds of punishment, in myriads of intrusive and Unconstitutional ways, upon the backs of the American People.  Those of us who have worked for a living, supervised others, parented young ones, or who have just routinely interacted with other human beings, can tell you unequivocally that in most cases, punishment does not work.  Maybe it momentarily makes the punisher feel more powerful and in control, but the exponential resentment and frustration generated will cause extreme negative effects way out of proportion to the initial “offense”.  Punishment is one of the most negative forms of human interaction and in almost every case, extremely counterproductive to the interests of the organization.  Your brand of punishment threatens our nation by threatening our financial strength, our freedom, our culture, and our way of living.

Logical thinking seems to identify the basis for all this unfair and punishing legislation: the taking by government of power and control over the lives and the livelihoods of the American People.  If power and control were not the underlying objectives, no federal law would punish the American People in any way. If motives were pure, what really works in real life should work in government. That is, acknowledging and celebrating individualism, rewarding according to merit, encouraging positive efforts and fiscal responsibility, promoting self-sufficiency and the making of wise and good choices, in an environment abundant with positive reinforcements. If you are striving to be a “punisher” of your constituents or of your country’s economy and way of life, your career will be wasted on a very negative idea that can’t work. You were elected to represent people, not to run their lives for them and not to punish them if they disagree, question, or “disobey” you, their employee.  You really don’t have the right to single out or punish anybody if they haven’t done anything wrong, according to the Constitution.

By the way, while it is true that many manufacturing businesses and jobs from this country have been “shipped overseas,” many of the businesses simply packed up and headed south, crossing the Rio Grande. Throughout the world there are many countries striving to reward and encourage businesses to locate within their borders.  Whatever route the businesses took in leaving our country, our problem now is that they are gone, along with a whole lot of jobs, mainly because you folks in Washington made it so hard for them to compete globally, “punished” them a little too hard.

And those “rich” people, the very successful, very ambitious, creative, energetic and very hard-working ones, the ones who develop ideas and concepts and start businesses and hire people, the true “job-creators”, they are leaving too, or retiring, or just choosing to throw in the towel.  Punishment really didn’t work for them either.

So, before more unfair or Unconstitutional laws can be blindly rushed through both houses of Congress and imposed on a large mass of “punishees” please take time to study and reflect, like a good businessman would, and consider all the consequences before your vote is cast. Understand that 15% or 20% of thousands and thousands of pies means more total pie for you to consume than 60% of that one pie that you just confiscated before the baker terminated all his employees and moved to Mexico!

Sincerely, A Very Concerned American Citizen

Please feel free to use this letter to send to your paper, friends, Congress, etc., just to make them aware that they are severely damaging our country.

Bet You Don’t Know This About Sarah Palin!

By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan Fisherman
As posted in comments on Greta’s artical referncing the MOVEON ad about Sarah Palin

by Dewey Whetsell

The last 45 of my 66 years I’ve spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska. I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here’s the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it…It’s not about persona, style, rhetoric, it’s about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I’m about to mention here.

1- Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor’s office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican’s “Corrupt Bastards Club” (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits. The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing “la la la la” (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar. But while you’re thinking, I’ll continue.

2- Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So, she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called “ACES”. Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them “don’t let the door hit you in the stern on your way out.” They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.

3- The other thing she did when she walked into the governor’s office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as “pork”. She went through the list, took 85% of them and placed them in the “when-hell-freezes-over” stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we’ll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor’s jet because it was extravagant. Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor’s cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning—I imagine—that she’s packing heat herself). I’m still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.

4- Now, even with her much-ridiculed “gosh and golly” mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn’t impress you, then you’re trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.
5- For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn’t start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started. This summer, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.

6- President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewables by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona . Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that’s just a cover-up. I’m still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won’t be holding my breath.

By the way, she was content to to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn’t let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.

Obama should be very afraid of her! I am personally extremely impressed with her. Finally! An honest politician!!

Where Have All The Christians Gone?

Comments and Graphics – Christmas Layouts – Photobucket

As the holidays approach us I have begun to contemplate the meaning behind Christmas. It was, after a shaky start, finally established by John Chrysostom in 400 A.D., Archbishop of Constantinople and he was an important Early Church Father. The prominence of Christmas Day increased gradually after Charlemagne was crowned Emperor on Christmas Day in 800. King Edmund the Martyr was anointed on Christmas in 855 and King William I of England was crowned on Christmas Day 1066.

By the High Middle Ages, the holiday had become so prominent that chroniclers routinely noted where various magnates celebrated Christmas. King Richard II of England hosted a Christmas feast in 1377 at which twenty-eight oxen and three hundred sheep were eaten. But the true meaning gets lost in all the modern-day commercialism. People have forgotten just how sacred this holiday is supposed to be. Each symbol that is used in the Christmas celebration has a meaning behind it.

The pure green color of the stately fir tree remains green all year round, depicting the everlasting hope of mankind, all the needles point heavenward, making it a symbol of man’s thoughts turning toward heaven.

The star was the heavenly sign of promises long ago. God promised a Savior for the world, and the star was the sign of fulfillment of His promise.

The candle symbolizes that Christ is the light of the world, and when we see this great light we are reminded of He who displaces the darkness.

The wreath symbolizes the real nature of love. Real love never ceases. Love is one continuous round of affection.

Santa Claus, symbolizes the generosity and good will we feel during the month of December.

The holly plant represents immortality. It represents the crown of thorns worn by our Savior. The red holly berries represent the blood shed by Him.

The gift represents that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift.

The candy cane represents the shepherds’ crook. The crook on the staff helps to bring back strayed sheep to the flock. The candy cane is the symbol that we are our brother’s keeper.

The angels heralded in the glorious news of the Savior’s birth. The angels sang Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace and good will toward men.

The lost sheep are found by the sound of the bell, it should ring mankind to the fold. The bell symbolizes guidance and return.

Teach the children the true meaning of Christmas and do not put Santa in the center, for he is but a humble servant of the One that is, and he bows down to worship him, our LORD, our GOD.

This is the true meaning behind Christmas and all of its symbols. We chose one day out of a year to honor God. Is that too much to ask? Whether you’re an atheist, Muslim, Christian or Jew, you can still honor God for all He’s given you.

Shame on you people for spitting on our Creator! Even if you don’t believe in Him, you’d think you could begrudge the Christians their most precious holiday. You have no problem looking the other way if it involves one of the other religions. Why is it that the Christians, which founded this great country, doesn’t receive the same courtesy?

And I say to the Christians… don’t hang your head and meekly beg for your right to honor your God! Demand your right! God would expect you to speak up for your rights as a Christian. Think how you would feel if your child acted as if it was ashamed of the gift you gave to it at great sacrifice. Not such a nice thought, huh.

So hold your head high, Christians, and demand that your holiday be recognized for what it is! A sacred covenant between you and God. Not some generic excuse to spend money, get off work and collect presents.

Climategate, The Video

Federal Tax Is Not Ratified!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#

Climategate Scenarios

As I studied the documents that was hacked from the University of East Anglia I came across a very interesting document. I know that everyone is going on about the emails but they seem to forget that there was also a folder full of documents.
The following are excerpts from the “IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios”. At the very least, it is disturbing to see what the world has planned for us if we let them sign these treaties.

“Developing scenarios for a period of one hundred years is a relatively new
field. Within that period we might expect two major technological
discontinuities, a major shift in societal values and a change in the
balance of geopolitical power.

This scenario family entitled “Golden Economic Age”, describes rapid and
successful economic development. The primary drivers for economic growth
and development “catch up” are the strong human desire for prosperity, high
human capital (education), innovation, technology diffusion, and free trade.
The logic of successful development assumes smooth growth with no major
political discontinuities or catastrophic events. The scenario family’s
development model is based on the most successful historical examples of
economic growth, i.e., on the development path of the now affluent OECD
economies. Historical analogies of successful economic “catching up” can
be found in the Scandinavian countries, Austria, Japan, and South Korea.
“Intangible” assets (human capital, stable political climate) take
precedence over “tangible” assets (capital, resource, and technology
availability) in providing the conditions for a take-off into accelerated
rates of development. Once these conditions are met, free trade enables
each region to access knowledge, technology, and capital to best deploy its
respective comparative economic and human resource advantages.
Institutional frameworks are able to successfully sustain economic growth
and also to handle the inevitable volatility that rapid economic growth
entails.”

Sounds like Utopia, huh! Personally, I think they’ve been watching too much Star Trek! I love the fact that they consider us “human capital” and “intangible assets”. But just wait. It gets better.

“ Growth could be stimulated by the
expansion of regional economic partnerships and free trade arrangements
(e.g., extensions of NAFTA and the European Union).”

Well that sounds dandy! I guess we need to tear down that fence. But there’s more.

“Everyone reaps the benefits of rapid growth, rising incomes,
improved access to services, and rising standards of living. The economic
imperatives of markets, free trade, and technology diffusion (i.e.,
competition) that underlie the high growth rates provide for efficient
allocation of resources. Efficiency and high productivity are the positive
by-products of the highly competitive nature of the economy. They also
provide the economic resources for distributive and social measures
required for a stable social and political climate, vital for sustaining
high growth rates in human capital, productivity, innovation, and hence
economic growth.”

So far it looks good doesn’t it?

“Demographic variables co-evolve with
prosperity: mortality declines (i.e. life expectancy increases) as a
function of higher incomes (better diets and affordable medical treatment).
In turn, changes in the social values underlying the fertility transition
also pave the way for greater access to education, modernisation of
economic structures, and market orientation. These are key for innovating
and diffusing the best practice technologies underlying the high
productivity, and hence economic growth, of the scenario.”

Wow! Is this Heaven on Earth?

“The link between demographic and economic variables in the scenario
corresponds to present empirical observations: the affluent live long and
have few children. High per capita incomes are thus associated with both
low mortality and low fertility. Together, this results in rather low
population growth, characterized in addition by a considerable “greying” of
the population.
. Fertility rates range between 1.3 to 1.7 children per
woman. Life expectancy can approach some 95 years, with a regional
variation between 80 and 95 years. Global population grows to some 9
billion by 2050, and declines to 7 billion by 2100, the result of continued
below replacement fertility in all regions.”

Hmmm…starting to sound a bit like China, don’t you think? I kind of like children myself but they don’t seem to be encouraged in Utopia. This might be a problem. But at least we can grow really old by ourselves.

“Economic growth rates slow over time in proportion to the reduction of the potentially
economic active population (age 15 to 65), which decline in some regions to
50 percent compared to the historical average of approximately 70 percent.”

Doesn’t that sound worse to you? There’s more.

“Once the economic and industrial base is firmly established
and the economy matures, growth rates decline with increasing income
levels. This reflects saturation effects and a higher emphasis on quality
rather than quantity at high income levels.
The global economy in the “Golden Economic Age” expands at an average
annual rate of three percent per year to 2100. This is about the same rate
as the global average since 1850 and in this respect may simply be
considered “dynamics as usual”. Non-Annex-I economies expand with an
average annual growth rate of four percent per year, twice the rate of
Annex-I economies. By approximately 2030 Non-Annex-I GDP surpasses that of
the Annex-I economies. Per capita income disparities are reduced, but
differences between regions are not entirely eliminated. Non-Annex-I per
capita income reaches the 1990 Annex-I level (14,000 $/capita) by around
2040. By 2100 per capita income would approach 100,000 $/capita in Annex-I
countries and 70,000 $/capita in Non-Annex-I countries.”

In other words, third world countries income goes up slowly and modern countries salaries are practically stagnant. I wonder if that applies to the rich elitists.

“Disparities continue to persist between regions, but more so within particular regions.
Nevertheless, the high economic growth rates require a certain degree of income distribution. Extreme income disparities are found to be negative influencing factors for economic growth.”

Does this mean we share the wealth?

“The large urban agglomerates and the high transport demands of a high
material growth economy generate vast congestion constraints. These are
solved by applying market-based instruments (prices) rather than
regulation. Economic instruments include access and parking fees,
auctioning off the limited number of new car and truck licenses in
megacities, much along the lines of the current stringent Singapore model.
Therefore, even at very high income levels, car ownership rates could be
comparatively low in parts of the world. In extremely densely populated
areas, cars remain a luxury rather than a means of mass transport (viz.
Hong Kong).”

Why didn’t I think of that! Auctioning car licenses. I could make a fortune in their Utopia World!

“Ecological resilience is assumed to be high. In and of themselves,
ecological concerns receive a low priority. Instead, the valuation of
environmental amenities is strictly in economic terms, e.g., a function of
affluence. Non-congestion, clean water and air, and recreational
possibilities in nature all assume increasing importance with rising
affluence, although preferences for environmental amenities may differ
across regions and income levels.”

Are they saying that poor people don’t like to swim, fish, hike or breath? Or maybe the poor will be too busy working for the rich to have time to enjoy life. I don’t see any improvement here.

“New technologies may enable humanity to tap either the vast quantities of fossil resources existing in the form of coal, unconventional oil, and gas with technologies that are both highly
economic, efficient, and clean in terms of traditional pollutants, such as particulates or sulphur. Alternatively, technological change could unfold favouring non-fossil technologies and resources, such as nuclear and renewables.”

Correct me if I’m wrong but, isn’t that what caused the problem of greenhouse gases?

“Only incremental improvements are achieved in farming
practices and land productivity. This is combined with a gradual global
diffusion of meat-based diets. Both of these trends are land- (and
deforestation-) intensive. Alternatively, global agriculture could move in
the direction of genetically engineered, high productivity crops and
“sea-farming,” combined with a quality- and health-oriented diet based on
fish and vegetables, both of which are relatively less land intensive. As
a result, GHG emissions range widely even for otherwise similar scenario
characteristics.”

Oh yummy! Seaweed, rice and fish. So they get to decide what we get to eat? Who made them God? I feel some freedom slipping away here.

“The key question is which primary resources may
become economically accessible in the future, and which technologies will
become available to convert these primary resources into the final goods
and services demanded by consumers. In the energy area,
resources/technologies are key variables in determining the timing and
nature of the transition away from currently dominant conventional oil and
gas.
Four pathways are possible:
1. Progress across all resources and technologies.
2. “Clean coal” technologies: environmentally friendly except for GHG
emissions and possible resource extraction impacts.
3. “Oil/Gas”: smooth transition from conventional to unconventional oil and
gas, tapping the vast occurrences of unconventional fossil fuels, including
methane clathrates.
4. “Bio-Nuclear”: rapid technological progress in non-fossil supply and
end-use technologies, e.g. renewables, such as solar and biomass
combustion, nuclear and hydrogen-fueled end-use devices, such as fuel cells.
In the dynamic technology cases, liquid
fuels from coal or unconventional oil/gas resources would become available
at less than $30 /barrel, with costs falling further by about one percent
per year with exploitation of learning curve effects. Non-fossil
electricity (photovoltaics, new nuclear) would become available at costs of
less than 10 mills/kWh ($.01/kWh) and continue to improve further as a
result of learning curve effects. The basic premise of the “dynamic
technology” scenarios is that energy services could be delivered at
long-run costs not higher than today, but with technologies having
radically different characteristics, including environmental.”

I thought the whole point was that we shouldn’t be using these fuels. Now suddenly it is feasible and cheaper? They need to get their story straight. And this is all based on technology that hasn’t even been thought up yet?! Boy are WE smart!

“In the agricultural sector, two contrasting scenarios of land productivity
could unfold, depending on the nature of advances in agricultural
technologies. However, CO2 emissions from land use changes could range
from 0.5 (low) to 1.5 (high) GtC by 2030 and from -1 to -2 (low) to zero
(high) GtC emissions by 2100. In the latter case tropical forests
essentially become depleted as a result of land-use conversions for
agriculture and biomass fuel plantations. In the former case, land
productivity gains are so substantial that ploughing of marginal
agricultural land is no longer economically feasible and is abandoned,
following recent trends in the OECD. The resulting expansion of forest
cover leads to a net sequestration of atmospheric CO2.”

Isn’t CO2 a “good” thing? I thought the trees needed it. I must inform my science teacher that he’s been wrong all these years! We’ll have to find another way to create oxygen. This statement was made in another document by a German scientist who did not want to be recognized:

“Our global Carbon Cycle Model reveals a half-life time of only 38 years for any CO2 excess. With present constant global CO2 emission until 2100, the temperature would only further increase by 0.15 °C. Scenario IS92a would end up with 571 ppm only. IPCC assumed that far more fossil reserves would be burnt than being available. Using a flawed eddy diffusion ocean model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic CO2 uptake. Hardly coping with biomass response, limited fossil reserves and using a factor 4 temperature sensitivity, all this leads to an IPCC exaggeration factor of about 6 in yr 2100. The usable fossil reserves of 1300 GtC burnt by 2090, merely cause 548 ppm – not even a doubling. The WRE 650, 750 and 1000 ppm scenarios, projected until 2300, are infeasible. Emission reduction is absolutely useless: the realistic temperature effect of Kyoto till 2050 will be only 0.02 °C.”

So where is the emergency? Something smells fishy here. This guy is no “weatherman” he’s a scientist!
*****************************************************
“The central elements of this scenario family include high levels of
environmental and social consciousness, successful governance including
major social innovation, and reductions in income and social inequality.
Successful forms of governance allow many problems which are currently hard
or difficult to resolve to fall within the competency of government and
other organizations. Solutions reflect a wide stakeholder dialogue leading
to consent on international environmental and social agreements. This is
coupled with bottom-up solutions to problems, which reflect wide success in
getting broad-based support within communities.”

Major social innovation, reductions in income & inequality, bottom-up solutions? I’ve tried to envision this but what I come up with isn’t Utopia. I see socialism and Hitler’s brown-shirts!

“This yields a world of high levels of economic activity, with significant
and deliberate progress being made with respect to international and
national inequality of income. The current order of magnitude differences
in income between developing and developed countries are reduced to a
factor of two, with moderate growth continuing to occur in OECD countries.
Gross World Product (GWP) reaches $350 trillion by 2100 and average global
incomes $40,000 per capita. Economic development is balanced and, given
the high environmental consciousness and institutional effectiveness, this
leads to a better quality environment, with many of the aspects of rapid
growth being anticipated and dealt with effectively. Active management of
income distribution is undertaken through use of taxes and subsidies. The
composition of final demand will evolve to a mix reflecting lower use of
materials and energy, thus easing the impact of high income levels.”

So…if I read that right, peoples incomes will be reduced to $40,000 each even if you used to make $100,000. I guess they will tax us down to their level. Does this mean that the elitists won’t really have all the money they would take from us? Then why are they called “Elitists”? This doesn’t make sense to me. Who has the high income if everyone makes the same amount?

“New social inventions, such as the Grameen Bank’s micro-credit schemes, are
a significant contributor to an increase in institutional effectiveness and equity improvement. The social innovations and effective governance rest on high levels of communication, both in a passive (i.e. TV) and active sense. Governance systems reflect high levels of consent from those affected by decisions, and this consent arises out of active participation in the governance process.”

I guess they are counting on us to get loans so that we live outside our means and have to pay out interest to someone. Sounds like a “company store” and to keep everybody happy they will spread their propaganda through the TV to make sure you are thinking the “right” way. So as long as we agree with them we have a say in government. Sounds a little one-sided to me. The only way that would work is if we are either zombies or clones! Maybe this is where the marijuana comes in.
This is their vision of Utopia World. The peons are only allowed to make a certain income, have only one child, stay in debt, everyone works, everyone thinks alike or are pressured into it, eat only what they allowed, live where they say and what else? Oh yeah…don’t breathe since you exhale CO2! This, of course, doesn’t apply to the Elitists!
So how are you liking it so far? Way too much Star Trek in their lives. Heaven on Earth? I don’t think so unless you are one of the Elitists.
Now we will take a look at the world they envision if the countries don’t sign their treaties. Oh yeah, they are going to do this one way or another. They want control over everybody and they don’t care how they get it.

“Fertility rates vary among regions. North America, Northwest Europe and Asia experience falling fertility rates and populations. The Middle East,
Africa, and to some extent, Southern Europe and South America see rising
population although the rate of growth decreases. This leads to a shift in
the world population balance from the Indian sub-continent and South East
Asia to the Middle East and Africa by the end of the century. World
population reaches 16 billion by 2100.
Regional economies emphasize self-sufficiency with wide variations in
growth levels. Average global economic growth is relatively low at around
2.5%/year, leading to a GWP of $250 trillion by 2100. Trade across regions
consists primarily of raw materials and semi-finished goods in a relatively
low trust world where dependence on other regions is minimized.”

It looks like they won’t make as much money this way. What a shame. Whatever will they do?

“The growing strength of the economic regions, and their competing economic interests, lead to reduced international co-operation. Global environmental, economic and social
issues are subject to relatively weak governance. Conflicts between ethnic
and religious groups within economic regions become less violent as a
result of economic pressures on the parties. Where ethnic and religious
violence persists, the groups are excluded from the economic region. Thus
wars occur in the boundary zones between economic regions. Wars may also
occur near regional boundaries for control of scarce natural resources.”

It kind of sounds like the way it is now, huh?

“Both local governance and environmental concerns limit population growth.
The world largely supports efforts to reduce unwanted births both as a
social service but also because there is an implicit belief that even
increasing populations have severe environmental consequences. Education
and welfare programs for the young and illiterate are widely pursued.
Population stabilizes at 10.5 billion people by 2100.”

Sounds like “pro-choice” or is it government panels telling you that you don’t need that baby cause it will breathe and eat too much?

“GWP grows to around 240 trillion $ in 2100 with a North/South income ratio
of approximately 7/1 (presently 13/1). Concerns about the ecological costs
of consumerism lifestyles receive wide attention and attempts are made,
first in industrial countries, but later in developing countries, to seek
satisfaction through community activities rather than high consumption.
Overall people are eager to find alternatives to the high income world of
materialism.”

Can anybody tell me what THIS has to do with Climate Change? All I see are references to money and materialism! It sounds like envy to me.

“While strong redistribution policies are enacted within regions to reduce
income disparity, income differences between regions persist globally
throughout the century and even increases in absolute terms, although the
relative inequity decreases. The mechanism by which global equity
increases relates in part to population dynamics: as fertility rates
decline in developing countries, the decrease in youth dependency ratios
leads to an increase in savings rate and strengthened economic growth
during the first half of the century. In the developed regions, by
contrast, aging becomes an increasing drag on economic growth in helping
to converge global incomes, concerns about the persistence of income
inequality world-wide are swamped by the local concerns and conscious
policies to limit international trade.”

There’s that darned money thing again but at least they dressed it up with population control. Whatever will they do with those unproductive old people?

“Immigration is controlled but accepted, partly to compensate for very low
fertility rates in some regions and partly to help economic development
worldwide without the problems of uncontrolled globalization.”

Why they import the new and improved illegals! Why didn’t I think of that? If I didn’t know better I would think they were talking about livestock.

“Hydroelectric power is a constrained bag. Dams are viewed with disdain
because there are soon no more wild rivers anywhere and the rights of
indigenous people have been egregiously violated. Although they are
relatively clean from the perspective of carbon emissions, their effects on
indigenous people (mercury poisoning of fish, etc.) becomes unacceptable.
Decommissioning dams is widespread to restore pristine ecological systems
downstream.”

You have got to be kidding me! They are worried about mercury poisoning but they have no problem injecting it into your body and calling it a vaccine! Give me a break.
So what have we learned from the scenarios that are shown here? I see a lot of talk about money, controlling thoughts and actions, abortion, deciding what you eat, clones? and using the coal & gas that is supposed to be causing the problem in the first place. And, in case you forgot, this is the global plan for Climate Change!
They tell you what to eat, where to live, where to work, who works, when you are too old to work, how much you can make, how many kids you have and how you are supposed to think while they tax the crap out of you until they can’t use you anymore. Then what? Gas chambers or will it be “Soylent Green”. Maybe you will at least get to think for yourself on how you die so that you are no longer a burden on their “society”!
So, if you like their world, do nothing and you’ll get your wish. I choose to raise a big stink on this plan cause I like thinking for myself. I don’t want or need a babysitter!!

Remember that this is supposed to be based on science. The science I grew up with was a lot different than what these people did. True scientists gather the evidence and see where it takes you. These people set an agenda and then manipulated the science to make it look feasible with false data!

I’ll Take Freedom!

I couldn’t have said it better!

Climate Change Hoax

Recently the University of East Anglia CRU was apparently hacked into and a large zip file was released for download on the web. I downloaded the file and spent all night searching through it. I must say, it is very impressive. I don’t know if it’s real but I can tell you it’s extensive and I would have to be a scientist to understand a lot of it. There were many files that I couldn’t open because I don’t have the right extensions. But I thought I would put some of the info out here to let you see what I found.

First of all, if this is true, we’ve all been had! For instance:

“Small point: the first sentence in section 2 states that MSU derived temperature has been monitored from space since 1978 but in reality they have only been monitored since Christy and Spencer first put out their MSU product in the late 1980s.  The data does go back to 1978 but I don’t think anyone was actually doing real-time monitoring starting then.

1.    p142, reducing sea level by 40m 9Ky BP ago, the land surface is now higher in this simulation compared to those later in the sequence. A simple lapse rate calculation would make this simulation 0.24ºC cooler than the later ones.

2.    A comment about the necessity to undertake independent verification of reconstructions (cf Jones and Mann, 2004) would be appropriate at the bottom of p7,  This could be contrasted with Moberg et al. (2005) where their low frequency variability is essentially an ‘act of faith’ as the slowly responding proxies cannot be verified.

General Comments
The idea that climate without human intervention can only undergo “natural variability”, and that “climate change” can only result from human activity is false and fallacious. It is in conflict with all that we know of evolution and geology. It is simply wrong to assume that “ climate change” automatically implies human influence on the climate.
This fallacy is embraced by the Framework Convention on Climate Change, but the IPCC (Footnote to “Summary for Policymakers. Page 1) claim that they are prepared to accept “natural variability” as “climate change”. They are, however, unwilling to accept the truth, which is that climate can change without human intervention.

This fallacy renders worthless several conclusions of the Report, notably, that  “there has been a discernible human influence on the climate”. The surface temperature rise, however “unprecedented” could be “natural”, and the entire Chapter  12 “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes”  should be rejected as based on a false premise.

The statistical treatment of data, and of model simulation is inadequate throughout the Report. The conventional use of 95% confidence limits for estimates is followed only for surface temperatures, but ignored elsewhere, where a single standard deviation (60% confidence) is preferred, or no indication of the level of confidence is stated. For example, in Figure 2.11 (Chapter 2, page 101) showing ocean heat, error bars are only one standard error. They should be doubled.

The fact that satellite and weather balloon measurements in the lower troposphere do not show a warming for the past 21 years suggests strongly that the surface data are influenced by proximity to human habitation, rather than by greenhouse warming. There is insufficient attention paid to the evidence that this is so.

The assumed atmospheric concentration figures for carbon dioxide  for the SRES scenarios were included in the First Draft, but have now been deleted. Presumably you are ashamed to admit such absurd figures. Figures for all the other gases are given in Chapter 4 including ridiculously exaggerated figures for future methane concentrations.

The scenarios are merely the personal opinions of their creators, who seem uninterested in  procedures for checking whether any of the scenarios agree with past or future trends.
Recent  unwelcome changes in greenhouse gases are ignored. Carbon dioxide emissions from combustion of fossil fuels have fallen for the years 1997 and 1998. The rate of increase of  atmospheric methane has steadily decreased over the past 15 years, to a current value of zero, yet you persist in projecting increases.

47 out of 91 models listed in Chapter 9 assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1% a year when the measured rate of increase, for the past 33 years, has been 0.4% a year. The assumption of false figures in models in order to boost future projections is  fraudulent. What other figures are falsely exaggerated in the same way?

By extension, the rest of the document suffers greatly.  The Policymakers Summary contains several rhetorically alarming statements that are sure to misused in the hue and cry that will result from the leaking of this document at a critical time in the American election cycle.  Some of the SRES scenarios  are simply politically correct fantasies that are logically inconsistent.

Note that the Technical Summary and the SPM are reviewed after the Chapters.
Patrick  J. Michaels, University of  Virginia, USA, (Exp.)

General Comments
1. It is unfortunate the the recent version of TAR makes no reference to the ease which nitrous oxide emission may be reduced at the source, as described in references cited in my original comments.
2. It is equally unfortunate that the TAR understates the current impact of nitrous oxide on global warming (now 13% that of carbon dioxide) by averaging data from pre-industrial times to the present.  Significant increase in atmospheric nitrous oxide began around 1960, when improved Haber-Bosch synthesis led to sharp increase of use of fertilizer nitrogen from 10 million metric tons in 1960 to 85 million tons today
Marshall Spector, University of Virginia, USA, (Exp.)

General Comments

Executive Summary
This individual review paper focuses on IPCC’s three most essential modelling and core parameter errors. The impacts on all modelling results would be so tremendous that if the TAR would be corrected for these errors, there would hardly be any more justification for it. So this paper addresses only few individual TAR fallacies, but focuses on the nondisclosed flawed science it is based on.

Solar impacts
Taking into account the impact of solar variability on global warming, best fit studies have revealed that solar forcing is amplified by at least a factor 4. By leaving out this ‘Svensmark factor’ and using an exaggerated aerosol cooling, IPCC maintains a CO2 doubling sensitivity of 2.5 °C that is about a factor 3 too high.

Carbon cycle
Our global Carbon Cycle Model reveals a half-life time of only 38 years for any CO2 excess. With present constant global CO2 emission until 2100, the temperature would only further increase by 0.15 °C. Scenario IS92a would end up with 571 ppm only. IPCC assumed that far more fossil reserves would be burnt than being available. Using a flawed eddy diffusion ocean model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic CO2 uptake. Hardly coping with biomass response, limited fossil reserves and using a factor 4 temperature sensitivity, all this leads to an IPCC exaggeration factor of about 6 in yr 2100. The usable fossil reserves of 1300 GtC burnt by 2090, merely cause 548 ppm – not even a doubling. The WRE 650, 750 and 1000 ppm scenarios, projected until 2300, are infeasible. Emission reduction is absolutely useless: the realistic temperature effect of Kyoto till 2050 will be only 0.02 °C.

While there is a need to paint a clear picture, the text exhibits a tendency to overstate levels of certainty and underplay the legitimate disagreements that do exist. It will not help to underplay uncertainties, just as they should not be overplayed.

Chapter 11 on sea level rise provides a good discussion of the processes that affect sea level. However, the expert reviewers from the United States strongly believe that the scenarios and reported results must be changed (1) to reflect a much greater degree of uncertainty regarding the likely behavior of ice sheets and (2) to increase the likely contribution of small glaciers to sea level.  The current draft’s high estimate for the Antarctic contribution is much lower than the high estimate implied by the two expert panel assessments that have been published, and needs to be increased by 10-20 centimeters.  The range of sensitivities for the Greenland contribution needs to be much wider to deal with the disparity between modeled and empirical observations of the relationship between global temperature and Greenland precipitation, as well as several uncertainties regarding ice dynamics.  The estimates of the small-glacier contribution are too small, because they do not deal with the historic or future contributions from small glaciers in Antarctica, which occur on a scale too small to be reflected in the models of Antarctic ice sheets. The United States is aware that altering the results will require some effort; but for the IPCC scenarios to genuinely reflect the existing state of scientific uncertainty and understanding, those changes are necessary”

It sounds to me like they are making it up as they go along. But I’ll let you make up your own mind. I have only scratched the surface so far, but I thought I’d give you a heads up. Remember this when they try to pass Cap and Trade. The next step from that is signing the Copenhagen Treaty which overrides our Constitution! Will you give up your freedom for a lie?

UPDATE: Fox News has confirmed that this is for real!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html?test=faces

Their article only discusses the emails but what I have inserted above did not come from the emails. All of it came from the documentation.