Author: admin

Warning Signs: The Lying EPA

By Alan Caruba

June 26, 2009, Investor’s Business Daily
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=480787

“A suppressed EPA study says old U.N. data ignore the decline in global temperatures and other inconvenient truths. Was the report kept under wraps to influence the vote on the cap-and-trade bill?

“This was supposed to be the most transparent administration ever. Yet as the House of Representatives prepared to vote on the Waxman-Markey bill, the largest increase in U.S. history on 100% of Americans, an attempt was made to suppress a study shredding supporter’ arguments.

“On Friday, the day of the vote, the Competitive Enterprise Institute said was releasing ‘an internal study on climate science that was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency.’”

You can read the EPA document at
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

All this, of course, makes “official” what this commentator and others, many of whom credentialed meteorologists and climatologists, have been saying now for YEARS.

There is NO global warming. The warming that began around1850 was an entirely NATURAL cycle, a response to a mini-ice age that had begun around 1300. There was and is NO PROOF that the presence of so-called “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide had anything to do with the warming that occurred, nor that human activity contributed to it.

The EPA suppression of an internal document that disputes the assertion that underwrites the Waxman-Markey “Cap-and-Trade” bill that passed the House last week demonstrates the extent to which this present administration will go to impose taxation that will further bankrupt a bankrupt nation. A nation which, in the President’s own words “has no money.”

This bill now goes to the U.S. Senate where it must be rejected in whole or the further destruction of the nation will be greatly accelerated by its lies. The Republican leader in the House called it “a pile of sh-t”, a blunt and accurate assessment.

It is based on the great global warming lie. It is based on the many global warming lies that have been generated by the United Nations Environmental Program; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It is based on the same lies being told over and over again by environmental organizations like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club, and then repeated daily, weekly, monthly in the nation’s brain-dead media.

On a broad spectrum of critical issues, the EPA determines the outcome and then cooks the books to construct a reason to take action. It is an environmental Gestapo that has wreaked havoc with corporations and private citizens.

The lead author of the suppressed report was Alan Carlin, an MIT-educated senior research analyst and 38-year non-political appointee assigned only to perform fact and science-based analysis regardless of who occupies the White House.

The “facts”, the science, never supported the global warming hoax. That is why those who disputed it were first called skeptics and later called “deniers”, echoing the label given those who denied the Holocaust. In some liberal circles, there have even been calls to jail or kill global warming “deniers.”

The New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, calls those who doubt global warming guilty of “treason against the planet.” Krugman, an economist, pontificates about meteorological science while offering economic advice that would further wreck the nation’s already tenuous economic foundations.

The EPA is so boldfaced in its lies that it claims that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” and, of course, it intends to regulate it, but it is an atmospheric gas on which all vegetation depends. Without it, all vegetation dies and then everything else dies.

Carbon dioxide is produced, in part, by the use of energy and any restriction on energy production and use is a restriction on our modern lifestyle and our economy. Its taxation is at the heart of “Cap-and-Trade.” It would increase the cost of everything.

Global warming is the Big Lie that the EPA, the environmentalists, the Democrats and the President are putting forth as justification to unjustly impose a “Cap-and-Trade” tax. It must be defeated when it comes to a vote in the Senate.

Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into Suppressed Climate Change Report

By Judson Berger, Fox News
A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency’s alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming. The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin’s report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.”He came out with the truth. They don’t want the truth at the EPA,” Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla, a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he’s ordered an investigation. “We’re going to expose it.” The controversy comes after the House of Representatives passed a landmark bill to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, one that Inhofe said will be “dead on arrival” in the Senate despite President Obama’s energy adviser voicing confidence in the measure. According to internal e-mails that have been made public by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Carlin’s boss told him in March that his material would not be incorporated into a broader EPA finding and ordered Carlin to stop working on the climate change issue. The draft EPA finding released in April lists six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, that the EPA says threaten public health and welfare.An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an economist — not a scientist — included “no original research” in his report. The official said that Carlin “has not been muzzled in the agency at all,” but stressed that his report was entirely “unsolicited.” “It was something that he did on his own,” the official said. “Though he was not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to draft up … a set of comments.” Despite the EPA official’s remarks, Carlin told FOXNews.com on Monday that his boss, National Center for Environmental Economics Director Al McGartland, appeared to be pressured into reassigning him. Carlin said he doesn’t know whether the White House intervened to suppress his report but claimed it’s clear “they would not be happy about it if they knew about it,” and that McGartland seemed to be feeling pressure from somewhere up the chain of command. Carlin said McGartland told him he had to pull him off the climate change issue. “It was reassigning you or losing my job, and I didn’t want to lose my job,” Carlin said, paraphrasing what he claimed were McGartland’s comments to him. “My inference (was) that he was receiving some sort of higher-level pressure.” Carlin said he personally does not think there is a need to regulate carbon dioxide, since “global temperatures are going down.” He said his report expressed a “good bit of doubt” on the connection between the two. Specifically, the report noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend over the past 11 years, that scientists do not necessarily believe that storms will become more frequent or more intense due to global warming, and that the theory that temperatures will cause Greenland ice to rapidly melt has been “greatly diminished.” Carlin, in a March 16 e-mail, argued that his comments are “valid, significant” and would be critical to the EPA finding. McGartland, though, wrote back the next day saying he had decided not to forward his comments. “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision,” he wrote, according to the e-mails released by CEI. “I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” He later wrote an e-mail urging Carlin to “move on to other issues and subjects.” “I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, etc., at least until we see what EPA is going to do with climate,” McGartland wrote. The EPA said in a written statement that Carlin’s opinions were in fact considered, and that he was not even part of the working group dealing with climate change in the first place. “Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This administration and this EPA administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making,” the statement said. “The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding.” The e-mail exchanges and suggestions of political interference sparked a backlash from Republicans in Congress. Reps. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also wrote a letter last week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging the agency to reopen its comment period on the finding. The EPA has since denied the request. Citing the internal e-mails, the Republican congressmen wrote that the EPA was exhibiting an “agency culture set in a predetermined course.” “It documents at least one instance in which the public was denied access to significant scientific literature and raises substantial questions about what additional evidence may have been suppressed,” they wrote. In a written statement, Issa said the administration is “actively seeking to withhold new data in order to justify a political conclusion.” “I’m sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach,” Sensenbrenner said in a statement, adding that the “repression” of Carlin’s report casts doubt on the entire finding. Carlin said he’s concerned that he’s seeing “science being decided at the presidential level.” “Now Mr. Obama is in effect directly or indirectly saying that CO2 causes global temperatures to rise and that we have to do something about it. … That’s normally a scientific judgment and he’s in effect judging what the science says,” he said. “We need to look at it harder.” The controversy is similar to one under the Bush administration — only the administration was taking the opposite stance. In that case, scientist James Hansen claimed the administration was trying to keep him from speaking out and calling for reductions in greenhouse gases. FOX News’ Major Garrett contributed to this report.

The Bitter Irony of Cap-and-Trade: Radical Environmentalism Will Kill Off Most Environmentalists

By Rob Taylor @ Red-Alert

A couple of weeks ago my wife and I went to a farmer’s market that was, I’m ashamed to admit, in the parking lot of a local Whole Foods. As you would expect it was filled with people who arrived in hybrids festooned with bumper stickers promoting “localism” and the fight against global warming. Although the area of South Carolina my wife and I have moved to is within easy driving distance of many small farms (and I live within walking distance of two) it didn’t surprise me that the few stands there offered an extremely limited and expensive selection of produce and some meats that could not serve to feed the population of the greater metro area. When I lived in New York my wife and I would often go to farmer’s markets and they were much the same. Though they were good for the few small farms in the area, urban farmer’s markets are pretensions that give the illusion of an area’s ability to sustain itself when in fact that area can only sustain its population through large scale industry providing citizens with cheap, readily available goods. The New York tri-state area would experience a famine of biblical proportions if the residents were forced to only buy food from local sources which farmed using practices recommended by environmentalists.The bitter irony is that the environmental movement is largely populated and driven by these same urban residents who have, for generations, been cut off from nature and the simple truths of the food chain. That is about to change with cap-and trade and all the other radical environmentalist legislation that the left in this country is pushing. Make no mistake. The cap-and-trade (which is the first salvo in a green agenda onslaught about to be unleashed on Americans) will adversely affect the industries urban environmentalist rely on to live. All those hippies in Berkeley, all those hipsters in NYC and every Che T-shirt wearing house frau who haunts the Whole Foods produce section while sipping their Starbucks are completely unable to survive without an intricate network of businesses whose sole purpose is to ensure that people who have no idea how to produce food themselves don’t starve to death. Large scale industrial farms burn millions of gallons of fuel to grow vegetables for people who don’t realize it’s unnatural for most of the country to even have access to fresh vegetables in the winter. Billions more gallons of fuel are burned by trucking companies who bring food into the cities where residents are blissfully unaware of the fact that should these trucks stop running grocery stores would be empty within 3-5 days. Stores spend millions of dollars a year on refrigeration to unnaturally extend the life of food, and the carbon footprint of the factories that process the canned, preserved and pre-packaged foods city dwellers rely on must surely make those urban environmentalists cringe. Cap-and-trade is just the first attack on that system, which has functioned so smoothly and flawlessly that these same people attacking it have no idea how dependent they are on it to live. American vegan and vegetarian diets are only possible because of industrialized agriculture, especially in places like the northeast where harsh winters ensured for millenia that people needed to hunt for meat to survive. Healthy veganism and vegetarianism are only possible through the vitamin and supplement industry. Few environmentalists in fact are promoting any real sustainable lifestyle, but are instead promoting a moral philosophy based largely on secularized New Age clap trap. It seems to have escaped our urbane friends in the Green movement that putting legislation in place that will effectively eliminate most of the activities that make megalopolis living feasible by a certain point in time will effectively eliminate not only those areas we would refer to as megalopolises (and in fact any large metro area) but will also eliminate those who live within them. With ethanol mandates already starving out poor people in third world countries, the Greens are now pushing to make farming yield even less by making it less efficient. They are destroying the ability of farmers to transport their goods to city dwellers without having a working alternative to the trucks they so despise. They are hampering the ability of grocery stores to make a profit by making their expenses go up, and those stores will attempt to recoup those losses by raising prices. There are rosy scenarios being floated around on the right where businesses pick up and leave America causing massive unemployment and a spike in prices. These scenarios are rosy because they presume that we will still have food on the shelves, albeit more expensive than ever. But the Green agenda which is pushing cap-and-trade, just as it pushed the disastrous ethanol mandates, is setting up a system where less people will produce less food for more people. Small farms, already shrinking at a rate that makes food shortages inevitable, will disappear even faster. Trucking companies will make less runs into the cities. Less food and livestock will be available as farmers cash in on government sponsored demand for bio-fuels and then we will see the end result of the Green agenda: food shortages. The average “Green” is used to a life of leisure. He or she has not competed for resources, has not relied on a day’s catch to feed his or her family. They have not known hunger or want. They will be thrust into a world where people fight over the last loaf of bread.They will suddenly, ironically, come face to face with real nature as they struggle to survive in a world where their own agenda has made it impossible to live in a New York, where hungry masses fight over the limited resources that occur naturally. The fewer deliveries of food from all across the country, and the world, will literally translate into starvation and collapse for the 9 million or so people in New York City. I grew up in the 70s when my family kept large gardens, and fished for vacations. We kept the fish we caught in a deep freezer, we stored our tomatoes and cucumbers to eat. We stretched every dollar until it screamed, and pinched pennies so hard we left dents. I am not a great fisherman and the tomatillos I grew this year leave much to be desired, but my wife and I are prepared (or preparing really) to rely less on grocery stores. We will never live within a large city again and practice walking the 3 miles to the nearest large grocery chain for the inevitable time when gas becomes so expensive that we only drive in emergencies.We know what it is like to live simply, and perhaps violently, and though we don’t like it can get by when that time comes. But what of those Birkenstock clad women in their paisley summer dresses shrewfully wagging their fingers at the world while their husbands pay for their “fair trade” papayas on their American Express? When food riots in New York inevitably move into their expensive suburbs as the poor, priced into starvation by the Green agenda, explode into violence how will they survive? When shelves are empty what will they eat? When the park system is emptied of its wild edibles (and Van Cortlandt park is the best place to forage for wild greens by the way) what then the family of four who never realized they would need to find a way to feed themselves that didn’t include a cashier? The Green agenda seeks to push America into a more agrarian 18th century style country. They seek a 21st century world where 20th century technology is banished and cities take on the characteristics of Walnut Grove. But these are no Ingalls family, able or willing to live a life of self-sufficiency. These are people completely reliant on post-industrial society, hooked to the slow and steady intravenous drip of industrialized food production and oil based delivery systems. In their stupor they seek to tear that line out of their own arm, even though it will likely kill them. And they will take many of the rest of us with them.

Cap and Trade; a Solution to a Non-existent Problem with Devastating Consequences

By Dr. Tim Ball, CFP

D.H. Lawrence said, ”Never trust the teller. Trust the tale.” But what happens if the tale is wrong? What happens if the teller knows or should know the tale is wrong? The key word is trust. A relationship must have trust. A society can only exist with trust. Political leaders can only succeed with trust. Trust cannot exist when an unnecessary end is reached by false means, which is happening with the US climate and energy policies.

An energy policy built on the lie that human CO2 is causing global warming is likely to fail. It is a bigger lie when CO2 is incorrectly called carbon. The policy is guaranteed to fail when proposed energy alternatives cannot fulfill needs and will cause economic slowdown, decreased competitiveness and further economic decay.

On June 26, the US House of Representatives passed a Bill titled the American Clean Energy and Security Act by a scant 219 to 212 votes. The title is misleading. It appeals to patriotism, which Samuel Johnson said is the last refuge of a scoundrel. “Clean Energy” really means without producing CO2, which incorrectly assumes it is a pollutant. Security means eliminating imported energy, but the nation is less secure with a weakened economy guaranteed under provisions of the Bill. It is more commonly, but equally incorrectly, called the Carbon Cap and Trade Bill. Carbon is not CO2 but this is only one of the deceptions. Hopefully, enough Senators will understand and reject the Bill when they vote in the fall.

President Obama frantically pushed his energy policy as resistance developed. He wrapped it in promises of green jobs; profits from industry creating renewable clean energy; a stop to “bubble or bust” economic cycles; and all at no cost to the taxpayers because “polluters” pay the bill.

His June 23 press conference had the following statement. ”This legislation will spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet.”

The first two goals are possibly commendable but only necessary because of the last goal. How do you confront “carbon pollution”? What is it? At best it’s confusion about the science and at worst deliberately wrong. They’re the President’s words and his responsibility. He is aware of the impact of his words choosing them carefully when responding to questions. “Carbon pollution” is a result of politicizing climate. CO2 became carbon when “carbon credits” emerged from the Kyoto Accord. Its use expanded when evidence showed CO2 was not causing, nor ever caused, warming or climate change. It is incorrect.

A scientific definition of carbon is: the chemical element of atomic number 6, a nonmetal that has two main forms (diamond and graphite) and that also occurs in impure form in charcoal, soot, and coal.

The objective is to link CO2 with coal because it is seen as the devil itself. Witness Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) advocate James Hansen’s involvement with Greenpeace protesters on trial in the UK for damaging a coal burning plant.

Recently he was arrested protesting a coal processing plant in Southern West Virginia.

A scientific definition of carbon dioxide (CO2) is; a colorless, odorless gas produced by burning carbon and organic compounds and by respiration. So basically carbon is a solid and CO2 is a gas. They claim CO2 can slow heat escape from the atmosphere and an increase from human activity causes warming. It has not happened at any time and is not happening now. Carbon occurs as particles of soot in the atmosphere causing cooling by blocking sunlight. I expect them to blame soot for failure of their warming predictions.

On June 23 Obama said, ”This energy bill will create a set of incentives that will spur the development of new sources of energy, including wind, solar, and geothermal power”. These currently produce only 3.9 percent of US energy.

Wind and solar have severe limitations because they require 100 percent back up from conventional sources. They cannot replace a sufficient portion of current energy needs to supply even a dramatically reduced demand.

Obama’s said, “At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe.” This is false. He incorrectly substitutes carbon for CO2 and it is not a pollutant for air or water; it occurs naturally in both. It’s true industries producing CO2 will initially pay through Cap and Trade but they will pass the costs to the consumer. A critical question is who pays when all the “polluters” are out of business?

Coal currently produces 46.8 percent of US energy. Obama identified it as his main target during the campaign. “What I’ve said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is more—that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anybody else’s out there, so if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” If they go out of business as Obama expects, the economy will collapse as industries dependent on the energy disappear. Ironically alternative energies will also suffer because the 100 percent backup they require will not be available.

Obama said, ”The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century’s global economy. That’s what this legislation seeks to achieve. It’s a bill that will open the door to a better future for this nation and that’s why I urge members of Congress to come together and pass it.” A recent study of this “green jobs strategy” shows it doesn’t work. Paul Bachman, Director of Research at the Beacon Hill Institute, one of the report’s authors wrote, “Contrary to the claims made in these studies, we found that the green job initiatives reviewed in each actually causes greater harm than good to the American economy and will cause growth to slow.”

Others have tried clean energy and green jobs without success, especially in Europe. Philippe Herzog, a French economist and founder of Confrontations Europe said, “We have not found a balance yet between the definition of European objectives [on climate change] and the implications for jobs.” The UK have already found out it doesn’t work. A study by Capgemini, a global energy consultancy firm claims that, “electricity generation has fallen to its lowest level in ten years. The shortage has been caused by the increase in the level of demand for energy combined with a growing tendency to build wind turbines, at the expense of other, more reliable, electricity sources”.

Spain was touted as the model because it led all countries in money and commitment to electricity from renewable energy. Spanish economics professor Gabriel Calzada calculates that, ”each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation –sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency –of capital.”

A report from Britain about attempts to replace traditional energy with renewables notes, “Britain is already struggling to meet its ambitious target of supplying 10% of electricity needs from renewables by 2010 and 15% by 2015. Today’s figure is about 2%.” Once you realize the renewable strategy is not working how quickly can you recover?

The big question is whether the UK can act fast enough to tackle the looming crisis. Even if the government’s nuclear plans remain intact, it could be at least 10 years before the first new nuclear station is ready. A typical coal or gas-fired project could take between three and five years to construct.

Recovery potential is worse in the US because regulations extend construction time for nuclear plants and environmentalists will do everything to block coal plants. Meanwhile economies of these countries suffer even though they didn’t do anything as drastic as Obama proposes. Recovery can’t possibly occur within Obama’s first term, which may make it his last.

Will the Obama policy work any better? NO, because it is based on the same lie other countries used that CO2 is a problem and made worse by using deception of inaccurate scientific terminology. He then guarantees failure with policies that have already failed. So D. H. Lawrence was wrong in Obama’s case. You can’t trust the teller or the tale. There is no question Obama is clever but as Goethe said, “A clever man commits no minor blunders.” His climate and energy policies are blunders of devastating proportions.

Nationwide Protest against Obama’s Cap and Trade

By Sher Zieve, CFP

The time for a nationwide protest against our “lawmakers” has come—I am no longer referring to them as our representatives as they have stopped representing We-the-People. The volume of calls placed on Friday to the US Capitol switchboard and our Congressional Reps again shut it down and voice mailboxes were full. The calls placed were reported to be 10-1 AGAINST Obama‘s and Pelosi’s plan to raise energy prices to we the consumers by at least 100% and in most cases 150-200%. Despite We-the-People (now We-the-Peons) telling the House of Representatives to vote “NO”, after reportedly being strong-armed and threatened by Pelosi and Obama House members voted “YES”. And, they voted on this bill that most of them admit they DID NOT READ!

Note: It is clear that these Representatives now represent ONLY Obama and Pelosi. They no longer represent their constituencies. And the ones who benefit from this legislation are those who are invested in “alternative energies” that will do nothing to improve any energy resources but, will merely allow the Federal Government to charge We-the-Peons more money. By the way, most of these “alternative energy” sources are either highly unreliable (for example wind doesn’t blow all of the time and the energy produced cannot be stored for future use) or cost far more than traditional sources. Alternative energies also tend to use more resources than traditional energy.

And who are a few who WILL benefit—at the cost of further destroying the USA? One of these is the patently corrupt and powerful Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who has invested between $50,000-$100,000 in T. Boone Picken’s Clean Energy Fuels. Additionally, in a clear spirit of conflict of interest, Pelosi also supported California’s Prop 10 that “gives thousands of dollars in rebates to natural gas vehicle buyers, as well as spending on R&D, and supposedly cost California $9.8 billion over 30 years.” Then there’s Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) who cosponsored the Cap and Trade bill with Henry Waxman (D-CA). Markey has invested between $51,000 and $115,000 in the “alternative energy” company Firsthand Technology Value Fund. And if Cap and Trade passes the US Senate, Al Gore’s multiple and far-reaching investments in “alternative energies” will make him a Billionaire. These are only a few of the corrupt politicos making money on the backs of the workers—that’s us, folks. They will raise our taxes to pay for their folly—and their mushrooming wealth.

In a contradiction to Obama’s plan to turn the USA into a third-world country, the Europeans (who have already experienced the reality of Cap and Trade plans of their own) have actually moved away from the Cap and Trade type programs. Similar programs to Obama’s and the other US liberals’ and leftists’ Socio-fascist Cap and Trade schemes have helped to bankrupt EU countries. As an example, CNS News reports that a study conducted by “Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain:

“Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources. “Obama repeatedly has said that the United States should look to Spain as an example of a country that has successfully applied federal money to green initiatives in order to stimulate its economy.” However, it appears that he lied, again. Taking into consideration the actual job losses—9 currently held jobs lost for every 4 so-called green jobs “created”—the concept of “green jobs” quickly becomes a myth. Obama’s unemployment figures will continue to rise.

Our country, Our jobs, any freedoms and liberties gone

So, here is reality. Cap and Trade is about money and power for the US’ now-ruling elite; a power elite class that has Dictator Obama-the-Usurper at the helm of a fast-sinking US ship. If passed by the Senate, Cap and Trade will remove our rights as US citizens to even have the ability to set our own thermostats. Obama appointee Rosa Brooks (who also worked for George Soros) wants each and every home in the US to have mandatory “smart meters” which can and will have the federal government regulating energy usage. And with the passage of Cap and Trade, you will soon pay through the nose for all of your energy needs. Obama and his feds will have officially entered and begun control of you and what you are allowed to do in your own homes. Don’t forget that ObamaCare is next. If this one passes, Obama and his thugs will control our bodies—they will soon no longer belong to us but to Obama and the collective. We have now reached the time for Nationwide Protests against a government that no longer works for us but is now almost fully positioned to move against us. If we do not affect them now, there will never be a time in the future that we can do so. It will not be long before Obama will have his private police force (on Google look up the GIVE Act and AmeriCorps) in place. If we do not take National Days of Protest against this increasingly tyrannical government now, we will not be able to do so in the future. I would suggest we begin locally by contacting the people who planned and implemented that April Tea Parties. They have access to the National Tea Party coordinators. If we don’t act now, our country, our jobs, any freedoms and liberties left and our future may—make that will—be gone forever. Pelosi’s Alternative Energy Investment:
Cap and Trade about Power and Control:
Spanish Study Shows Green Jobs Could Lead To 11M More Lost US Jobs:
Video Obama National Police Force:
(10) Reader Feedback

Not Evil Just Wrong volunteer call: Fight the good fight and get involved!

By Justin Credible, ILCD Editor

Volunteer call

We need to build an army of online volunteers who will spread the word about the upcoming release of the feature film Not Evil Just Wrong. How you can help:

  • Recruit people to join the NEJW social networking sites (linked below)
  • Build up a database of regional organizations that would support the release of this film in your area
  • Build up a database of national and regional media (including new media) that would support the release of the film
  • Post links and articles about the film on your blogs and websites
  • Contribute what you can to support the cause (link here)

Plus, of course, start recruiting other volunteers to do the same! Let’s get the word out to EVERYONE and begin a mass viral marketing push! After yesterday’s disaster in the US congress and the upcoming climate conference in Copenhagen, we need to do everything we can to get Not Evil Just Wrong into as many cinemas, schools, and homes as humanly possible!

NOT EVIL JUST WRONG on Facebook
NOT EVIL JUST WRONG on MySpace
NOT EVIL JUST WRONG on Twitter
NOT EVIL JUST WRONG on Friendfeed

Let’s make history. The majority of the population no longer believes in Al Gore’s science fiction and are finally catching on to the greatest scientific scam in history. There is no question that is exactly why Obama and his administration are so frantically trying to cram through the gigantic cap-and-tax bill now, before it’s too late. Liberty or tyranny? It’s our choice. Third world development or poverty? It’s our choice. Make the moral choice. Stand up for science, freedom, and your rights.

Click these two links to view rock-solid science VS environmentalist ideologies and share it with everyone you know!

We must not allow them to pull the wool over our eyes.

Forget Watergate, Obama's Carbongate is far worse

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Climate Change: A suppressed EPA study says old U.N. data ignore the decline in global temperatures and other inconvenient truths. Was the report kept under wraps to influence the vote on the cap-and-trade bill?
Can you see the little red square?
This was supposed to be the most transparent administration ever. Yet as the House of Representatives prepared to vote on the Waxman-Markey bill, the largest tax increase in U.S. history on 100% of Americans, an attempt was made to suppress a study shredding supporters’ arguments. On Friday, the day of the vote, the Competitive Enterprise Institute said it was releasing “an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency.” In the release, the institute’s Richard Morrison said “internal EPA e-mail messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.” Reading the report, available on the CEI Web site, we find this “endangerment analysis” contains such interesting items as: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.” What the report says is that the EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research by its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The research, it says, is “at best three years out of date in a rapidly changing field” and ignores the latest scientific findings. Besides noting the decline in temperatures as CO2 levels have increased, the draft report says the “consensus” on storm frequency and intensity is now “much more neutral.” Then there’s one of Al Gore’s grim fairy tales — the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and glaciers the size of Tennessee roaming the North Atlantic. “The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for operations of such processes,” the report says. Little evidence? Outdated U.N. research? No reason to rush? This is not what the Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were telling us when they were rushing to force a Friday vote on Waxman-Markey. We were given the impression that unless we passed this cap-and-tax fiasco, polar bears would be extinct by the Fourth of July. We have noted frequently the significance of solar activity on earth’s climate and history. This EPA draft report not only confirms our reporting but the brazen incompetence of those “experts” that have been prophesying planetary apocalypse. “A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and West,” the report says, “suggests that the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures. Their report suggests that solar variability could account for up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures.” The report was the product of Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE). He’s been with the EPA for 38 years but now has been taken off all climate-related work. He is convinced that actual climate observations do not match climate change theories and that only the politics, not the science, has been settled. Thomas Fuller, environmental policy blogger with the San Francisco Examiner, wrote Thursday in a story developed in conjunction with Anthony Watts’ Web site wattsupwiththat.com: “A source inside the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed many of the claims made by analyst Alan Carlin, the economist/physicist who yesterday went public with accusations that science was being ignored in evaluating the danger of CO2.” All this is particularly interesting because of the charges by Al Gore, NASA’s James Hansen and others that the Bush administration and energy companies actively suppressed the truth about climate change. One of the e-mails unearthed by CEI was dated March 12, from Al McGartland, office director at NCEE, forbidding Carlin from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues such as those in his suppressed report. Carlin replied on March 16, requesting that his study be forwarded to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which directs EPA’s climate change program. Carlin points out the peer-reviewed references in his study and points out that the new studies “explain much of the observational data that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.” For saying the climate change emperors had no clothes, Carlin was told March 17: “The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” In other words, the administration and Congress had their collective minds made up and didn’t want to be confused with the facts. They certainly didn’t want any inconvenient truths coming out of their own Environmental Protection Agency, the one that wants to regulate everything from your lawn mower to bovine emissions and which says the product of your respiration and ours, carbon dioxide, is a dangerous pollutant and not the basis for all life on earth. The problem the warm-mongers have is they now are in a position of telling the American people, who are you going to believe — us or your own lying eyes? Forget the snow in Malibu, the record cold winters. Forget that temperatures have dropped for a decade. In April, President Obama declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” Apparently not, for as he spoke those very words his administration was suppressing science to advance a very pernicious ideology.

Scientist hits out at emissions bill

The Bendigo Advertiser

WRONG TERM: Bob Carter says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

The Bendigo Advertiser, June 24, 2009 A LEADING academic says the Carbon Pollution Reduction bill before Parliament is the single worst piece of legislation to be foisted on the Australian public. Professor Bob Carter was in Bendigo last night to address a climate science meeting. He said Australians were being conned, as the bill was aimed at carbon dioxide rather than carbon, and carbon dioxide was not a pollutant. Professor Carter said the public should have access to balanced views on climate change. Twenty years of intensive research and great expenditure had produced no compelling evidence that humans have had a significant effect on climate. “I have been described as a sceptic. I am not a sceptic, I am a scientist, and all good scientists should be sceptical. “I would rather be described as a climate agnostic.’’ Professor Carter is adjunct professorial fellow at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Townsville. He said the legislation would be fine if it meant positive outcomes. However, it did not, and it was the underprivileged people who would be hit hardest. “Everywhere else in the world similar legislation is called emission trading bills.’’ He said the use of the term “carbon dioxide’’ to indicate a pollutant was not correct in language, logic or science. And “climate change’’ was a tautology, as the climate changed continually. “If the bill is implemented, carbon dioxide emission will be reduced but the cost will be $3000 a head each year in taxes for every Australian. “And the temperature change will be 0.001C by the year 2100. “That is the science.’’

Climate Bill's Passage Represents 'nothing more than unrestrained exercise of raw political power, arm-twisting and intimidation'

By Marc Morano, Climate Depot

The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed global warming bill (219-212 vote) will no doubt be hailed by many as “historic” or “landmark” or “The Bill of the Century.”

This passage of this bill does not signify any great “green revolution” or “growing” climate “awareness” on the part of Congress. Instead, the methods and manner that the Pelosi led House achieved final passage, represents nothing more than unrestrained exercise of raw political power, arm-twisting, intimidation and special interest handouts.
The House of Representatives passed a bill it did not read, did not understand. A bill that is based on crumbling scientific claims and a bill that will have no detectable climate impact (assuming climate fear promoters are correct on the science and the bill is fully implemented – both implausible assumptions).
Proponents of the bill made spectacular claims in their efforts to impress the urgency of the bill on their colleagues. Democratic Congressman G.K. Butterfield reported claim that the bill “’will literally save the planet” reveals just how out of touch scientifically, politically and economically many of the bill’s supporters have become.
To illustrate just how delusional some of the supporters of the bill have became, imagine if in 1909 the U.S. Congress passed a bill attempting to predict climate, temperature and the energy mix powering our national economy in the year 2000. (not to mention sanctimonious claims about “saving the Earth.”) Any such attempt would have been ridiculed, but somehow in 2009, attempting to control the economy and climate of the year 2100 is seen as reasonable by many.
If we actually faced the man-made “climate crisis” proponents claim, we would all be doomed if we had to rely on this bill save us. A May 2009 scientific analysis of the bill revealed its temperature impact to be “scientifically meaningless.”
Sorry Congressman Butterfield, far from “saving the planet”, this bill will instead be nothing more than all economic pain for no climate gain. (See: Analysis: Climate Bill is ‘Scientifically Meaningless’ – Temp Reduction By 2050 of Only 9/100 of one Degree F )
Many environmental groups opposed the bill because it failed to actually reduce emissions. (See: Obama’s global warming plan would result in U.S. burning MORE coal in 2020 & Greenpeace Opposes Waxman-Markey…’bill chooses politics over science’ )
President Obama attempted to call the bill a job creator and proponents cited a Congressional Budget Office report to downplay the cost to Americans. But these arguments failed to hold up under the close light of scrutiny. (See: Rebuttal: Obama Tries to Sell Cap-And-Tax as a Jobs Bill ) Even fellow Democrats failed to parrot these mythical claims. Democrat Congressman John Dingell of Michigan was blunt, calling Cap and trade a “great big” tax in April.
 Even Obama advisor Warren Buffett failed to tow the rhetorical line on the climate bill. Buffet came out strongly opposed to cap and trade, saying it would be “a huge, regressive tax.”
 The climate bill now moves to the Senate where it faces a much tougher road ahead. The best news of the climate bill’s passage is that the American public, which has wholeheartedly rejected man-made global warming fears, will now be awakened to what their representatives in Washington are up to.
Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted against the bill, realized Americans were not concered about global warming, saying: “There is no public outcry to pass this legislation. It’s an institutional push.”
 Democrat Congressman Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania reported his constituent calls were “running 9-1 against’ the climate bill.
Current polling data reveals that the American people “get it” when it comes to man-made global warming fears. Given the wealth of recent polling data showing Americans are growing increasingly skeptical, Congressmen and Senators are simply not hearing any clamor from voters to “act” to “solve” global warming. In fact, the opposite is true, voters are rebelling against the unfounded climate fears and the so-called “solutions” in growing numbers. Below is a small sampling of recent polling data on global warming.
1) Gallup survey found global warming ranked dead last in the U.S. among ENVIRONMENTAL issues – March 2009 2) Gallup Poll Editor: Gore has ‘Failed’ — ‘The public is just not that concerned’ about global warming – May 2009 3) Zobgy Poll: Only 30% of Americans support cap-and-trade — 57% oppose – April 2009 4) “Gallup Poll: Record-High 41% of Americans Now Say Global Warming is Exaggerated” – March 11, 2009 5) Rasmussen Poll found Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming – ‘Lowest finding yet’ — ‘reversal from a year ago!’
 Now that the bill has cleared the house and heads to the Senate (where they will be preparing their own version of a cap-and-trade bill) the American people will awake to the reality that this purely climate symbolic bill with real economic and lifestyle impacts may actually become law.
An American public that is aware of a “non-solution” global warming bill has the potential to literally shut down Washington with phone calls, emails and faxes. Thus far, global warming bills have been a distant possibility somewhere in the future. With the passage of this bill, it is now game on.
Despite the American people’s rejection of warming fears and climate taxes, Congress may persist in pushing them for other non-scientific reasons. Hint, hint. See: Dem. Senator calls cap-and-trade ‘the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time.’
 Beyond just economics, lifestyles changes will be in order under the new climate regime. As a June 7, 2009 Washington Post editorial stated: “Why does Congress, and not the market, need to dictate these changes?” The Post noted the climate bill “contains regulations on everything from light bulb standards to specs on hot tubs; it will reshape America’s economy.” Also see: 19th Century Living: Under climate plan ‘Americans allowed to emit same carbon volumes as citizens did in 1867’)
In May, House speaker Nancy Pelosi declared “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory” in order to battle global warming and reduce our carbon footprints.
In addition, even the two strongest proponents of man-made global warming fears – NASA’s James Hansen and UK’s James Lovelock — are now ridiculing the Congressional cap-and-trade approach as “ineffectual” and “verging on a gigantic scam.” Adding to that, Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader has also voiced opposition to cap-and-trade. Remember, these are the words of scientists and activists who believe in a looming human caused climate “crisis.”

Americans are becoming aware that the debate is not “over” as more than 700 prominent international scientists publicly dissenting, including many who are reversing their views on climate fears and declaring themselves skeptical. Americans are becoming aware that there has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years. As Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal noted in a June 26, 2009 article, the “Democrats are attempting to “quickly jam the climate bill through Congress because global warming tide is shifting.” The article noted that the “Scientific debate roaring back to life” as the “number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.”

As the Senate considers global warming cap-and-trade legislation that will raise energy prices during a massive economic downturn, curious voters will soon be asking their Senators the following basic questions:
1) What impact will this bill have on temperatures? (Answer: “Meaningless”) 2) What will the bill cost? (Answer: Trillions) 3) Why are you voting for a bill that will have huge economic impacts and harm the poor and seniors on fixed incomes the most — but will not have a measurable climate impact? 4) Why are more and more scientists publicly rejecting man-made climate fears and why has the Earth failed to warm as predicted?
The answers to the above questions will likely cause massive angst with many Democrats, particularly in rust belt states. These questions will have to be answered as all eyes turn to the U.S. Senate. But, never underestimate the ability of Congress to offer non-solutions to problems that don’t even exist.
Stay tuned…