Obama Intimately Tied To Carbon Trading Scam

By Steve Watson, Infowars

A combination of interesting mainstream and alternative media reports reveal compelling links between president Obama and a privately owned carbon trading group, which also has direct ties with elitist groups such as the Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission. Judi McLeod’s excellent article for Canada Free Press, which she expanded from a Fox News piece, highlights how years before he became president, Obama helped directly fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the proposed cap-and-trade carbon reduction program.

The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”

Essentially Obama helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to steer through Congress. McLeod also notes that The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

While Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.

While McLeod’s article highlights the cronyism and corporate dealings behind this set up, we should also add the fact that both Gore and Strong come from a stable of elite groups that have long sought to use the environmental movement to advance their agendas.

Strong, who was groomed by David Rockefeller to eventually serve as Director of the Rockefeller Foundation, is also a member of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Club of Rome.

Gore too comes from the Club of Rome clique.

Lets take a look at the connections these groups have to the environmental movement.

In 1990, writes veteran reporter Jim Tucker, the Bilderbergers adopted climate change as the preferred model to impose global government and reintroduce serfdom. “Like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group discovered the issue of environmental deterioration. Bilderbergers embraced a report from the Trilateral Commission that year on the environment, because the potential profit in cleaning up the mess would be immense.”

The following year, the Club of Rome think tank published The First Global Revolution, a book suggesting a draconian neo-Malthusianism approach will solve the world’s “problems”, in fact a problem the global elite has with humanity.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill,” the book states. “All these dangers are caused by human intervention,” and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, expanded on this topic in his article, State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era. According to Haass, a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming and terrorism, both invented as the Club of Rome suggested.

“Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change,” writes Haass. “The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.”

In the past, the Club of Rome has resorted to deceptive tactics in order to support their plans. In 1972, the Club of Rome, along with an MIT team released a report called Limits to growth. The report stated that we were to reach an environmental holocaust by the year 2000 due to overpopulation and other environmental problems. Support for their conclusions was gathered by results from a computer model. Aurelio Peccei, one of the founders of the Club of Rome, later confessed that the computer program had been written to give the desired results.

As we reported two years ago, During the secretive Trilateral Commission group meeting in March 2007, elitists gathered to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.

Why is this so concerning? Because groups such as the Club of Rome are contracted out by our own governments and the UN to prepare ‘Policy Guidance Documents’ which they use in formulating their policies and programs. How come the Club of Rome gets the gig? Simply because many high ranking UN and government officials are also CoR members, or have direct corporate ties to members. The same goes for the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

A recently unearthed documentary that sought to expose this agenda at its inception is George Hunt’s excellent research piece on the environmental movement.

Considering the information unearthed concerning Obama’s links to all of this, it is not surprising that he is now pushing the “cap-and-trade” carbon tax program, which in reality represents a war on the middle and working classes.

Prior to the election, Obama called for drastically reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status.

The 80 per cent figure is a huge leap towards the ultimate goal, expressed by the Carnegie Institute last year and afforded sober credibility by the corporate media – a complete reduction down to zero carbon emissions.

As we have previously noted, such a move would lead to the near complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man’s return to the stone age.

Climate change scepticism is going mainstream

By Chris Ayres, UK Times

Well, that didn’t take long, did it? After six months of economic hardship and one unusually chilly winter, it seems that Americans are beginning to conclude that perhaps global warming wasn’t such a big deal after all. Blowing $30,000 on a solar roof doesn’t seem such a great move these days. And for the price of a Toyota Prius you can now buy a three-bedroomed house in Detroit with enough left for a pick-up truck (this isn’t a joke – the median house price in Motor City is $7,500).

The ranks of America’s “climate sceptics” have been growing quietly for some months now. And at the weekend a watershed was reached: the usually left-wing New York Times put the British-born physicist Freeman Dyson on the front of its Sunday magazine. The article inside revealed that Professor Dyson – 85 years old and based in Princeton – not only possesses one of the finest noodles on Planet Earth, but also happens to think that most of what Al Gore and his band of Unmerry Men preach amounts to little more than yuppie self-loathing.

“All the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated,” is how Professor Dyson puts it. He adds that while it’s true that human-caused carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising, the Earth is still going through a relatively cool period in its history, and that most of the evolution of life took place in a warmer era. Professor Dyson is also fond of pointing out that carbon dioxide helps plants to grow – so having too much of the stuff hanging around might not be such a bad thing.

Out in the blogotwittersphere, the Greens can hardly believe that the same media that once helped Mr Gore to win both an Oscar and a Nobel prize are now promoting such heresy. To make matters more infuriating, Professor Dyson isn’t even a conservative: he’s a left-wing, Obama-voting, peace-marching, boho-academic genius who argues that coal-produced electricity has liberated millions in China from poverty, and that “greens are people who’ve never had to worry about grocery bills”.

I suspect that, as we all get used to our relative poverty over coming months and as it becomes politically impossible for President Obama to bankrupt power stations and impose carbon tariffs on imports, such scepticism will become ever more mainstream. Only last week a suggestion by California to outlaw black cars because they absorb too much heat and therefore require too much air conditioning was met with almost universal ridicule. All of which is both satisfying and unsettling – satisfying to see debate triumph over heavy-handedness, but unsettling because even if what Mr Gore was peddling was a lie, it was a convenient one, in that it seemed to be finally weaning the US off Saudi oil.

Still, honesty is always the best way.

And in America at least, it’s always so much more appealing when delivered by an awkward Brit.

Don’t let it bug you

One of Professor Dyson’s most laughed-at theories is that “super trees” could be genetically altered to absorb hundreds of times more carbon dioxide than normal trees. Granted, it’s a bit out-there. On the other hand, I’m reminded of a laboratory I visited up in Silicon Valley last summer at the height of the $147-a-barrel oil crisis, where scientists had worked out how to genetically modify bugs – single-cell yeast bacteria, to be precise – so that they would excrete a substance pretty much identical to crude oil.

Now surely, if they can make fuel out of bug poo…

Terminal madness

California’s decision not to ban black cars should by no means reassure anyone that the Golden State is now run by sane people. Quite the opposite: today, as governments try to prevent deflationary death-spirals by pumping vast sums of cash into their economies, Arnold Schwarzenegger will raise statewide sales tax (ie, VAT) to more than 10 per cent in some areas, thus ensuring that even more people and businesses flee to Nevada. Meanwhile, at a gun amnesty event last week, the Governor continued to compare himself with a fictional cyborg. “The Terminator let himself down into the molten steel and he melted and he just kind of wanted to terminate himself to stop the violence and that is, uh, what this is all about,” he said.

Finally, I think that he might have stumbled upon a good idea: the terminator needs to terminate himself (from office), for the good of us all.

David Suzuki slammed for his outright climate lies at IOC enviro awards

By Bob Mackin, SUN MEDIA

VANCOUVER – The Beijing Olympic organizing committee was among five continental winners of the first International Olympic Committee sport and environment awards, presented Monday at the 8th World Conference on Sport and the Environment in Vancouver.

“This is the right city, the right moment, the right site to have the first IOC award for sport and environment,” said IOC sport and environment commission chairman Pal Schmitt of Hungary.

Schmitt said 38 individuals and organizations were nominated.

The Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau and Beijing 2008 committee won the award for Asia. The other winners were: Oregon Track Club (Americas), Green Africa Foundation (Africa), German Olympic committee (Europe) and the New Zealand 2010 Rowing World Championships organization (Oceania).

Outside the Vancouver Convention Centre, 100 people joined an Olympics Resistance Network rally against “green-washing.”

“It’s a marketing campaign for these companies that have realized that most of the world knows they’re destroying the Earth,” said ORN speaker Harjap Grewal. “What they now need to do is pretend to be green, what the Olympics provides them, it provides them with the best opportunity to ‘show the world’ they care about the environment.”

Grewal said Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics organizers, the IOC and sponsors are leaving a legacy of destruction. He pointed to the overland expansion of the Sea-to-Sky Highway through the Eagleridge Bluffs forest and swamp and clearcut logging to make way for Nordic sports venues in the Callaghan Valley.

Earlier Monday, VANOC CEO John Furlong said talks are underway with a sponsor to compile a $5 million portfolio of carbon credits to offset the estimated 300,000 tons of Games-related air pollution.

Dr. David Suzuki, a CBC TV presenter and retired geneticist, issued a report claiming Canadian winter sport is facing catastrophe by 2050 if global warming isn’t stopped. Retired climate scientist Dr. Timothy Ball, however, said a global cooling trend since 2000 could ruin food crops and lead to heating fuel shortages across Canada sooner than mid-century.

“Governments are preparing for warming — and it’s cooling,” Ball told 24 hours. “We’re going to be blindsided.”

The three-day United Nations and IOC-presented convention ends Tuesday. The convention was downsized by the recession. Sponsorship was open exclusively to all VANOC and IOC partners, but only seven responded. The federal and British Columbia governments and provincial Crown corporation BC Hydro were three of them.

BREAKING NEWS: 100 plus scientists rebuke Obama as 'simply incorrect' on global warming

Posted by Justin Credible
Statement from CATO today: ‘Climate Change: Mr. President, We Disagree’

“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008

With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true.

We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.

  • Yun Akusofu, Ph.D University Of Alaska
  • Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
  • Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D Anderson Materials Evaluation
  • J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
  • Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
  • Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
  • Colin Barton Csiro (retired)
  • David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
  • John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
  • Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
  • Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
  • Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
  • John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
  • Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
  • Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
  • Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
  • Roger Cohen, Ph.D Fellow, American Physical Society
  • Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
  • Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
  • Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
  • Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D Past-President, Italian Geological Society
  • Susan Crockford, Ph.D University Of Victoria
  • Joseph S. D’aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
  • James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
  • David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
  • Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
  • David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
  • Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy Conversion The Ohio State University
  • Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario
  • John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle
  • Upon Tyne (retired)
  • Eduardo Ferreyra, Argentinian Foundation For A Scientific Ecology
  • Michael Fox, Ph.D, American Nuclear Society
  • Gordon Fulks, Ph.D, Gordon Fulks And Associates
  • Lee Gerhard, Ph.D, State Geologist, Kansas (retired)
  • Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D, Technische Universitat Braunschweig
  • Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics
  • Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D, Scientific Director, Inttas (Paraguay)
  • Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D, University Of Ottawa
  • James Goodridge, California State Climatologist (retired)
  • Laurence Gould, Ph.D, University Of Hartford
  • Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand Climate Coalition
  • William M. Gray, Ph.D, Colorado State University
  • Kenneth E. Green, D.Env., American Enterprise Institute
  • Kesten Green, Ph.D, Monash University
  • Will Happer, Ph.D, Princeton University
  • Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D, University Of Connecticut (emeritus)
  • Ben Herman, Ph.D, University Of Arizona (emeritus)
  • Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D, U.S. Navy (retired)
  • Doug Hoffman, Ph.D, Author, The Resilient Earth
  • Bernd Huettner, Ph.D
  • Ole Humlum, Ph.D, University Of Oslo
  • A. Neil Hutton, Past President, Canadian Society Of Petroleum Geologists
  • Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global Change
  • Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Agriculture (retired)
  • Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D, Yokohama National University
  • Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
  • Sten Kaijser, Ph.D, Uppsala University (emeritus)
  • Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, University Of Stockholm (emeritus)
  • Joel Kauffman, Ph.D, University Of The Sciences, Philadelphia (emeritus)
  • David Kear, Ph.D, Former Director-General, Nz Dept. Scientific And Industrial Research
  • Richard Keen, Ph.D, University Of Colorado
  • Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D, Lifetime Achievers Award, National Science And Technology Forum, South Africa
  • Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research
  • Robert S. Knox, Ph.D, University Of Rochester (emeritus)
  • James P. Koermer, Ph.D, Plymouth State University
  • Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Fairbanks
  • Wayne Kraus, Ph.D, Kraus Consulting
  • Olav M. Kvalheim, Ph.D, Univ. Of Bergen
  • Roar Larson, Ph.D, Norwegian University Of Science And Technology
  • James F. Lea, Ph.D
  • Douglas Leahy, Ph.D, Meteorologist
  • Peter R. Leavitt, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
  • David R. Legates, Ph.D, University of Delaware
  • Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
  • Harry F. Lins, Ph.D. Co-Chair, IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group
  • Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D, University Of Missouri
  • Howard Maccabee, Ph.D, MD Clinical Faculty, Stanford Medical School
  • Horst Malberg, Ph.D, Free University of Berlin
  • Bjorn Malmgren, Ph.D, Goteburg University (emeritus)
  • Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D, Australian Environment Foundation
  • James A Marusek, U.S. Navy (retired)
  • Ross Mckitrick, Ph.D, University Of Guelph
  • Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D, University Of Virginia
  • Timmothy R. Minnich, MS, Minnich And Scotto, Inc.
  • Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute, Norway
  • Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College
  • Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University (emeritus)
  • Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University (emeritus)
  • David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada
  • Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Australia
  • Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania
  • Alfred Peckarek, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University
  • Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska
  • Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus)
  • Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan
  • John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharmaceuticals
  • Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University
  • Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop’s University (emeritus)
  • Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service
  • Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
  • Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc.
  • Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth
  • Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville
  • Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of Reclamation
  • George H. Taylor,MS, Applied Climate Services
  • Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata (Argentina)
  • Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D
  • Dr. Anton Uriarte,Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
  • Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
  • Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg (emeritus)
  • Gerd-Rainer Weber,Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate Change
  • Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University
  • Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University
  • Miklos Zagoni,Ph.D Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
  • Antonio Zichichi,Ph.D President, World Federation Of Scientists


See the full-page newspaper ad HERE

Footnotes
1. Swanson, K.L., and A. A. Tsonis. Geophysical Research Letters, in press: DOI:10.1029/2008GL037022.
2. Brohan, P., et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006: DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006548. Updates at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature.
3. Pielke, R. A. Jr., et al. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2005: DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-86-10-1481.
4. Douglass, D. H., et al. International Journal of Climatology, 2007: DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.

Note: Many of the scientists are current and former UN IPCC reviewers and some have reversed their views on man-made warming and are now skeptical. Also note Nobel Laureate for Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever signed. Giaever endorsed Obama for President in an October 29, 2008 letter.

The War on CO2 Isn't About Science

By Bob Ellis, Dakota Voice

Alan Caruba’s latest column provides some simple bullet-point truths about the religion of global warming which demonstrate that adherents to this religion are believing in something as silly as ancient astrology:

Here are a few things you need to keep in mind about carbon dioxide:

– CO2 is not a “pollutant.” It is a trace gas necessary for all life of Earth because it is essential to the growth of all vegetation.

– Without CO2 all vegetation—grasses, forests, jungles, crops such as wheat, corn and rice—dies. Then herbivores die. Then you die.

– The CO2 produced by human industry or activity is a miniscule fraction of a percentage of greenhouse gases. It constitutes a mere 0.038% of the atmosphere.

– The oceans emit 96.5% of all greenhouse gases, holding and releasing CO2 as it has down through the millennia of Earth’s existence.

– In past millennia, CO2 levels were often much higher than the present.

– CO2 levels rise hundreds of years after temperature rise on planet Earth.

– The Sun is the primary source of warmth on Earth. Rising CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause.

– Both global warming and cooling are natural phenomenon over which humans have no control.

– The Earth is not currently warming. It has been cooling for a decade and likely to continue for at least another twenty years or longer. If a new Ice Age is triggered, it will last at least 10,000 years.

– Polar ice is now at record levels and still growing.

Obviously this reality doesn’t match up with the flames of hysteria being fanned by Al Gore and the UN. The science is simply not on their side.

So why this massive campaign of unscientific lies? Well, it’s not hard to figure out, when you understand the great motivation of power-hungry big-government socialists.

And Caruba spells it out:

The EPA proposal is not about science. It is about power and it is about money. As the Wall Street Journal noted, “The administration has proposed a cap-and-trade system that could raise $646 billion by 2019 through government auctions of emission allowances.”

Folks, don’t fall for more socialist lies aimed to remove more of the money you earned from your pocket to make even bigger government which aims to rob you of more of your God-given liberties.

More and more Americans are waking up to the fact that the fantasy of anthropogenic global warming is a load of hot air.

Isn’t it time you took a look at how thin the “facts” are behind Al Gore’s religion, and join the rest of us in rejecting this anti-American nonsense? It’s time we relegated this crazy notion of man-made climate disaster to the place it truly belongs: a Saturday-afternoon C-grade Sci Fi Channel movie–something you might watch if you were snowed in and stuck in the house, but wouldn’t bother with if you had anything better to do.

'Earth Hour' Roundup!

By John Ray, Greenie Watch

Comments from various sources:

1). Al Gore certainly didn’t shut the lights off

2). I could not help but chuckle at the irony of earth hour’s method of getting their message across. By turning off lights around the world they showed people exactly what they want. They want to turn the light out on human civilization. The wish to stop progress, to pull back humans’ desire to better our world. Instead of light that allows us to see truth clearly they choose darkness, to hide their true intentions.

3). I will be thinking about the 1.8 billion people on Earth who have no access to electricity, and how insane they must think we are.

4). Earth Hour is a good demonstration of what will happen very soon if energy policy continues to be strangled by futile attempts to control the weather/climate using the harmless, essential, naturally occurring, aerial plant food gas CO2.

5). With reference to the absurd Dearth Hour, JunkScience.com is wondering how many stories we can collect of people injured falling over the cat/furniture in the enviro-induced darkness. Candle fires from unsafe lighting? Anything you or your readers may have heard about can be returned to this email address or preferably posted under this topic on the forum. (It’s a self-register arrangement & you can post immediately following registration).

6). An email from Greenland with illustrative picture below: Does it sometimes seem like everything you read, see or do has the word “Green” attached to it? When you are living in Greenland you can’t ignore it! But the Earth Hour made a difference here. See www.glar.gl. No more global warming.

7). Comment by Australian cartoonist ZEG:

Time to Start Reading Up on Global Warming

By Greg Gutfeld, FoxNews

So, a U.N. document that’s part of another, upcoming climate change session has been obtained by FOX News and it’s a doozy. And by doozy, I mean doozy.

The document lays out a huge reordering of the world economy, involving trillions in wealth transfer as well as dizzying outlays for carbon taxes and greenhouse gas abatement schemes — all under the thumb of a group that’s about as pristine as Andy Dick’s bloodstream.

Meanwhile in California, there’s talk of banning “black cars,” because the color black encourages global warming. This is what we’ve come to: banning black cars. What’s next? Outlawing eight balls? Crows? Pupils? Piano keys? Black coffee? Black bean soup? Black loafers? Jack Black? Shirley Temple Black? AC/DC’s classic album “Back in Black?”

Sorry, I almost blacked out.

So you have to ask: How did a world-changing reordering of our lives — based on hypothetical and highly debatable science — come to pass?

It’s because we’re dolts. We don’t know science and so when global warming comes up, we yawn. And by tuning it all out, we leave it to so-called climate change experts with statistics as murky as my bathwater to run with the ball.

Bottom line: The people most vocal about carbon offsets are the same people standing to make zillions off the ruse. Look at Al Gore. His dishonest movie bought him a houseboat.

So unless we start reading up on this stuff, we’re all screwed. And, unlike Gore, we won’t have a houseboat to hide in.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir, are worse than Hitler.

Earth hour: FAIL!

By Richard Henry Lee, American Thinker

The Greenies did not convince the average liberal New Yorkers and Californians to turn off their lights at the appointed Earth Hour of 8:30 PM local time. By looking at real time data in New York and California, there was no drop in electric usage.

The New York State Independent System Operator has data for electric usage here. By downloading the data and plotting it it appears that at the Earth hour of 8:30 PM, there was no discernable electric usage drop. Here is the load graph for New York in Megawatts [right]. In California, there was also no discernable drop in load either according to the graph provided by the California ISO. This graph uses the 24 hour clock so 20.5 is 8:30 PM.
chart
These results seems consistent with recent surveys that show that people believe that the MSM are exaggerating the effects of global warming. No doubt the MSM will also ignore the lack of Earth Hour participation by a skeptical public. If New York and California do not voluntarily reduce demand to “save the planet”, then we can safely assume that the rest of the country does not believe the global warming hype either. Update: Don Surber mocks the airheads in Sydney, Australia (where Earth Hour was first commemorated) who turned out the lights and lit candles as they got all weepy over the assault humanity has launched against Mother Gaia. There’s a great photograph of them by Kate Geraghty of the Sydney Morning Herald he uses. He writes:

So, was any carbon dioxide saved?
Noted the Christian Science Monitor: “As Australian blogger Enoch the Red pointed out after last year’s Earth Hour that an average Australian who tries to replace all the light produced by an incandescent bulb with light cast by parrifin candles will result in about 10 times the greenhouse emissions.

Telling CO2 Lies to Destroy America

By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs

My friend, the internationally famed climatologist, Dr. S. Fred Singer, calls them “the CO2 wars.” It is the last ditch attempt by the Greens, under the aegis of the Obama administration, to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant and thus open the door to its regulation.

Singer says such regulation “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification.”

I am increasingly of the opinion that the main goal of the Obama administration through CO2 regulation, exploding deficits, punishing taxation, and any other means at their disposal is the destruction of the economy and the complete control of impoverished Americans.

This is an administration that exists to impose an Orwellian socialist utopia after the smokescreen clears.

When it comes to CO2, Obama, his so-called science advisors, and the Environmental Protection Agency are all lying. It is governmental gangsterism.

As reported in The Wall Street Journal, “The Environmental Protection Agency has sent the White House a proposed finding that carbon dioxide is a danger to public health, a step that could trigger a clampdown on emissions of so-called greenhouse gases across a wide swath of the economy.”

Here are a few things you need to keep in mind about carbon dioxide:

CO2 is not a “pollutant.” It is a trace gas necessary for all life of Earth because it is essential to the growth of all vegetation.

Without CO2 all vegetation—grasses, forests, jungles, crops such as wheat, corn and rice—dies. Then herbivores die. Then you die.

The CO2 produced by human industry or activity is a miniscule fraction of a percentage of greenhouse gases. It constitutes a mere 0.038% of the atmosphere.

The oceans emit 96.5% of all greenhouse gases, holding and releasing CO2 as it has down through the millennia of Earth’s existence.

In past millennia, CO2 levels were often much higher than the present.

CO2 levels rise hundreds of years after temperature rise on planet Earth.

The Sun is the primary source of warmth on Earth. Rising CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause.

Both global warming and cooling are natural phenomenon over which humans have no control.

The Earth is not currently warming. It has been cooling for a decade and likely to continue for at least another twenty years or longer. If a new Ice Age is triggered, it will last at least 10,000 years.

Polar ice is now at record levels and still growing.

If you had a choice, would you prefer a warmer or colder Earth?

And consider this, if only the United States was to significantly cut its CO2 emissions, how much effect, if any, would that have in a world where most other nations, including China and India, have no intention of doing so? Both are exempt from the UN Kyoto Protocol. The answer is zero!

The EPA proposal is not about science. It is about power and it is about money. As the Wall Street Journal noted, “The administration has proposed a cap-and-trade system that could raise $646 billion by 2019 through government auctions of emission allowances.”

The federal government, though the aegis of the EPA, would have control over the destinies of an estimated 13,000 facilities if this regulatory obscenity were to become law.

“Coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and domestic industries, such as energy-intensive paper, cement, fertilizer, steel and glass manufacturers, worry that increased cost burdens imposed by climate-change laws will put them at a severe competitive disadvantage to their international peers that aren’t bound by similar environmental rules.”

Such industries would flee the United States as the most toxic place on Earth in which to do business.

This would be the fulfillment of the Obama administration’s goal and explains in part why this new assault on science, industry, and common sense has been put forth by the EPA.

One of the best sites for information about carbon dioxide is http://www.ilovemyco2.com/
I recommend you visit and browse through its extensive data.

A tip of the hat as well to http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/01/about.html.

For some of the best information on a daily basis, check out http://www.climatechangefraud.com/