Climategate Synopsis:

Scientists conspire to falsify data to support global warming theory
Scientists plan cover-up
hacker/whisle-blower exposes cover-up emails (and thereby the falsification)
Sen. Barbara Boxer wants to prosecute whistle-blower
FOX lets cat out of bag
Mainstream media ignore all the above

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2009/12/02/12-days-climategate-network-news-programs-are-still-ignoring-scandal

Thoughts

I read something about this the other day. I think political agendas are in jeopardy and they have the power to censor what we get to see and hear. There is a lot of tree hugger money supporting the "global warming" agenda and if something slows it down (such as the truth) they will do everything they can to stop that information from reaching the masses.

What? I knew about Tiger Woods (he found out I was screwing his wife), but I missed the whole whale/shark thing completely!

My senators and reps stopped responding to my letters. One, Joe Leiberman, did not and he does not support the healthcare crap, etc. But my other two, after I started asking them some serious questions, simply stopped replying.. including the canned response.

No, I haven't stopped writing letters.. once an activist, always an activist.

We need to get back to the roots of our Constitution and the reasons it was written... I am really upset at the heavy left/socialist leaning that is taking place.
The hundred thousand people who showed up on the reflecting pool grounds a month or so ago... did anyone see ANY mention of it anywhere but Fox?
How about the two who snuck into the White House party? They should be in jail one would think, as would those responsible and they're still being made out as celebrities...
Hopefully, enough people out there will realize whats going on and take the few minutes to write their congresscritters and tell them, "I am not voting for you!"

But.. I'll stop before I take off on a multi-page tirade...

Dave, I'm with ya.

Don, I thought I saw a red Jeep leaving Elin's place last night.

CNN coverage of Climatgate - it's gotten too big to hide

12/08/09 CNN.com publishes a piece whose main point of view is that Rajendra Pachauri, the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) dismissed the controversy.
CNN included a quick description of climategate followed by more dissmissive prose. The reader needs to click a link to see more details.

Even the detail story is sketchy. It mentions "Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years ... to hide the decline (of global temperature)." But CNN does not provide the most telling bit; the trick is named for the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) "Nature" article where the graphs where first published. They are re-using a known trick!

and today OHBama hits Copenhagen to rope America into more Global governance.

This is just like our wheeling world only we have SO much more to lose.
If you never wrote a letter to your congresscritters to keep some parcel of land open, write to them now, begging them to A) NOT vote for the Cap and Trade bill and B) vote NO for the current health care bill..
The health care system in the US is the best in the world.. our health care needs no reform. How we pay for it could use some tweaking.. however, if they would simply allow these insurance companies to sell their product over state lines, competition would breed quality and much better rates across the board...

Living in CT, I am "forced" to buy my health insurance from one of only several providers. Bob, you in NY, are forced into buying yours from a just several as well and none of them are the same as me, just 45 miles away (as the crow flies across the sound). If you and I could choose between the hundreds of health insurance companies around the country, don't you think that suddenly rates would drop and quality would rise as now they're competing with "99" other companies as opposed to 6.
But NOOOO, congress doesn't want to look at that because that is pure and simple capitalism at its best.. free market, best company(s) wins. Not close enough to socialism and the European way of life for congress to like it.

So, if you have any leanings towards personal freedom and liberties, are slightly conservative, libertarian, (if you are a socialist leaning liberal, you probably hate me already.. ) then you need to go to http://www.congress.org, type in your zip and send your critters an email telling them, "I vote, I do NOT want Cap and Trade and I do NOT want this health care reform bill, if you vote for either, I'm NOT voting for you, Thank you" By the way... C&T is an environmental bill and one that could have many long lasting negative effects on how land is used...and you guessed it, that includes our private properties.. just like BTC... which has a whole slew of McMansions behind it... don't be surprised when the Church gets some sort of cease and desist order because some zealous enviro-neighbor feels that "our use" is an evil use.
Then, take a few minutes and do a search for "the United States Constitution".. read it..even just peruse it.. and tell me.. is this where our founding fathers wanted us to be? They dumped tea over less abuses. Unfortunately, we can't protest in the same manner... but, we can communicate and we VOTE.

Sorry for the rant... I'm still passionate and still/always an activist.

Talk soon,

I've written twice about the Cap & Trade bill to my Senator and Congressman and both times I was told that they were voting for it because "it was for the good of the country". I thought they were supposed to listen to their constituents? I guess they forgot who is supposed to run the country.

Just in from Copenhagen:

Report: President Obama Has the Clear Legal Authority to Make a Binding Commitment for
Greenhouse Gas Reductions in Copenhagen Without Waiting for Congress

COPENHAGEN— The Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute released a report today demonstrating that President Obama has clear legal authority to commit the United States to reducing greenhouse gas pollution. The report, titled Yes, He Can: President Obama’s Power to Make an International Climate Commitment Without Waiting for Congress, concludes that the President need not wait for Congress to act before taking strong action to reduce U.S. emissions.

The report will be released in Copenhagen this evening at a side event hosted by Greenpeace.

Where: Niels Bohr
When: Tuesday, 8 December, 21:00-21:30 (Copenhagen time)

“President Obama’s hands are not tied by Congress’s lack of action or the grossly inadequate cap-and-trade bills currently under debate. President Obama can lead, rather than follow, by using his power under the Clean Air Act and other laws to achieve deep and rapid greenhouse emissions reductions from major polluters,” said Center attorney Kevin Bundy, the report’s lead author. “Obama can use his authority to make a binding agreement in Copenhagen without additional action from Congress. The Constitution and existing domestic environmental laws give President Obama all the power he needs to join with other nations in making a real commitment to solve the climate crisis.”

The report cites prominent legal scholars and U.S. Supreme Court opinions recognizing the President’s broad power to make binding international agreements that do not need to be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate. For example, the President could enter into either a “congressional-executive” agreement under authority already granted by Congress, or a “sole executive” agreement based on his own constitutional powers.

The report also details the President’s broad authority to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions under existing environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Environmental Policy Act. The release of the report follows yesterday’s important finding by the Environmental Protection Agency that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. That decision will facilitate comprehensive measures to curb greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act.

“The President has the ultimate responsibility for enforcing domestic environmental laws, and those laws give him a wide variety of options for reducing greenhouse gas pollution,” said Bundy. “All he has to do is promise the international community to use the authority he already has.”

“It simply isn’t true that President Obama cannot make a commitment in Copenhagen. Yes, he can, and if the world is to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, he must.”

From one of the various land use/property rights lists I still inhabit.

Watermelon Marxists

By John Griffing

Global warming as a science is defunct. Evidence of scientific dishonesty abounds, and the recent e-mail revelations may be the last nail in the coffin. When all is said and done, temperatures are falling.



But as a tool for watermelon Marxists -- green on the outside and red on the inside -- climate change orthodoxy represents an opportunity to achieve age-old dreams of communist wealth redistribution. Don't take my word for it. Listen to Cass Sunstein, Obama's new regulatory czar and perhaps the most powerful bureaucrat in America:



It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid.



He added:



We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.



Furthermore, Sunstein thinks that "[i]f we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses."



Sunstein is not alone. Sacked environmental czar Van Jones talks of "eco-apartheid." To a like-minded audience, Van Jones exclaimed, "Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! No justice on stolen land...we owe them a debt."



President Obama is presumably on board, having pledged to "bankrupt" the coal industry, among other telling remarks:



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.



President Obama is also on record as favoring Supreme Court intervention to "spread the wealth":



But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted. ...



There are several things wrong with this statement, but the most chilling expression of President Obama's anti-American philosophy lies in his willingness to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. ..." Somehow, President Obama thinks he is exempt from the oath of office he took to "protect and defend the Constitution." Within such a paradigm, anything is permissible, including the complete destruction of American economic strength as part of an abstract notion of redistributive justice.



President Obama's proposed cap-and-trade bill would reduce U.S. GDP by $9 trillion at a time of severe unemployment. Where is the indignation? Where are the calls for his impeachment?



The U.N. Climate Change Conference wants to go as far as orchestrating a "planned recession" in order to begin the process. Cass Sunstein agrees.



But who needs these people when the President of the United States is willing to destroy the American dream by his own hand? President Obama has pledged to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, the biggest transfer of American wealth and sovereignty in U.S. history.



Few have bothered to read the agreement, which like so many other damaging agreements is excessively verbose. It calls for climate reparations to third-world countries -- what the treaty calls "adaptation debt." This isn't optional. Clause 33 on page 39 of the agreement says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]." And unlike previous climate agreements, Copenhagen empowers a new U.N. council to compel rich nations to comply with this theft of resources. The treaty states:



The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:



(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate. [Emphasis added.]



World government will be a reality if this agreement is ratified. Notice also the use of the words "financial mechanism." The Copenhagen agreement, for the first time in the history of international legal precedent, proposes giving the U.N. authority to levy a global tax on rich nations to pay for "adaptation debt." Page 135 of the agreement provides for "[a global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties." Annex I countries are the rich ones.



What is astonishing about this "climate" treaty is that so little of it actually addresses climate. Emissions pledges remain mere pledges. The real focus of the treaty is the transfer of wealth. The words "climate debt" are used throughout the agreement, giving pseudo-credibility to the premise of wealth redistribution. But just what is "climate debt"? The essence of the concept is that rich countries raped the earth by emitting carbon and simultaneously deprived poor countries of economic opportunity. It would be funny if it weren't actually the position of the Copenhagen Conference.



When all is said and done, what happens if we succeed in destroying American wealth and creating a world government to coerce the shift? Wouldn't world peace be a good thing? But the peace of submission is not a peace worth having, and the perceived economic benefits will be brief, owing to global economic dependence on American consumers.



Once America is gone, it will be gone forever. Nations will benefit most from the continuing existence of a strong America. Killing the golden goose will not bring balance to the universe. Plundering American wealth will provide only a temporary shot in the arm for poor nations -- and then the drug will wear off, ushering in a new dark age on a global scale.



Right now, President Obama is the most powerful person in the most powerful country on earth. Obama may not have noticed, but we already have world government, and America is king.



Just like with the man who sells his soul for power, the Devil never delivers as promised. He's the Devil. And paradoxically, for the world to destroy America, it needs America's wealth and resources.



Whatever President Obama has been promised will evaporate the moment America loses the privilege of the last word. President Obama will be committing treason by signing this treaty, and he must be held accountable. The American Revolution was fought over this very issue: taxation without representation.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/ ... xists.html at December 11, 2009 - 09:16:26 AM EST

To read the embedded links, copy and paste the link above.