Wednesday, December 30, 2009

'Scientists and climatologists have a lot of money and power behind them' 5/27/04

5/27/04, Cinema Confidential News, "Director Roland Emmerich on (the movie) "The Day After Tomorrow"
  • "Q: How have you been handling all of the attention the movie is receiving in the press?

ROLAND: It’s strange that a popcorn movie is becoming a political news item on “The Today Show.” I was on several of these news shows lately and it’s quite interesting to watch. You see these people appearing and everybody has warned me about it,

But they have a lot of money and power behind them so they get

  • heard very loudly. ...

But I’m not that political as a person. I’m more interested in subjects."...

  • ""What we're doing to the planet is scary. And what the planet might do back is even scarier.""...5/04 (this is stated as if it were fact by the director).

"Former vice president Al Gore has rallied behind the film and plans a series of
  • town hall meetings to discuss global warming.

The activist group MoveOn.org is dispatching thousands of volunteers to hand out leaflets about climate change to moviegoers."... 5/04

  • (about a film stated to be ficticious).
  • An overworked citizenry bombarded by Hollywood, corrupt grifters, endless leftwing propaganda and the media decided it was easier to join the criminals than fight them.
  • Until now. The 11 th hour. It is the peoples' time.




Friday, December 25, 2009

More on the left see man made 'climate change' for political con it is--Cockburn

12/24/09: "The CRU was founded in 1971 with funding from sources including Shell and British Petroleum. It became one of the
  • (IPCC) has concocted its reports.
Deceitful manipulation of data, concealment or straightforward destruction of inconvenient evidence, vindictive conspiracies to silence critics, are par for the course in all scientific debate.
  • But in displaying all these characteristics, the CRU e-mails graphically undermine the claim of the Warmers that they command the moral as well as scientific high ground.
It has been a standard ploy of the Warmers to revile the skeptics as whores of the energy industry, swaddled in munificent grants and with large personal stakes in discrediting AGW.
  • Actually, the precise opposite is true.
Billions in funding and research grants sluice into the big climate-modeling enterprises and a vast archipelago of research departments and "institutes of climate change" across academia.
  • It's where the money is.

Many of the landmines in the CRU e-mails tend to buttress longstanding charges by skeptics (yours truly included) that statistical chicanery by professor Michael Mann and others occluded the highly inconvenient Medieval Warm Period, running from 800 to 1300 AD, with temperatures in excess of the highest we saw in the 20th century,

Here's Keith Briffa, of the CRU, letting his hair down in an e-mail Sept. 22, 1999: "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. ...

  • I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago."

Now, in the fall of 1999, the IPCC was squaring up to its all-important "Summary for Policymakers" - essentially a press release, one that eventually featured the notorious graph flatlining into nonexistence the Medieval Warm Period and displaying a terrifying, supposedly unprecedented surge in 20th-century temperatures.

  • Briffa's reconstruction of temperature changes, one showing a mid- to late-20th-century decline, was regarded by Mann, in a Sept. 22, 1999, e-mail to the CRU,
  • as a "problem and a potential distraction/detraction."

So Mann, a lead author on this chapter of the IPCC report, simply deleted the embarrassing post-1960 portion of Briffa's reconstruction. The CRU's Jones happily applauded Mann's deceptions in an e-mail in which he crowed over "Mike's Nature trick."

Other landmines include e-mails from Kevin Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. On Oct. 14, he wrote to the CRU's Tom Wigley: "How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget.

Only a few weeks before Copenhagen, here is a scientist in the inner AGW circle disclosing that "we are no where close to knowing" how the supposedly proven AGW warming model might actually work, and

  • that therefore geoengineering - such as carbon mitigation - is "hopeless."

This admission edges close to acknowledgment of a huge core problem: that "greenhouse" theory violates the second law of thermodynamics, which says that a cooler body cannot warm a hotter body without compensation.

  • Greenhouse gases in the cold upper atmosphere cannot possibly transfer heat to the warmer earth, and in fact radiate their absorbed heat into outer space.

(Readers interested in the science can read Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner's "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics," updated in January 2009.)

  • Recent data from many monitors including the CRU, available on climate4you.com, show that the average temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans near the surface of the earth has

CO2 is a benign gas essential to life, occurring in past eras at five times present levels.

  • Changes in atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with human emissions of CO2, the latter being entirely trivial in the global balance.

The battles in Nicaea in 325 were faith based, with no relation to science or reason. So were the premises of the Copenhagen summit, that the planet faces catastrophic warming caused by manmade CO2 buildup, and that human intervention - geoengineering - could avert the coming disaster. Properly speaking, it's a farce.

from "Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Farce," by Alexander Cockburn, 12/24/09, Real Clear Politics

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Using and terrifying children about non-existent global warming

"Out of the mouths of babes come a conniving adult’s words | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
There is something profoundly immoral about terrifiying children for a political cause and something profoundly anti-intellectual in
  • complex questions of science and economics.
This tactic alone suggests on which side of this debate reason lies."

via Tom Nelson, Th., 12/10/09

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Meet Celebs! Meet Hedge Funds and other crooks! Carbon Trading Expo!

"Following the success of our previous event, iGlobal Forum is pleased to announce the 2nd Annual Carbon Trading Summit taking place on January 12th and 13th at the Embassy Suites Hotel in New York. Taking place immediately after the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in December’09, the event will steer discussions between leading carbon market experts about the conclusions and implications of the COP 15 as well as it will examine the latest developments in the future
  • $1 trillion North American Carbon Market.
  • The event will be the premier gathering of key executives of energy and utilities companies, government representatives, investment banks, hedge funds, carbon credit aggregators, heads of global environmental exchanges, experts in environmental policy, and carbon traders to address the future of the Carbon Trading industry. The 2nd Annual Carbon Trading Summit will provide the perfect platform to meet face-to-face and network with the
  • top qualified carbon trading executives. "...

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Global warming looks to be 'the biggest transfer of funds in history'-Guardian

Guardian: "Ecology and morals count in the public arena, but as the negotiations progress and world leaders arrive to take the stage, money will dominate the backroom talks....Copenhagen may lead over the next 20 years to the
UK Guardian by John Vidal, 11/30/09, "Copenhagen summit: It's money that matters in the back room talks"
  • It's why the whole global warming movement started. Ordinary Americans slaved their lives away while international bankers and hedge fund thugs viewed them with scorn and contempt, with no thought but to squash them like bugs. (ed)

Monday, November 30, 2009

ClimateGate Jones wanted global warming to happen no matter the consequence

  • It appears Soros and Maurice Strong found a soul mate in East Anglia. Phil Jones wanted global warming to happen no matter what (end of following article). Some form of emotional abuse had to befall these three as children. Somehow they became monsters.
"Perhaps the real scandal is the dependence of media and politicians on their academics' work - an ask-no-questions approach that saw them surrender much of their power, and ultimately authority. This doesn't absolve the CRU crew of the charges, but might put it into a better context.
  • After a week of scrutiny of the emails, attention is now turning to the programming source code. Three quarters of the material released is the work of the academics,
  • much of which they had jealously guarded.

This includes a version of the world's most cited and respected temperature record - HADCRUT - and a number of surveys which featured prominently in the reports of the

  • UN's climate change panel, the IPCC. The actors here shaped the UN reports,
  • and ultimately - because no politician dare contradict the 'science' -
  • shaped global policy.

The allegations over the past week are fourfold: that climate scientists controlled the publishing process to discredit opposing views and further their own theory; they manipulated data to make recent temperature trends look anomalous; they withheld and destroyed data they should have released as good scientific practice, and they were generally beastly about people who criticised their work. (You’ll note that one of these is far less serious than the others.)

But why should this be a surprise?

The secretive Jones is no secret

The secretive approach of CRU director Jones and his colleagues, particularly in the paleoclimatology field, is not a secret. Distinguished scientists have testified to this throughout from the early 1990s onwards.

A report specifically commissioned four years ago by Congress, the Wegman Report, identified many of the failings discussed in the past week.

Failings are understandable, climatology is in its infancy, and the man-made greenhouse gas theory is a recent development. However no action was taken. A little like Goldman Sachs, the group that includes

A lightning recap of what CRU is, and what role it plays, helps bring the puzzle out of the shadows.

  • CRU was founded in 1972 by the 'Father of Climatology', former Met Office meteorologist Hubert Lamb. Until around 1980, solar modulation was believed to be the driving factor in climatic variation....

But CRU's increasing influence, according to its own history,

"The UK Government became a strong supporter of climate research in the mid-1980s, following a meeting between Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher and a small number of climate researchers, which included Tom Wigley, the CRU director at the time. This and other meetings eventually

Lamb (who died in 1997), however remained sceptical of the greenhouse gas hypothesis to the end.

  • In addition to inheriting all the problems of climatology, the greenhouse gas hypothesis has several unique issues of its own, and addressing them is a challenge for the most scrupulous researcher.
  • How CRU addressed them was to define climatology for two decades - and ultimately

  • defined the public debate and policy, too.

The gas theory is based on an elegant 'energy budget' model, but it leans heavily on positive feedbacks resulting from greenhouse gases such as CO2 in order to produce the warming CO2 cannot do by itself. Yet no simple empirical laboratory tests are of use here. Nor is there a ‘fingerprint’ or tell-tale signal that anthropogenically produced gases are the primary forcing factor. Hence climatology's increasing reliance, since 1980, on a range of anecdotal evidence and computer modelling.

In a fiercely contested field, both methods were fiercely guarded.

  • The result of this was the blurring of the line between correlation and causation, and hindcasting and forecasting.
  • Slowly, but surely, an "assertion" was becoming "proof".

The first IPCC report in 1990 used the established temperature record created by Lamb. It's very different to the one we're familiar with today - and that's the work of CRU director Phil Jones, CRU's pioneer dendrochronologist Keith Briffa, and their colleagues in (mainly) US institutions.

  • You can see the difference here.




Although Lamb's version is supported by historical accounts, archaeology, geology and even contemporary literature,

  • two key differences are the decreased significance of the Medieval Warming Period (CRU and its allies prefer the term 'MCA', or "Medieval Climate Anomaly") and a radically warmer modern period.

Jones and his team began to produce work that contradicted the established picture in 1990 - and CRU was able to do so from both ends. By creating new temperature recreations, it could create a new account of history. By issuing a monthly gridded temperature set while

  • making raw station data unavailable for inspection, it defined contemporary data. So CRU controlled two important narratives: the "then", and the "now".

In the FOIA.ZIP archive, we find Jones unambiguous in an email: "We will be rewriting people's perceived wisdom about the course of temperature change over the past millennium," he wrote.

  • In text books co-authored with Ray Bradley (1992 and 1996) and a landmark paper with Ben Santer (1996), Jones described artificial reconstructions that questioned the established historical record. Jones and Briffa were both co-authors of a 1995 paper for Nature - Unusual Twentieth-century Summer Warmth in a 1,000-year Temperature Record from Siberia - that
  • used a tree ring reconstruction from the Urals to claim that the mean 20th Century temperature is higher than any period since 914. Sympathetic researchers in the US produced similar graphs, again emphasising that modern warming (0.7C in the 20th Century), was anomalous.

Since these scientists declined to document their methodology and the raw sample, they were difficult to dispute.

That resulted in the Wegman report. Although CRU hadn't produced the Hockey Stick (the work of American metereologist Michael Mann) or used his statistical techniques,

  • Wegman implicated leading CRU figures as part of a close knit network.
In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and
  • thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.

Wegman also criticised their workmanship:

[...]the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there

was too much reliance on peer review,
which was not necessarily independent.

Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized

that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.

Wegman had identified other networks in climate science which also "peer reviewed" each other's work,

  • removing criticism from the record, and
  • acting as gatekeepers.

Over four years later the 'Climategate' archive provides evidence to support this.

  • We find Jones discussing how to avoid FOIA requests, advising the deletion of email and telling his own information officers not to release data to critics.
  • Earlier this summer, CRU said that it had failed to maintain the raw station data it had gathered,
  • citing lack of storage space.

But to what purpose were these networks acting?

Playing politics - or feeding a demand?

'Climategate' raises far more questions than it answers, and one of the most intriguing of these is how a small group (backing a new theory, in an infant field) came to have

Is it fair to hang CRU Director Jones and his colleagues out to dry - as some climate campaigners such as George Monbiot have suggested? If the buck doesn't stop with the CRU climatologists - then who or what is really to blame?...

The CRU team may have stepped into a scientific vacuum, but that doesn't account for the qualities of the climate debate today.

  • It is beset with a sense of crisis and urgency, and the ascendancy of a quite specific and narrow set of policy options that precludes

the cool and rational assessment of the problem that an engineer might employ. Or equally, the cost/benefit calculations that an economist might use. (Actually, many have, and here's a good recent example from Richard Tol - but this is not part of the public discourse, or diplomatic agenda as illustrated by the Copenhagen Conference, where the focus is on emissions reductions).

  • Briffa himself apparently found being "true" to his science and his customer difficult.
  • "I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which are not always the same," he writes,

after wrapping up the chapter on which

The ignorance of the natural world displayed by the scientists is remarkably at odds with the notion that the science is "settled". Where's the Global Warming, asks NCAR's Tom Wigley. His colleague Kevin Trenberth admits they can't answer the question. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't...

  • Our observing system is inadequate."

Trenberth goes on further, and admits the the energy budget hasn't been "balanced". Wigley paraphrases him: "we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going". It is climate experts admitting that they don't know what they're doing.

  • But were such reservations communicated to the policy makers or media?

As I mentioned earlier, the very nature of the problem itself has led the "science" onto shaky ground - onto modelling (which has no predictive value) and anecdotal evidence (which merely demonstrates correlation, but not causation).

if fossil fuel emissions affected the climate at all significantly, this remained a future threat, and certainly not an urgent one.

  • The demand from institutions, (principally the UN, through its IPCC), national policy makers and the media has taken climate scientists into areas where they struggle to do good science.
  • Add professional activists to the mix - who bring with them the Precautionary Principle - and the element of
  • urgency is introduced.

The situation is largely self-inflicted. The scandal is that science has advanced through anecdote and poorly founded conjecture - and on this slender basis, politicians and institutions lacking vision and confidence (and given the lack of popular support, legitimacy too) have found a cause.

  • Perhaps some readers may find this too forgiving of the participants. Three years ago Jones confessed to climatologist Christy both the state of the "science", and some of his own motivations.

"As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right,

  • regardless of the consequences.
  • This isn’t being political, it is being selfish".
Bootnote To get a sense of the scope of the code, see Bishop Hill (and again here) and the remarkable four year log file by 'Harry' discussed here and here."

Thursday, November 26, 2009

So-called 'climate change' has nothing to do with climate


  • It's just another gambling casino for billionaire manipulators and the corrupt UN.
"The graph on the homepage and in our market reports shows daily price movements in the most-traded European Union Allowances (EUAs), the emissions permits issued under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). The graph also shows the secondary market
The EUA prices reported refer to those in futures contracts called carbon financial instruments (CFIs),
The most traded is the December 2009 forward contract, the second year of the current second phase of the EU ETS coinciding with the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.
  • CER prices are increasingly important in the EU and
  • global carbon markets.
CERs can be substituted for EUAs by European
  • emitters
to meet obligations under the EU ETS. The prices shown are are those under forward contracts for December 2009 delivery of CERs issued from
  • Kyoto CDM* projects. They have been historically cheaper than EUAs.
*CDM, part of UN thugs.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Global Warming has stopped--'BILLIONS OF EUROS AT STAKE' Der Spiegel


  • The author seems to believe in global warming and is genuinely stumped by reality....unlike Goldman Sachs and the US government who will keep the fraud going.
  • photo above from March 2009, via Tom Nelson

"Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average

  • global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years.

Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

  • At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's
  • average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium,
and it
  • even looks
  • as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Reached a Plateau

The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau.

Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue.

  • For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums.

This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public

  • with a sense of shame,
  • thereby damaging their own credibility.

"It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."

  • Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with

its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and

And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced

  • to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.

The differences among individual regions of the world are considerable. In the Arctic, for example, temperatures rose by almost three degrees Celsius, which led to a dramatic melting of sea ice. At the same time, temperatures declined in large areas of North America, the western Pacific and the Arabian Peninsula. Europe, including Germany, remains slightly in positive warming territory.

Mixed Messages

But a few scientists simply refuse to believe the British calculations. "Warming has continued in the last few years," says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). However, Rahmstorf is more or less alone in his view. Hamburg Max Planck Institute scientist Jochem Marotzke, on the other hand, says: "I hardly know any colleagues who would deny that it hasn't gotten warmer in recent years."

  • The controversy sends confusing and mixed messages to the lay public. Why is there such a vigorous debate over climate change, even though it isn't getting warmer at the moment? And how can it be that scientists cannot even arrive at a consensus on changes in temperatures, even though temperatures are constantly being measured?

The global temperature-monitoring network

  • consists of 517 weather stations. But each reading is only a tiny dot on the big world map, and it has to be extrapolated to the entire region
  • with the help of supercomputers.

Besides, there are still many blind spots, the largest being the Arctic,

  • where there are only about 20 measuring stations to cover a vast area.
  • Climatologists refer to the problem as the "Arctic hole."

The scientists at the Hadley Center simply used the global average value for the hole, ignoring the fact that it has become significantly warmer in the Arctic, says Rahmstorf. But a NASA team from the

  • Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, which does make the kinds of adjustments for the Arctic data that Rahmstorf believes are necessary,
  • arrives at a flat temperature curve for the last five years that is similar to that of their British colleagues.

Marotzke and Leibniz Institute meteorologist Mojib Latif are even convinced that the

  • fuzzy computing done

by Rahmstorf is counterproductive. "We have to explain to the public that greenhouse gases will not cause temperatures to keep rising from one record temperature to the next, but that they are still subject to natural fluctuations," says Latif. For this reason, he adds, it is dangerous to cite individual weather-related occurrences, such as a drought in Mali or a hurricane, as proof positive that climate change is already fully underway.

  • that the development will continue going up along a simple, straight line.

In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal," says Latif.

Part 2: The Difficulties of Predicting the Climate

  • Climatologists use their computer models to draw temperature curves that continue well into the future.

They predict that the average global temperature will increase by about three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, unless humanity manages to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

  • However, no one really knows what exactly the world climate will look like in the not-so-distant future, that is, in 2015, 2030 or 2050.

This is because it is not just human influence but natural factors that affect the Earth's climate.

Major volcanic eruptions can also curb rising temperatures in the medium term. The eruption of

  • Mount Pinatubo in June 1991, for example, caused world temperatures to drop by an average of 0.5 degrees Celsius, thereby prolonging a cooler climate phase that had begun in the late 1980s.

But the Mount Pinatubo eruption happened too long ago to be related to the current slowdown in global warming. So what is behind this more recent phenomenon?

Weaker Solar Activity

Its radiation activity is currently at a minimum, as evidenced by the small number of sunspots on its surface. According to calculations performed by a group of NASA scientists led by David Rind, which were recently published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters,

  • this reduced solar activity is the most important cause of stagnating global warming.

Latif, on the other hand, attributes the stagnation to so-called Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO). This phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean allows a larger volume of cold deep-sea water to rise to the surface at the equator. According to Latif, this has a significant cooling effect on the Earth's atmosphere.

  • With his team at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Latif has been one of the first to develop a model to create medium-term prognoses for the next five to 10 years. "We are slowly starting to attempt (such models)," says Marotzke, who is also launching a major project in this area, funded by the Federal Ministry for Research and Technology.

Despite their current findings, scientists agree that temperatures will continue to rise in the long term. The big question is: When will it start getting warmer again?

  • If the deep waters of the Pacific are, in fact, the most important factor holding up global warming, climate change will remain at a standstill until the middle of the next decade, says Latif. But if the cooling trend is the result of reduced solar activity, things could start getting warmer again much sooner. Based on past experience, solar activity will likely increase again in the next few years." (They don't know. They just worry because they'll be embarrassed).

(continuing) "Betting on Warmer Temperatures

  • The Hadley Center group expects warming to resume in the coming years. "That resumption could come as a bit of a jolt," says Hadley climatologist Adam Scaife, explaining that natural cyclical warming would then be augmented by the warming effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

While climatologists at conferences engage in passionate debates over when temperatures will start rising again,

  • global warming's next steps have also become the subject of
  • betting activity.

Climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf is so convinced that his predictions will be correct in the end that he is willing to back up his conviction with a €2,500 ($3,700) bet. "I will win," says Rahmstorf.

  • His adversary Latif turned down the bet, saying that the matter was too serious for gambling. "We are scientists, not poker players.""

'Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan' from Spiegel Online, "Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists baffled by Global Warming Time-out" by Gerald Traufetter, 11/19/09, Der Spiegel




Saturday, October 10, 2009

ABC News says, "Taliban, Al Qaeda Helped by Warming."

Even the BBC (normally on the side of the global hoax) acknowledged recently that the earth has been cooling since 1998. But trillions are riding on this scam (enmeshed in which are Goldman Sachs, Al Gore, the UN and others). *
  • Per Gateway Pundit, ABC News pitches that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are helped by man-induced global warming.
Gateway Pundit: "ABC News reported, via NewsBusters:"
Agriculture in [Afghanistan] is struggling, leaving many young men with
  • no money or work...
“There are a lot more people… who are unemployed with nothing to do, and so the
  • Taliban basically seems an attractive thing for them to join,” says [some journalist/government employee]..."
Click Photo for the Video


First, global warming doesn't exist despite billions being made off the idea in carbon offsets scams. Second, there are many well educated, middle class terrorists (see 9-11 terrorist resumes). ABC paints the problem as one of poverty, per Gateway Pundit. Poverty and illiteracy are helpful, but they're not caused by global warming either.

*"Goldman Sachs took a 10% stake in the firm (CCX, Chicago Climate Exchange) at the time and later (Jan. 2007) increased its holdings to at least 19%. CCX is also 10% owned by Generation Investment Management, a firm founded and chaired by Al Gore and co-founded by the above-mentioned former Goldman CEO, Hank Paulson. " from American Thinker article, 7/14/09.
P.S. I am the daughter of an Eagle Scout, a Forestry major who made his career in recycled materials. I grew up having my use of water monitored, no air conditioning, told to put a sweater on when it was cold in the house in winter (thermostat turned down). My parents grew up in the Great Depression and had nothing and taught me to live as sparingly as possible. It was all common sense as is conservation and saving the planet. The CCX in Chicago isn't about the planet, it's about billionaires like Soros and Goldman Sachs people getting richer. (framus)

Major League Baseball is a big promoter of global warming.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Fox TV forced to meet with Obama stooge- Obama must believe he can't succeed on his own merits.

It is key for the left to centrally control all information and thought. Just ask Bud Selig.
Politico, 10/6, "Axelrod Meets with Ailes": "At a time of tension between their organizations, White House senior adviser David Axelrod met with Fox News chairman and chief executive officer Roger Ailes two weeks ago, sources tell POLITICO.

  • The two discussed news coverage and the relationship between the organizations.

An FNC spokesperson tells POLITICO that Ailes and Axelrod had a “cordial conversation” over coffee while the president was in town.

  • Ailes is the founder of Fox News. A key part of
  • Axelrod’s portfolio is the president’s image and broad message.

White House officials have expressed pique with what they consider heavy coverage of Obama critics by opinion shows on the news channel.

Noting coverage on cable’s Fox News Channel, the Fox broadcast network declined to carry Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress, or his most recent prime-time news conference.

  • White House officials did not like that, but say it is not their primary problem with Fox."
WHAT THE HELL BUSINESS IS IT OF GOVERNMENT TO DELIBERATELY ATTEMPT TO MANIPULATE NEWS COVERAGE? Answer: It's the Soros way.
  • via mention on Michael Savage show
(I do not watch Fox TV. I do not get any news from tv.-framus).
  • UPDATE: Done deal. FOX News' Shep Smith stumps for Obama "public option," 7:44PM, 10/6/09, via audio just played on Michael Savage radio show. Shep Smith is on the side of the international left to begin with, but his delivery on this issue is quite sickening.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Goldman Sachs has virtual monopoly on media--Taibbi, Rolling Stone

Taibbi, Rolling Stone: "I’m aware that some people feel that it’s a journalist’s responsibility to “give both sides of the story” and be “even-handed” and “objective.” A person who believes that will naturally find serious flaws with any article like the one I wrote about Goldman (Sachs). I personally don’t subscribe to that point of view. My feeling is that
for every one reporter like me, or like far more knowledgeable critics like Tyler Durden,
  • and ledes of the major news organizations.
And there are probably another thousand poor working stiffs who are

(how many political reporters with no experience reporting on financial issues have swallowed whole the news cliche about Goldman being the “smart guys” on Wall Street? A lot, for sure).

  • Goldman has its alumni pushing its views
  • the NYSE,
  • the World Bank,

and numerous other important posts; it also has former players

  • They have the ear of the president if they want it.

Given all of this, I personally think it’s absurd to talk about the need for “balance” in every single magazine and news article.

  • I understand that some people feel differently, but that’s my take on things." 6/30/09, "On Giving Goldman a Chance," by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

Saturday, September 19, 2009

2006 AL MVP ballots

Joe Christensen, Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/19/06 on XM Radio MLB Channel 175 said of Jeter as an MVP candidate.
  • Jeter didn't even get both New York voters. (see Ed Price, Newark Star Ledger). So much for the supposed favoritism of New York media. Jack O'Connell issued no penalty for Christensen's blatant act.
"November 21, 2006, 6:26 PM EST

BALTIMORE


Thom Loverro, Washington Times
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Ortiz
4. Mauer
5. Dye
6. Suzuki
7. Hafner
8. Guerrero
9. Santana
10. Verlander

Mel Antonen, USA Today
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Mauer
4. Thomas
5. Dye
6. Ortiz
7. Thome
8. Guerrero
9. Hafner
10. Glaus

BOSTON

Sean McAdam, Providence Journal
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Ortiz
4. Mauer
5. Thomas
6. Dye
7. Guerrero
8. Hafner
9. Sizemore
10. Santana

Dave Heuschkel, Hartford Courant
1. Jeter
2. Ortiz
3. Morneau
4. Thomas
5. Damon
6. Santana
7. Dye
8. Mauer
9. Guerrero
10. Guillen

NEW YORK

Bob Klapisch, Bergen Record
1. Jeter
2. Morneau
3. Santana
4. Dye
5. Thomas
6. Mauer
7. Ortiz
8. Ordonez
9. M. Rivera
10. Hafner

Ed Price, Newark Star Ledger

1. Morneau

2. Jeter

3. Ortiz
4. Mauer
5. Thomas
6. Dye
7. Sizemore
8. Hafner
9. V. Wells
10. Guillen

TAMPA BAY

Marc Topkin, St. Petersburg Times
1. Jeter
2. Morneau
3. Ortiz
4. Dye
5. Guillen
6. Thomas
7. Mauer
8. Sizemore
9. Suzuki
10. Santana

Eduardo Encina, St. Petersburg Times
1. Jeter
2. Morneau
3. Santana
4. Ortiz
5. Thomas
6. Dye
7. Mauer
8. Hafner 9. Wang
10. Damon

TORONTO

Larry Millson, Toronto Globe and Mail
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Ortiz
4. Mauer
5. Dye
6. Hafner
7. Guillen
8. Santana
9. Tejada
10. V. Wells

Allan Ryan, Toronto Star
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Ortiz
4. Thomas
5. Santana
6. Hafner
7. Dye
8. A. Rodriguez
9. Guerrero
10. M. Ramirez

CHICAGO

Mark Gonzales, Chicago Tribune
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Dye
4. Mauer
5. Ortiz
6, Thomas
7. Thome
8. Hafner
9. Crawford
10. Sizemore

Joe Cowley, Chicago Sun Times
1. Morneau
2. Dye
3. Santana
4. Thomas
5. Ortiz
6. Jeter
7. Guerrero
8. A. Rodriguez
9. Hafner
10. Pierzynski

CLEVELAND

Jim Ingraham, News Herald
1. Jeter
2. Hafner
3. Ortiz
4. Morneau
5. Sizemore
6. Thomas
7. Mauer
8. Dye
9. Guillen
10. Nathan

Sheldon Ocker, Akron Beacon Journal
1. Jeter
2. Morneau
3. Ortiz
4. Santana
5. Verlander
6. Dye
7. Thomas
8. Konerko
9. Guerrero
10. Hafner

DETROIT

Danny Knobler, Booth Newspapers
1. Morneau
2. Thomas
3. Mauer
4. Jeter
5. Ortiz
6. Giambi
7. Santana
8. Guillen
9. Dye
10. Sizemore

John Lowe, Detroit Free Press
1. Jeter
2. Morneau
3. Thomas
4. Ortiz
5. Dye
6. Nathan
7. Santana
8. Mauer
9. Rogers
10. Sizemore

KANSAS CITY

David Boyce, Kansas City Star
1. Jeter
2. Morneau
3. Thomas
4. Dye
5. Santana
6. Ortiz
7. Hafner
8. Guerreo
9. Mauer
10. A. Rodriguez

Bob Dutton, Kansas City Star
1. Jeter
2. Morneau
3. Ortiz
4. Thomas
5. Santana
6. Mauer
7. Dye
8. Cano
9. Tejada
10. Ibanez

MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL

Joe Christensen, Minneapolis Star Tribune
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Thomas
4. Ortiz
5. Mauer
6. Dye
7. Hafner
8. Guillen
9. Giambi
10. Santana

Jason Williams, St. Paul Pioneer Press
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Dye
4. Thomas
5. Ortiz
6. Thome
7. Santana
8. Guerrero
9. Hafner
10. Mauer

LOS ANGELES

Matt Hurst, Riverside Press Enterprise
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Ortiz 4. Mauer
5. Thomas
6. Santana
7. Dye
8. Guillen
9. Guerrero
10. Sizemore

Doug Padilla, L.A. News Group
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Mauer
4. Ortiz
5. Thomas
6. Santana
7. Guillen
8. Dye
9. Guerrero
10. Hafner

OAKLAND

Susan Slusser, San Francisco Chronicle
1. Jeter
2. Thomas
3. Santana
4. Morneau
5. Ortiz
6. Dye
7. Mauer
8. Hafner
9. M. Ramirez
10. Sizemore

Joe Roderick, Contra Costa Times
1. Jeter
2. Thomas
3. Morneau
4. Dye
5. Ortiz
6. Guerrero
7. Thome
8. M. Ramirez
9. Guillen
10. Tejada

SEATTLE

Larry Stone, Seattle Times
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Ortiz
4. Thomas
5. Dye
6. Guerrero
7. Hafner
8. Mauer
9. Giambi
10. Guillen

John Hickey, Seattle Post Intelligencer
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Thomas
4. Ortiz
5. A. Rodriguez
6. Dye
7. Guillen
8. Ibanez
9. Guerrero
10. Sizemore

TEXAS

Kat O'Brien, Fort Worth Star Telegram
1. Jeter
2. Morneau
3. Santana
4. Dye
5. Ortiz
6. Thomas
7. Guerrero
8. Hafner
9. Mauer
10. Matthews

Evan Grant, Dallas Morning News
1. Santana
2. Jeter
3. Morneau
4. Dye
5. Thomas
6. Ortiz
7. Mauer
8. Guerrero
9. Sizemore
10. Young"
  • of Jeter as an MVP candidate. Christensen said,
Jeter didn't even get both New York voters. (see Ed Price, Newark Star Ledger). So much for the
  • supposed favoritism of New York media.
USA Today, 11/14/05: "Fred Claire, the former general manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers and a former sports writer ...says baseball writers are better suited to vote than any other faction in the game
  • and are ethically grounded.

"I believe in the credibility of writers as a group, and that comes from working with them through the years at a lot of levels," Claire says. "They are the keenest observers of the game. They are less pressured than any group you can think of."

  • (Jack) O'Connell agrees. While many players receive bonuses for winning awards, deepening the potential for conflict,
  • O'Connell says his voters take their ballots seriously.

"I've been doing this for 12 years and I've never had to call after receiving a ballot and say, 'What are you doing?' " he said. "We've had our share of controversy ...

***Jack O'Connell, meet Joe Christensen and pay no attention to the ethics problem. Joe said no to Jeter because he's on a team of rich guys, 9/19/06.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

CNN hacks can't be heard over the proletariat



  • No one threw marbles on the street for the purpose of tripping and crippling police horses as was done by left wing demonstrators in New York protesting the Iraq war (which now, I guess they like) during the Bush administration. framus. from Breitbart TV, via the Drudge Report, 9/12/09.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Where are anti-war protesters v Obama? CINDY SHEEHAN RESPONDS.

Byron York, Washington Examiner: "After my column, "For the left, war without Bush is not war at all," appeared Tuesday, I got a note from Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist who was the subject of so much press coverage when she led a protest against the Iraq war outside then-President George W. Bush's ranch in Texas. This is what the note said:

"I read your column about the "anti-war" movement and I can't believe I am saying this, but I mostly agree with you.

The "anti-war" "left" was used by the Democratic Party. I like to call it the "anti-Republican War" movement.

While I agree with you about the hypocrisy of such sites as the

DailyKos,

I have known for a long time that the Democrats are equally responsible with the Republicans. That's why I left the party in May 2007 and that's why I ran for Congress against Nancy Pelosi in 2008.

I have my own radio show, "Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox," and I was out on a four-month book tour promoting the fact that it's not about Democrats or Republicans,

but it's about the system.

Even if I am surrounded by a thousand, or no one, I am still working for peace.

Sincerely,

Cindy Sheehan

After receiving the email, I asked Sheehan to give me a call, so I could verify that the note in fact came from her. She did, and we discussed her plans to protest next week in Martha's Vineyard, where President Obama will be vacationing.

  • "I think people are starting to wake up to the fact that even if they supported Obama, he doesn't represent much change," Sheehan said. "...8/18/09 via Lucianne.com

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Goldman Sachs=CCX=US citizens stabbed again. And no one blinks.

LA Times: "In all, there were some 300 pages of last-minute amendments, many designed to make money for industries and constituencies important to fence-sitting congress members.
North America's first trading center Goldman Sachs owns at least 19% of CCX.

Friday, July 3, 2009

Washington Post sold access to Obama administration and their 'reporters'

  • The Washington Post plans more sessions involving cash transactions for access to those they allegedly cover. Why not? Who's stopping them or any other so-called 'journalists'?
Politico, 7/3/09: "Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive "salon" at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post
  • offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to "those powerful few" —
Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

  • The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist,

who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."

With the Post newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Weymouth said in an email to the staff that "a flier went out that was prepared by the marketing department and was never vetted by me or by the newsroom. Had it been, the flier would have been immediately killed, because it completely misrepresented what we were trying to do."

  • Weymouth said the paper had planned a series of dinners with participation from the newsroom “but with parameters such that we did not in any way compromise our integrity."...

WHAT INTEGRITY? THIS IS THE POINT. YOU ALL SAY YOU'RE OBJECTIVE--ANYONE CAN SAY THAT. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO ANNOINT YOURSELVES OBJECTIVE? YOUR OWN OMBUDSMAN SAID MOST OF YOU WERE BIASED WHICH IS OBVIOUS ANYWAY.

  • THE PROBLEM IS--YOU SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH YOUR BIAS.

(Politico): "Sponsorship of events, like advertising in the newspaper, must be at arm's length and cannot imply control over the content or access to our journalists. At this juncture, we will not be holding the planned July dinner and we will not hold salon dinners involving the newsroom. “

“We do believe that there is a viable way to

  • expand our expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what we do - cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in Washington,” she said.

“ And we will begin to do live events in ways that enhance our reputation and in no way call into question our integrity.”

Executive editor Marcus Brauchli was as adamant as Weymouth in denouncing the plan promoted in the flier."

  • POLITICO--THIS MAKES NO SENSE, YOU JUST SAID WEYMOUTH DEFENDED THE IDEA. She only made a lame excuse that the 'flier' hadn't been correctly vetted.

(Politico): “You cannot buy access to a Washington Post journalist,” Brauchli told POLITICO.

  • Brauchli was named on the flier as one of the salon’s "Hosts and Discussion Leaders."" (!!!)

(Politico): "Brauchli said in an interview that he understood the business side of the Post planned on holding dinners on policy and was scheduled to attend the July 21 dinner at Weymouth’s Washington home, but he said he had not seen the material promoting it until today. “The flier, and the description of these things, was not at all consistent with the preliminary conversations the newsroom had,” Brauchli said, adding that it was “absolutely impossible” the newsroom would participate in the kind of event described in the solicitation for the event."...

  • (You're such sorry your plan was exposed).

(Politico): "Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," says the one-page flier.

  • "Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive

Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. ... Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table.

  • Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders."