Author: papundits

By Ruth King

A scam is defined as a fraudulent scheme, confidence game or swindle, for gain, but in politics the deception is practiced to implement policy and legislation.

The political scammer sets up a scenario, pretends there is a crisis, creates a “victim,” presents falsified data and inflated statistics, adds obfuscation of history, events and facts, gives the hoax a “moral” imperative, and slanders all opposition, to promote an agenda.

The shill, a public figure or legislator, presents the scam using the authority and prestige of public office and the media picks it up and promotes the entire disinformation as progress, reform, and solution.

Take the recent, and mercifully derailed, health reform plan. The data on the number of Americans without insurance and their lack of access to medical care was “massaged” to call it a “crisis.” The “uninsured” became the victims and the shills took over and negotiated a behemoth bill hiding provisions for limited access and nullification of choice of care and doctors for everyone else. The trillion dollar package was defended with what George Bush Sr. once (incorrectly describing Ronald Reagan’s very cogent tax policies) called “voodoo economics.”

What was the ultimate agenda? Government takeover of health care…read socialized medicine. All the clear eyed skeptics were called right wing extremists and Astroturf trash unconcerned with the plight of the sick and needy and uninsured.

But the grassroots American public, so much smarter than the Congressional shills, rebelled in tea parties and town hall meetings and has, thus far, thwarted a potential domestic policy disaster.

Then there is the “man-made global warming” scam. Sen. Al Gore, a fraud of Nobel proportions, declared a crisis, the “victim” this time a starving humanity in a fevered, barren planet. Gore, along with the world’s über-scam, the UN and government-granted scientists in tow, appealed to the public conscience with “con” science.

Congressional shills demanded legislation to roll back the climate by implementing a major tax increase called cap and trade. Media shills relentlessly promoted “apocalypse now.” The “paleoclimate” pseudo scientists at the Climate Research Center in East Anglia buttressed the hoax with “hockey stick” graphs that would cross a skeptic’s eyes. They burbled along with alarming “statistics” until Canadian mining engineer Steve McIntyre and a professor of economics. Ross McKitrick exposed the altered data and statistics of the CRU whose director Phil Jones recently admitted “mistakes.”

This has not totally deterred the true cultists such as Frau Merkel, our President, the EPA and the Copenhagen shills who still toil at convincing the world and each other that the crisis is man-made and requires man and maid solutions.

But in the real world, the public is increasingly suspicious and major corporations and several states are buying out of the Climate Action Partnership which calls for legislation to reduce greenhouse emissions. The shills and the scam are now in free fall.

This is not the first time we’ve been warned the sky-is-falling. The late Carl Sagan warned of a “nuclear-winter” brought about by nuclear war. We may see Nuclear Winter Redux if the present administration agrees to update our existing arsenal.

Virginia: With all these climate scares what is a poor girl to wear? Bundle for winter or strip for the big melt?

And that brings us to the biggest scam of all, namely The Two State Solution.

Here’s the road map for the scam.

First: Call it the Mid-east “conflict.” Never mention that in this conflict Israel wants to live in peace within legitimate, historic, and defensible borders, and on the other side the entire Muslim/Arab world wants Israel obliterated. Obscure the fact that the “moderate” Arabs want Israel destroyed in stages while the radical “fighters” want Israel destroyed yesterday. It’s a matter of timing.

Second: Erase history. Pretend it all started with a land grab by the Jews in 1967.

Third: Call Israel’s presence in its own country an “occupation.” Sprinkle in the words oppressive, brutal, iron-fisted, apartheid – you get the picture. Always remember to get props, civilian props who wail for the cameras and then go home to a healthy supper after a job well done. Bring on the “greens” by castigating Israel for using – or not using – water aquifers. Get Christiane Amanpour and the BBC to do specials about the victims. And, whenever you can, slip in a blood libel or two. Don’t forget to triple the number of Arab “refugees” every year.

Fourth: What do you call people under such an oppressive occupation? That’s right. They are the “victims.” Don’t you dare mention who started the wars, who teaches their children to hate and kill, who considers maiming innocent civilians in pizza parlors and markets to be target practice, who cheered about 9/11, and who knows that Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah are just different names proposing minimally different strokes for ending Israel.

Fifth: Encourage oil rich kingdoms to fund American universities so that there will be no danger of anyone learning the true nature of the conflict. Professorial shills will gladly spread the scam and former United States legislators and Cabinet members can be paid to do the same. One dirty hand washes the other.

Sixth: Create a crisis. Present the conflict as a threat to the entire world. The failure to solve the Middle-East conflict is responsible for terrorism, 9/11, the swine flu and arthritis.

Seventh: Propose a solution. A two state solution. Insist that even the mad mullahs will become Boy Scouts once there’s a solution. No need to be original here. Just go back to the dozens of failed initiatives which are clones of the Rogers Plan of 1969, all based on the same dumb principle that Israeli land concessions will bring peace. All those “road maps” have brought more war, more terror and more demands, but you can ignore this and lumber on because you can always turn to:

Eighth: The dupes who become shills to help you promote the scam. You can count on the pacifist anti-Israel organizations (including Jewish organizations posing as supporters of Israel). You can count on the phony human rights organizations and the self-righteous clergy who preen about their moral duty to support the “victims.” You can count on the ignorant media, on Israel’s treasonous academics and writers and filmmakers, and even on her weak Prime Ministers.

Why do the other scams eventually fail while this one is indestructible? The health scam had the redoubtable Betsy McCaughey, the tea parties and town hall meetings. The climate scam had Fred Singer, the Heartland Institute, Sen. James Inhofe, Marc Morano of Climate Depot, Lord Christopher Monkton, Marc Sheppard of American Thinker and above all, the hackers into the e-mails of the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the ones who really deserve the Nobel Prize.

What you have in the case of Israel (to borrow from Gabriel Garcia Marquez) is virtual total complicity based on facts in which no one believes. Look at the map. There can be no “contiguous” Arab Palestinian state in Gaza and the “West Bank” (really the East bank of Israel named Judea and Samaria) without cutting into Israel’s belly. There can be no viable state in 2,200 square miles. There can be no peace when such a state is peopled by Jihadists who will control the heights and invasion routes into Israel’s population centers. The plan is obviously for a two state dissolution of Israel.

Yet the few (like those of us at AFSI and FSM) who speak out are still dismissed and the scam retains the status of a universal consensus.

Nonetheless, we cannot give up on our efforts to expose the scam for what it is.

And by the way Virginia, Israel is a critical ally for America in our war against Islamic terror. Israel is, as described by former Israeli diplomat Yoram Ettinger, “a permanent, large and unsinkable air-craft carrier” based in the heart of Arab/Muslim darkness, poised to strike and defend the western democracies.

To endanger such an ally by promoting a vicious scam is unthinkable.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Ruth S. King is a freelance writer who writes a monthly column in OUTPOST, the publication of Americans for a Safe Israel.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

Filed under: 111th Congress, America (USA), Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Conniving Politicians, Environment, Environmental activists, Fanatics, Fear-mongering, Global Warming, Israel, Israeli, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Middle East, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Climate Change Religion, FSM (Ruth King), Global Warming Hype, Health Care Reform Bill, Middle East Peace Plan, Middle East Policy, Tony, Two State Solution

By Andrew Bolt

Even Fred Pearce of the New Scientist is astonished by how gently Climategate ringleader Phil Jones was questioned by a parliamentary inquiry:

Jones did his best to persuade the Commons science and technology committee that all was well in the house of climate science. If they didn’t quite believe him, they didn’t have the heart to press the point…

Jones’s general defence was that anything people didn’t like – the strong-arm tactics to silence critics, the cold-shouldering of freedom of information requests, the economy with data sharing – were all “standard practice” among climate scientists…

And he seemed to be right. The most startling observation came when he was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication asked to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. “They’ve never asked,” he said.

He gave a little ground, and it was the only time the smile left the face of the vice-chancellor, Edward Acton: “I’ve written some awful emails,” Jones admitted. Nobody asked if, as claimed by British climate sceptic Doug Keenan, he had for two decades suppressed evidence of the unreliability of key temperature data from China.   …  

But for the first time he did concede publicly that when he tried to repeat the 1990 study in 2008, he came up with radically different findings. Or, as he put it, “a slightly different conclusion”. Fully 40% of warming there in the past 60 years was due to urban influences. “It’s something we need to consider,” he said.

UPDATE

This sweet concern to be nice to Jones is at odds with the insane fears he so recklessly stoked:

A seven-month-old girl survived for three days alone with a bullet in her chest after being shot by her parents as part of a suicide pact over their fears about global warming.

Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their daughter and her toddler brother before killing themselves.

Their son Francisco, two, died instantly after being hit in the back…

Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Filed under: Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Environment, Environmental activists, Europe, Fanatics, Fear-mongering, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, Great Britain, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, U.K. Tagged: Andrew Bolt, Climate Change Fraud, Climate Change Religion, Climategate, Global Warming Alarmism, Global Warming Hype, Phil Jones, Tony

The Patriot Post Brief

The Foundation

“There is a certain enthusiasm in liberty, that makes human nature rise above itself, in acts of bravery and heroism.” –Alexander Hamilton

Opinion in Brief

“Americans cherish their independence. One interesting aspect of the spontaneous tea party movement is the constant invocation of the Founders and the prominence of the ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ flag. … Americans tend to see themselves as independent doers, not dependent victims. They don’t like to be told, especially by those with fancy academic pedigrees, that they are helpless and in need of government aid. That’s why the politically popular American big government programs — Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ benefits, student loans — all make a connection between effort and reward. You get a benefit because you’ve worked for it. In contrast, Americans have loathed and rejected big government programs with no nexus between effort and reward. Welfare was begun in the 1930s to help widows with children, whose plight, as Russell Baker’s memoir ‘Growing Up’ showed, was often dismal. But when welfare became a mass program to subsidize mothers who didn’t work and to excuse fathers from responsibility for their actions, it became wildly unpopular.   …    Bill Clinton recognized this when he signed welfare reform in 1996. … Barack Obama, who has chosen to live his adult life in university precincts, sees … Americans generally as victims who need his help, people who would be better off dependent on government than on their own. Most American voters don’t want to see themselves that way and resent this condescension.” –political analyst Michael Barone

Political Futures

“When Republicans regain a majority in the House and Senate — either this fall, as seems increasingly likely, or in the election following — they must learn from their previous mistakes when they last held power. In addition to focusing on overturning whatever health insurance ‘reform’ proposal this Congress eventually passes (by a veto override, or a lawsuit challenging the measure’s constitutionality), a Republican congressional majority must help large numbers of the public unlearn the factual errors they have been taught to accept. From ‘climate change,’ to the notion that government is a guarantor through ‘entitlement’ programs of a minimal outcome in life, to the forgotten idea given to us by the Founders that Liberty is the most precious gift there is, the country needs a history lesson based on truth, experience and provable facts. … A Republican majority should turn the nation’s attention away from Washington. A Republican majority must teach us again that ‘you can do it,’ like so many of our fathers did when the training wheels came off and we learned we could fly down the sidewalk without assistance. America doesn’t need restructuring. It needs revival; revival of the principles that made us strong and great; revival of the moral foundation that proved to be our real strength and allowed us to conquer our demons and become independent, not dependent on government. This is the message most Americans want to hear and need to hear. Will the Republicans deliver it?” –columnist Cal Thomas

The Gipper

“Perhaps you and I have lived with this miracle too long to be properly appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again. Knowing this, it is hard to explain those who even today would question the people’s capacity for self-rule. Will they answer this: if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?” –Ronald Reagan

Re: The Left

“The reason massive Democratic majorities in Congress aren’t enough to pass socialist health care is AMERICANS DON’T WANT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! In fact, you might say that the nation is in a boiling cauldron of rage against it. Consequently, a lot of Democrats are suddenly having second thoughts about vast new government commissions regulating every aspect of Americans’ medical care. Obama isn’t stupid — he’s not seriously trying to get a health care bill passed. The whole purpose of this public ’summit’ with the minority party is to muddy up the Republicans before the November elections. You know, the elections Democrats are going to lose because of this whole health care thing. Right now, Americans are hopping mad, swinging a stick and hoping to hit anyone who so much as thinks about nationalizing health care. If they could, Americans would cut the power to the Capitol, throw everyone out and try to deport them. … But the Democrats think it’s a good strategy to call the Republicans ‘The Party of No.’ When it comes to Obamacare, Americans don’t want a party of ‘No,’ they want a party of ‘Hell, No!’ or, as Rahm Emanuel might say, ‘*&^%$#@ No!’ … Complaining that Republicans are ‘obstructionists’ is not a damaging charge when most Americans are dying to obstruct the Democrats with a 2-by-4. While you’re at it, Democrats, why not call the GOP the ‘Party of Brave Patriots’?” –columnist Ann Coulter

Government

“Filibusters are devices for registering intensity rather than mere numbers. Besides, has a filibuster ever prevented eventual enactment of anything significant that an American majority has desired, strongly and protractedly? Liberals say filibusters confuse and frustrate the public. But most ideas incubated in the political cauldron of grasping factions are deplorable. Therefore, serving the public involves — mostly involves — saying ‘No.’ The Bill of Rights effectively pronounces the lovely word ‘no’ regarding many possible government undertakings — establishment of religion, unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. The fiction that government is ‘paralyzed’ by partisanship is regularly refuted. … Liberals are deeply disappointed with the public, which fails to fathom the excellence of their agenda. But their real complaint is with the government’s structure. And with the nature of the politics this structure presupposes in a continental nation wary of government and replete with rival factions.” –columnist George Will

For the Record

“For those not versed in the arcane rules of the U.S. Senate, reconciliation is not what a divorced couple attempts when they visit Dr. Phil. It is a mechanism for avoiding filibusters on certain budgetary issues. If Democrats can find a way to apply it to health care reform, they could pass a bill with just 51 votes, negating the election of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown and the loss of the 60-seat supermajority. Reconciliation was established in 1974 to make it easier for Congress to adjust taxes and spending in order to ‘reconcile’ actual revenues and expenditures with a previously approved budget resolution. Thus, at the end of the year, if Congress found that it was running a budget deficit higher than previously projected, it could quickly raise taxes or cut spending to bring the budget back into line. Debate on such measures was abbreviated to just 20 hours (an eyeblink in Senate terms), and there could be no filibuster. As Robert Byrd, (D-W.V.), one of the original authors of the reconciliation rule, explained, ‘Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits … [I]t was not designed to … restructure the entire health care system.’ He warns that using reconciliation for health care would ‘violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate.’ In fact, in 1985, the Senate adopted the ‘Byrd rule,’ which prohibits the use of reconciliation for any ‘extraneous issue’ that does not directly change revenues or expenditures. Clearly, large portions of the health care bill, ranging from mandates to insurance regulation to establishing ‘exchanges,’ do not meet that requirement.” –Cato Institute senior fellow Michael D. Tanner

Faith & Family

“One of the major differences between the right and the left concerns the question of authority: To whom do we owe obedience and who is the ultimate moral authority? For the right, the primary moral authority is God (or, for secular conservatives, Judeo-Christian values), followed by parents. Of course, government must also play a role, but it is ultimately accountable to God and it should do nothing to undermine parental authority. For the left, the state and its government are the supreme authorities, while parental and divine authority are seen as impediments to state authority. … In a nutshell, the left wants to have ever-expanding authority over people’s lives through ever-expanding governmental powers. It does so because it regards itself as more enlightened than others. Others are either enemies (the right) or unenlightened masses. It is elected by demonizing its enemies and doling out money and jobs to the masses.” –radio talk-show host Dennis Prager

Culture

“Personal responsibility is a real problem for those who want to collectivize society and take away our power to make our own decisions, transferring that power to third parties like themselves, who imagine themselves to be so much wiser and nobler than the rest of us. Aimless apologies are just one of the incidental symptoms of an increasing loss of a sense of personal responsibility — without which a whole society is in jeopardy. The police cannot possibly maintain law and order by themselves. Millions of people can monitor their own behavior better than any third parties can. Cops can cope with that segment of society who have no sense of personal responsibility, but not if that segment becomes a large part of the whole population. Yet increasing numbers of educators and the intelligentsia seem to have devoted themselves to undermining or destroying a sense of personal responsibility and making ’society’ responsible instead.” –economist Thomas Sowell

Reader Comments

“If the message in Mark Alexander’s essay, ‘The First Statement of Conservative Principles‘, is that the Tea Party should link up with the Republican GOP, then count me out. I am about to switch from being a registered Republican to that of an Independent. The GOP keeps throwing rocks at the Obama liberals, as they should, but they need to clean their own house as well.” –TroutLakeTom

Editor’s Reply: Mr. Alexander’s message was precisely that no such link between the Tea Party and the GOP should be formalized.

“In Friday’s Digest, you quoted the nation’s leader as having stated, ‘Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, I am an ardent believer in the free market.’ This is accurate and, I believe, sincere. Remember, it has been said by many that the Devil is a believer in God. His agenda is completely contrary to the Lord’s, but he certainly believes in Him…” –Capt., USN

“In reference to Friday’s ‘And Last’ item and Rep. Louis Slaughter, as a practicing dentist for 32 years, I am telling you there is no way that this woman could wear her deceased sisters dentures nor anyone else’s. Aside from the ‘gross’ factor, the dentures would not function properly to enable the woman to fit them into her mouth, let alone chew anything. That’s the reason that dentures aren’t sold in small, medium and large sizes at Walmart.” –Dr. Young

The Last Word

“[W]ho are regular, run-of-the-mill, tax-paying Americans to question Obama? He’s brilliant, after all. … [I]f Obama is so brilliant, why does he parrot the words and thoughts of a bunch of schmucks like Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, Al Gore and Michael Moore? Why does he insist that the trouble with the Constitution and the Civil Rights movement is that they didn’t focus on the redistribution of wealth? Why would he hand over the federal budget to a couple of morons like Pelosi and Reid? And why on earth would he put Henry Waxman in charge of his energy program? A brilliant person wouldn’t trust Waxman to bring baked beans to a picnic. When someone decides to model a health care plan after such dismal failures as England, Canada and Cuba, while exhuming the failed economic policies of FDR, why would anyone suggest he is anything but a left-wing ignoramus? This is an American president, for heaven’s sake, who has more in common with Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez and some Berkeley hippie than he has with Washington, Jefferson and Adams. Except that he is now 30 years older, Obama seems to think exactly the same way he was thinking back in college, when he was a pot-smoking idiot who sought out students who were self-professed revolutionaries and professors who were communists. If we have come to a point where the ability to read scripted lines off a teleprompter is considered a sign of brilliance, no matter how fatuous the actual words may be, we are in even worse shape than I imagined.” –columnist Burt Prelutsky

Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post

Filed under: 111th Congress, America (USA), Blundering Bureaucrats, Conniving Politicians, Democracy, Democrats, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Annie, Health Care Reform Bill, Obamacare, ObamaCare Catastrophe, Political Comment, Socialised Health Care, TEA Party Movement, The Patriot Post, Tony

By Star Parker

Van Jones is back, reconstructed and rehabilitated.

Jones, you may recall, departed from his White House job as “green jobs czar” after publicity about his association with a “9/11 truther” organization that alleges complicity of the Bush administration with the 9/11 attack.

He was already a lightning rod, having characterized President Bush as a “crackhead,” using profanity to describe Republicans, and offering gems like blaming “white polluters and white environmentalists” for “steering poison” to minority communities.

But as White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel understands that power brokers should “never waste a crisis,” those on the left grasp that you never waste an asset like a black self-described communist from the 1990s with an Ivy League degree and a best selling “green jobs” book.

So now Jones has new jobs at Princeton University and Washington’s Center for American Progress. And, to seal the public rehabilitation, he will be awarded the NAACP’s Image Award, and has been called by NAACP president Benjamin Jealous a “national treasure.”

Central to Jones’ work will, of course, be the continuation of his “green jobs” agenda. The Center for American Progress announcement says he’ll be a senior fellow and leader with its Green Opportunity Initiative.

CAP was founded by rich liberals who thought the left needed a think tank like conservatives have (as they concluded they needed talk radio and hence founded the now defunct Air America). One of the major sources of funding of CAP was Marion and Herbert Sandler who got rich building Golden West Financial selling Adjustable Rate Mortgages with teaser rates to unsophisticated buyers. Yes, the very greedy kind of businesspeople that the Obama administration would have us believe caused our current economic crisis.

But the beauty of the left is that facts will never get in the way of ideology.

The recent scandal associated with the use of research data at the Climate Research Unit in England – which has been essentially the headquarters of global warming research – has brought claims of man-made climate change into serious doubt.

Sober minds realize that this must be a time for reassessment about assumptions driving the belief that irreversible climate change has occurred and that this alleged change is caused by human activity. As expressed in an editorial in Britain’s Prospect Magazine, “We cannot rely on highly imperfect climate models as a basis for policy initiatives that cost billions and change how we live.”

But this hasn’t put a dent in the green jobs movement. President Obama continues to push this idea as central to economic recovery, as he did the other day speaking to CEOs at the Business Roundtable in Washington.

The love affair on the left with “green jobs” is, of course, about ideology, which is why facts are irrelevant. It is another excuse to grow government and bring European socialism to America. What could be a better opportunity than to claim that the planet’s atmosphere is now out of whack because of capitalism?

Van Jones is important because he uses environmentalism as a new platform to welcome poor blacks onto the government plantation.

This is important spin because poor folks do have common sense. In a Zogby poll done after the presidential election, 73 percent of blacks said they were opposed to taxing fossil fuels to promote alternative energy.

The Carter Administration invested $2.1 billion in the Great Plains Coal Gasification Plant to convert coal to gas. The result? Zero. Federal government spending since 1961 on “advanced energy technologies and basic energy science research” totals $187 billion with hardly anything to show.

Poor folks don’t need socialism or green jobs. They need green money. They’ll get more of it being free, going to school, getting married and going to work.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (www.urbancure.org).

Filed under: 111th Congress, America (USA), Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Blundering Bureaucrats, Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Conniving Politicians, Democrats, Environment, Environmental activists, Fanatics, Fear-mongering, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Climate Change Religion, FSM (Star Parker), Global Warming Alarmism, Global Warming Hype, Green Jobs, Tony, Van Jones

By Sammy Benoit

Shortly after the devastation of Katrina, Al Gore was busy making a correlation between hurricanes and global warming in an effort to drive home his claim that higher global CO2 emissions cause an increase in extreme weather events:

Now, the scientific community is warning us that the average hurricane will continue to get stronger because of global warming. A scientist at MIT has published a study well before this tragedy showing that since the 1970s, hurricanes in both the Atlantic and the Pacific have increased in duration, and in intensity, by about 50 %. The newscasters told us after Hurricane Katrina went over the southern tip of Florida that there was a particular danger for the Gulf Coast of the hurricanes becoming much stronger because it was passing over unusually warm waters in the gulf. The waters in the gulf have been unusually warm. The oceans generally have been getting warmer. And the pattern is exactly consistent with what scientists have predicted for twenty years. Al Gore September 2005

Increased and more powerful tropical storm activity has been a mainstream claim of both Al Gore and the IPCC. It was so important to the former Vice President, that he actually photo-shopped a giant hurricane on to the cover of his second global warming book Our Choice. Unfortunately for Al and the IPCC, it looks as though that claim like so many others, just isn’t true.

Research by hurricane scientists may force the UN’s climate panel to reconsider its claims that greenhouse gas emissions have caused an increase in the number of tropical storms.

The benchmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that a worldwide increase in hurricane-force storms since 1970 was probably linked to global warming.

It followed some of the most damaging storms in history such as Hurricane Katrina, which hit New Orleans and Hurricane Dennis which hit Cuba, both in 2005.

The IPCC added that humanity could expect a big increase in such storms over the 21st century unless greenhouse gas emissions were controlled.

The warning helped turn hurricanes into one of the most iconic threats of global warming, with politicians including Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, and Al Gore citing them as a growing threat to humanity.

The cover of Gore’s newest book, Our Choice, even depicts an artist’s impression of a world beset by a series of huge super-hurricanes as a warning of what might happen if carbon emissions continue to rise.

However, the latest research, just published in Nature Geoscience, paints a very different picture.

It suggests that the rise in hurricane frequency since 1995 was just part of a natural cycle, and that several similar previous increases have been recorded, each followed by a decline.

Looking to the future, it also draws on computer modelling to predict that the most likely impact of global warming will be to decrease the frequency of tropical storms, by up to 34% by 2100.

Wait, Al can’t be wrong!

It does, however, suggest that when tropical storms do occur they could get slightly stronger, with average windspeeds rising by 2-11% by 2100. A storm is termed a hurricane when wind speeds exceed 74mph, but most are much stronger. A category 4 or 5 hurricane such as Katrina generates speeds in excess of 150mph.

“We have come to substantially different conclusions from the IPCC,” said Chris Landsea, a lead scientist at the American government’s National Hurricane Center, who co-authored the report.

He added: ”There are a lot of legitimate concerns about climate change but, in my opinion, hurricanes are not among them. We are looking at a decrease in frequency and a small increase in severity.” Landsea said he regarded the use of hurricane icons on the cover of Gore’s book as “misleading”.

That row dates back to the hurricane season of 2004 when four major hurricanes hit north and central America.

It prompted senior IPCC scientists to give a press conference at Harvard University warning that global warming would cause many more such storms.

The claims attracted worldwide attention but Landsea pointed out there was no science so substantiate them and was so angry that he resigned his post as a senior IPCC author in January 2005, issuing a letter accusing the IPCC of having become “politicised”.

He added in the letter : “All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones.”

Sorry Al I guess you can’t just “wish away” the fact that your global warming hoax is falling apart.

For More on the Hoax of Global Warming, This Post by Caleb How is a MUST Read Unsettled Science

Read more Great Posts at The Lid

Filed under: America (USA), Blundering Bureaucrats, Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Conniving Politicians, Environment, Environmental activists, Fanatics, Fear-mongering, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion Tagged: Al Gore, Climate Change Fraud, Climate Change Religion, Global Warming Alarmism, Global Warming Hype, The Lid, Tony, Tropical Storm Activity, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

By Noel Sheppard

“Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.”

So began an article published at CNN.com Friday guaranteed to anger conservatives from coast to coast.

The piece continued, “Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs.”

Folks are warned about proceeding further, for the content might be really offensive to some.

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly. […]

The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans’ evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.

Interesting. Sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism, and atheism wouldn’t have benefited our ancestors.

Regardless of the evolutionary significance, wouldn’t you normally expect liberal, atheist men to be less concerned with monogamy?

Unfortunately, the study never dealt with this seeming incongruity:

Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.

“It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere,” Kanazawa said. […]

Atheism “allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion,” [George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study] said.

And that allows them to necessarily become more intelligent?

Regardless, here might be the problem:

The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines “liberal” in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.

Is that how YOU define liberal and conservative?

Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters

Read more Great Articles at NewsBusters

Filed under: America (USA), CNN (Communist News Network), Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Media Mind Manipulators, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Pseudo-Journalism, Public Opinion Tagged: Atheism, Godless Liberalism, Liberal Thinking, Liberalism, NewsBusters, Tony

2010 Olympic Games closing ceremony at Vancouver, BC

The flags of the competing countries are raised as athletes walk past during the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games closing ceremony at BC Place in Vancouver, Canada, 28 February 2010.

This was a really beautiful Ceremony. We all enjoyed it here. How about you? Did you see it? How would you rate this Olympic closing ceremony? Please rate it in the following poll. We do not record your IP address or place cookies on your computer.

The United States team walks through the stadium during the Closing Ceremony.

More pictures on following page. …

(2L-R) Anne Rogge, IOC President Jacques Rogge and Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper and Laureen Harper

TonyfromOz adds …..

This really was an excellent Ceremony. However, one of the enduring highlights for me was seeing one of the many Canadian musicians, in this case my favourite singer, Neil Young. he sang ‘Long May You Run’, from the 1976 album of the same name. Neil is now 64, and the voice may not be what it once was, but it’s always good to hear him sing. Incidentally, that beat up old guitar he was playing is one of his two favourites, this one being the Martin D28 he lovingly calls Hank after its previous owner, Hank Williams. That guitar may look old and beat up, but it is positively priceless.

Filed under: Canada, Images Tagged: 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic Games, Ed

By Andrew Bolt

TonyfromOz prefaces …..

I’ve added my own update at the bottom of this post with reference to the Tsunami Warning we were warned about yesterday.

Hold the panic merchants to account!

Tim Blair does his best:

(H)ere’s an ABC report broadcast in July:

A dire bushfire forecast has been issued for Victoria, with this summer’s season expected to be even fiercer than the Black Saturday bushfires that killed more than 170 people earlier this year. A leaked report from the state’s Department of Sustainability and Environment says a season with the “greatest potential loss to life and property” is now in sight.

We’re now at the end of summer. Nobody died.

UPDATE

Get the impression the scare-mongering is wearing thin?

A MAJOR tsunami warning for Australia’s east coast did little to deter people from flocking to beaches.

In Sydney, many travelled kilometres to try to get a glimpse of the “big wave” that never came…

Gabby Stevenot, 27, said she had travelled more than 20km from West Ryde, in Sydney’s northwest, to watch the tsunami and was “disappointed” she couldn’t see anything.

TonyfromOz adds …..

Yesterday, as a result of the horrific Chilean Earthquake, the East Coast of Australia was warned in great detail about the possibility of a a Tsunami. The Tsunami is an immense shock wave generated by the undersea quake. This shock wave travels through the water at a speed of 450 MPH. It forces before it an immense body of water. On the surface out in the depths of the Ocean, it is all but undetectable. As it approaches land, it sucks that water from in front of it and then proceeds to drive ashore. The speed is somewhat washed off as it enters shallower water but it still has an immense force. That resultant wall of water may only be ten feet high. The largest height recorded for a Tsunami was in the Alaskan Earthquake of 1964 when a vertical water displacement of 218 feet was recorded at Valdez Inlet. The Tsunami may only be in the vicinity of ten feet and travelling ‘relatively’ slowly but the force driving it will then drive that immense wall of water inland, taking all before it, and in some cases, driving miles inland, as shown during the Tsunami of 2004.

The Tsunami generated by the Chile Earthquake had a travel time to the East Coast of Australia of 18 hours. There was plenty of time for warnings to be broadcast to the public, and virtually every media outlet broadcast those warnings in great detail, warning people to stay away from the beaches, not to enter the water, and also informing them of safe points if the Tsunami caused any devastation.

Despite those warnings, here on the 20 mile strip of some of the best surfing beaches on Earth, people flocked to those beaches in droves. Every media outlet sent news crews to the beaches, and it was almost along the lines of a festive occasion. Every one of the fifty or more beaches in that 20 mile strip is patrolled by a dedicated band of Surf Life Savers, and in response to those warnings, those Life Savers then closed every one of those beaches for the whole day. In spite of this thousands went into the water. Surfers with their boards came from miles around to take advantage of what they perceived would be a good ride. One local radio station sent an Outside broadcast unit to one beach and was doing live interviews. When one woman was asked why she was there despite the warning, she said that she wanted to see what it was all about. When pressed as to what she would do if in fact there was a Tsunami, she said she would just go back to her car and drive home. Yeah right! Walk away from a wall of water being driven at around 450 MPH.

The fact that there was very little, if anything noticed was in fact a very fortuitous thing, with literally thousands at those beaches watching and waiting, without the slightest comprehension as to what might have happened, despite the constant and repeated warnings.

I’m reminded of the old fable of ‘The Boy Who Cried Wolf.’ Warn the people of the worst possible scenario at every occasion, and the people will become blase about the whole situation, as Andrew explains above. All these warnings succeded in doing was to drive people TO the beaches to watch.

On a related matter, in the U.S. CNN anchor Rick Sanchez was discussing the Tsunami threat with an expert who said that a possible nine Metre wall of water was being pushed through the Ocean.

In a wonderful response showing his mastery of the situation, Sanchez then asked the expert ….. “What’s nine meters in English?’

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Filed under: Australia, Disaster, Fanatics, Fear-mongering, Propaganda, Pseudo-Journalism, Public Opinion Tagged: Andrew Bolt, Chile Earthquake, Disaster Scaremongering, Tony, Tsunami Warnings

Canada 3  USA 2 in Men’s Ice Hockey.

From the perspective of a person who knows very little about hockey, it was an evenly matched game. Though the Canadians seemed a little more organized than the USA, and they fought harder for the puck behind their net. I saw 2 or 3 Canadians fighting for the puck versus 1 or 2 Americans fighting for the puck behind their net. Maybe an ‘Expert’ fan can give me a little more insight to this exciting game played today.

Canada Wanted to Finally Win a Gold Medal in an Olympics They Hosted; Now They Have 14!

Partial Medal Count
Country			Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
	United States		9	15	13	37
	Germany		10	13	7	30
	Canada		14	7	5	26
	Norway		9	8	6	23
	Austria		4	6	6	16

Filed under: America (USA), Canada, News and Views Tagged: 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic Games, Ed

Satire by  Shawn Goodwin

Have you ever noticed that whenever the government or some consumer advocate tries to impose its will upon us, someone always says, “It’s for the children?” No matter what the cause, there is always a person telling us to think about the children. The legislation could involve appropriations for nursing home bedpans and still the kids are thrown in people’s faces. Celebrities usually chant this mantra, and while some of them are truly in it for the good of the kiddies, others are either in it for themselves, or because they want to abide by the terms of their bail.

There is no reason to think that the motives of Colombian pop star Shakira are anything but pure. Even so, her rug rat-centric platform is opening a lot of doors; especially the ones in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Earlier this week, the Latin bombshell was able to arrange an unscheduled meeting with the most powerful man in the world. That must be nice, since the president’s own daughters have to make an appointment to see dad.

The Shakira meeting was puzzling at best and inconceivable at worst. In the past year, the economy has dropped faster than Nancy Pelosi’s face, unemployment numbers are larger than Alec Baldwin’s ego, and President Obama’s poll numbers are lower than the average teenager’s pants. The president is a busy man, but for someone who has a lot of work to do, the president always seems to make time for nonsense involving celebrities:

“President Obama and pop superstar Shakira are talking about U.S. policy toward children. Obama and the Colombian entertainer met briefly Monday at the White House after she had meetings with staff from the National Security Council and the Domestic Policy Council to talk about early childhood development.

A White House official, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the meeting was not on the president’s public schedule, said Shakira stopped by to say hello privately to Obama when the meetings ended. Shakira is a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador and has been an advocate for children in poverty.”

Okay, there are a lot of aneurysm-inducing phrases in those two paragraphs, so let’s dissect them one by one. The first area of trouble is the fact that a pop star/bimbo is discussing the U.S. policy toward children with the president. Discussing the policy? Does America have an official policy toward children, and if so, where can a parent find it? Heck, what is the president’s response to that? “Um, we’re for them. The United States is very pro-child.” Puh-lease!

The second issue is one that should make any American’s head explode. For some reason, a Colombian pop tart was given permission to participate in meetings with the National Security Council! Who exactly is making these decisions, some administration staffer sitting in a cubicle and throwing darts at people’s photos? Imagine the embarrassment when Rahm Emanuel has to tell President Obama that while the meeting with the Chinese Premier is crucial to our nation’s security, the dart landed on the scantily-clad girl who sings “Hips Don’t Lie.” Similarly, Shakira met with members of the Domestic Policy Council, another organization comprised of Cabinet members and under-secretaries. The topic was early childhood development. Again, while this is a noble undertaking, Shakira has no children. How exactly is she the go-to gal on early childhood development? If they wanted a woman with some knowledge on the subject, the Council should have invited Michelle Duggar. Of course, since she is raising 19 biological children, she probably doesn’t have the time or the energy to deal with a bunch of politicians – although in fairness, the politicians are probably a bigger group of crybabies.

The second paragraph is more puzzling than the question of why Ryan Seacrest is famous. How is it that a Latin celebrity can just “stop by to say hello” to the President of the United States? I can see that in the Kennedy or the Clinton administrations, where babes took unscheduled meetings with Slick Willy every hour on the hour, but not during the Obama presidency. It probably helps that Shakira is gorgeous but the double standard is blinding. Does anyone really believe that Ernest Borgnine can walk into the Oval Office unannounced for a meet and greet with President Obama? Not likely.

There is no question that Shakira should be applauded for her charity work and her interest in the well-being of poverty-stricken children. She is probably a good person with a genuine interest in the lives of others. That being said, being a good egg should not automatically grant someone an audience with the most powerful government on the face of the Earth. Maybe Shakira will set the bar a little lower next time. She can follow Sean Penn’s lead and spend all of her time visiting loser countries like Cuba and Iran. Lord knows there is plenty of poverty to go around there.

FamilySecurityMatters.org’s official satirist, Shawn Goodwin, is a blogger and police detective from Philly.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

Filed under: 111th Congress, Airhead Celebrities, America (USA), Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Celebrities, Democrats, Humor, Imbecile Celebrities, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Satire, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: FSM (Shawn Goodwin), Political Comment, Political Satire, President Obama, Shakira, Tony

By Alan Caruba

The New York Times once again is Al Gore’s “enabler”, publishing a February 28 opinion editorial, “We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change”, despite the mounting evidence that global warming was and is a complete fabrication.

In November 2009, the Telegraph, a British newspaper, carried a story, “Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire”, so let us disabuse ourselves of the notion that Gore just wants to save the world.

Heavily invested in the “carbon credits” scam and technologies whose success depend on people believing fairy tales about “clean energy” alternatives such as wind and solar energy, Gore has enriched himself by trumpeting the biggest hoax of the modern era.

It is no surprise that The New York Times published his latest collection of lies. The reportorial record of the Times has been decades of lies about global warming. Whatever patina of respectability it once had has been eroded by its participation in the fraud. Why should it stop now?

There is increasing discussion of whether testimony before Congress by Gore and other global warming advocates constitute criminal behavior that begins with lying under oath.

On February 24th The Washington Times reported on a hearing of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget. “Republican James Inhofe told EPA head, Lisa Jackson, that man-made climate change was a ‘hoax’ concocted by ideologically motivated researchers who ‘cooked the science.’”

“More than that, Inhofe in releasing a GOP report questioning the science used to support cap-and-trade legislation, hinted that such activities may be part of a vast criminal enterprise designed to bilk governments, taxpayers and investors while enriching those making the false claims.”

The global warming hoax has been sustained for decades by reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) an agency of the United Nations Environmental Program. It is responsible for the Kyoto Protocol that required signature nations to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases said to be trapping heat. In July 1997 a unanimous Senate resolution rejected the Protocol.

Key players, the scientists who controlled and provided the data to support global warming, Phil Jones, head of Britain’s Climate Research Unit, and Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, are just two currently under investigation for allegedly deliberately providing and publishing falsified climate data.

Based on thousands of emails leaked last year, it is clear they and others engaged in an effort to suppress any dissenting data from being published in peer-reviewed science journals.

Does that deter Al Gore? The very first paragraph of his opinion editorial claimed that the planet faces “an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale preventative measures to protect human civilization as we know it.”

He wrote this knowing that data from weather satellites have shown little warming trend of the atmosphere since 1979!

He wrote that “January was seen as unusually cold in much of the United States. Yet from a global perspective, it was the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago.” Rubbish. He based that on the claim of a single Australian scientist that came from the same garbage can of equally absurd claims put forth for decades.

In a similar fashion, IPCC claims that the Himalayan glaciers were melting and the countless other claims attributed to global warming were based on inaccurate, often deliberately distorted computer models and from dubious sources.

Dr. S. Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a leader in the effort to reveal the vast global warming fraud, on February 27 wrote that “this apparent (global warming) consensus misled not only the media and the public, but also the wider scientific community, which had remained largely unaware of the ongoing debate and of the work of many reputable climate experts who disagreed with the IPCC.”

Dr. Singer summed up the entire global warming hoax as based on “temperature data (that) had been manipulated.”

When you use bad data you get bad results. When you use it to enrich yourself, you are engaged in an activity worthy of a criminal investigation.

It was unworthy of The New York Times to lend itself to the continuing lies of Al Gore, but neither it is surprising since the credibility of this once respected newspaper has been trashed by its appalling biases and a succession of reporters who have been found to be plagiarists and fantasists.

About the only thing left in which a reader can put any confidence is the date under the Times banner each day.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at Warning Signs. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Read more thought provoking articles at Warning Signs

Filed under: America (USA), Blundering Bureaucrats, Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Conniving Politicians, Environment, Environmental activists, Europe, Fanatics, Fear-mongering, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, Great Britain, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Spine Donor Politicians, U.K., U.N. – United Nations (United Nitwits) Tagged: Al Gore, Alan Caruba, Climate Change Fraud, Climate Change Hypocrisy, Climate Change Religion, Environmental protection Agency (EPA), Global Warming Alarmism, Global Warming Hype, The Kyoto Protocol, Tony, UK Climatic Research Institute (CRU), UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Warning Signs

By Noel Sheppard

During a Friday press conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she was running the most ethical Congress ever.

CNSNews.com reported Friday:

When a reporter prefaced a question about Rangel by noting that Pelosi had promised to run the “most ethical and honest Congress in history” she interrupted him to say: “And we are.”

Despite the absurdity of this remark, CNSNews.com and Fox News were by themselves amongst major press outlets in finding it newsworthy (readers are cautioned to stow fluids as well as sharp items, and make sure their mouths are free of food or liquid before proceeding to the hysterical video):

Once again, despite the absurdity of her comment, it didn’t get a lot of press coverage.

According to LexisNexis, on television, only Fox News reported this statement: once on Friday’s “Your World” and again on “Hannity.”

Although CNN did cover this press conference during the 5PM “Situation Room” Friday, her comment, “And we are” was not addressed.

Many newspapers also reported the press conference, but according to LexisNexis, not one mentioned her reply to the reporter about being most ethical.

Not one.

Wireservices also covered the press conference, but didn’t mention her absurd comment either.

Of course, carrying the press’s water were conservative bloggers – as usual. A Google blog search found the country’s citizen journalists all over this story.

Hot Air’s Allahpundit reported just how preposterous this comment was:

As of early January, “the most ethical Congress ever” hadn’t punished a single congressman for ethics violations. Not one, despite the many, many imbroglios in which, to take a not-so-random example, Pelosi crony Jack Murtha was involved. In fact, seven more congressmen were exonerated of ethics charges just today despite their ties to the PMA lobbying group.

Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft was also all over this:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) insisted on Friday that she is running the most ethical and honest Congress in history. At the same time, however, she indicated she will not ask House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.) to resign his chairmanship-at least for now. Democrook Charlie Rangel was found guilty of ethics violations yesterday. But, at least he wasn’t caught stashing $90,000 of cold hard cash in his freezer like crooked democrat William Jefferson who was recently sent to the slammer for 13 years.

By contrast, “real” journalists predictably boycotted Pelosi’s comment.

Exit question: Can you imagine the kind of coverage former Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) would have gotten if he made such a remark while he was Speaker?

Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters

Read more Great Articles at NewsBusters

Filed under: 111th Congress, America (USA), Conniving Politicians, Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Media Mind Manipulators, MSM (Main Stream Media) Liberal, Muddled Media, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Pseudo-Journalism, Public Opinion, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Liberal Congress, Media Double Standards, Media Hypocrisy, NewsBusters, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-New York), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Tony

By Andrew Bolt

The university which tried to trick us on temperature records now tries to trick the parliamentary committee investigating its deceits:

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails has been accused of making a misleading statement to Parliament.

The University of East Anglia wrote this week to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee giving the impression that it had been exonerated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, the university failed to disclose that the ICO had expressed serious concerns that one of its professors had proposed deleting information to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the university’s Climatic Research Unit, has stepped down while an inquiry takes place into allegations that he manipulated data to avoid scrutiny of his claims that manmade emissions were causing global warming. Professor Edward Acton, the university’s vice-chancellor, published a statement he sent to the committee before giving evidence to MPs at a public hearing on Monday. He said a letter from the ICO “indicated that no breach of the law has been established [and] that the evidence the ICO had in mind about whether there was a breach was no more than prima facie”.

But the ICO’s letter said: “The prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence.”

The letter also confirmed the ICO’s previous statement that the university had failed in its duties under the Freedom of Information Act by rejecting requests for data. The university had demanded that the ICO withdraw this statement.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Filed under: Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Environment, Environmental activists, Fanatics, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, Great Britain, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Propaganda, Public Opinion, U.K. Tagged: Andrew Bolt, Climate Change Fraud, Climate Change Religion, Climategate, Global Warming Alarmism, Global Warming Hype, Tony, UK Climatic Research Institute (CRU), University of East Anglia

USGS: Chile Earthquake ‘Alarming’

Jessica Sigala, from the USGS tells CBS News Chile’s earthquake was far more powerful than the one in Haiti and has sent strong waves prompting tsunami warnings in the Pacific.  Video posted by CBS

More videos follow:   …  

2010 Earthquake (Magnitude 8.8) and Tsunami hit Chile affecting the capital Santiago

Video posted by  newsstoryoftheday

A massive earthquake with an initial magnitude of 8.8 has struck central Chile.

http://tinyurl.com/earthquake-chile

The quake struck at 0634 GMT (3:34 a.m. local time) about 91km (56 miles) north-east of the city of Concepcion and 317km south-west of the capital, Santiago.
Buildings in Santiago were reported to have shaken for between 10 and 30 seconds, with the loss of electricity and communications.
The US issued an initial tsunami warning for Chile, Peru and Ecuador.
That was later extended to Colombia, Antarctica, Panama and Costa Rica.

Chile Earthquake 2010 ‘Alarming’ [HD]

Video posted by SilverOsprey1

Chile Earthquake 2010 ‘Alarming’ [HD].
Some Facts-
-78 people Killed
-Triggered a tsunami
-8.8 on the richter scale (Haiti was only 7.0 – thats 500 times as powerful)
-Tsunami travelled at 500 Mph
-Extensive aftershocks
-Earthquake was just under the surface

Video of Chile aftermath, quake witnesses, Hawaii tsunami siren alerts

Video posted by RussiaToday

The massive earthquake that struck central Chile has now claimed at least a hundred-and-twenty-two lives. Dozens of buildings collapsed and parts of the country are without power, after the deadly 8.8-magnitude quake. Santiago airport is closed, and Chile’s president has declared a ’state of catastrophe’. Tsunami warnings have also been issued for the Pacific rim – sirens are being heard in Hawaii to warn of impending tidal waves, while Samoa has evacuated its coast.

Earthquake Rocks Chile

Video posted by FoxNewsChannel
8.8-magnitude earthquake hits Chile

Filed under: News and Views, Video Tagged: Chile Earthquake, Ed

By Alan Caruba

After seven and a half hours of the Republicans trying to introduce some rationality into the discussion of Obamacare, the “reform” of Medicare that actually takes trillions out of the present system and adds millions of people into it, the ordinary American can be excused for being confused, frustrated, and angry.

That’s exactly where President Obama, the Chicago political mafia around him, Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi want people to be. At one point in the pointless all-day meeting on Thursday, she even claimed that passing Obamacare would create four million jobs overnight! Even for Speaker Pelosi, that’s a new level of insane babble.

Nothing coming out of the leadership in the White House or Congress makes a grain of sense and it is calculated to making the public so hopeless that, in the end, when they manage to bribe their way to a “reconciliation” vote to pass it, the public will feel defeated by all their efforts to date and ripe for more legislative horrors such as Cap-and-Trade.

Those efforts were seen in the heated town hall meetings during the summer, a march on Washington, D.C. in September, the elections of Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey, and a Senator from Massachusetts. In very obvious ways, the public is shouting No! No! No!

Forgotten and unreported in all this are the “Rules for Radicals” by the godfather of all radical community organizers, Saul Alinsky. The President who began his political career as a community organizer and whose entire approach to politics is based on his book, said “It was that education that was seared into my brain. It was the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard.”

Alinsky taught that Americans must be overwhelmed with a never-ending barrage of crisis, emergencies, and unworkable ‘solutions’ that exacerbate problems. This is why Rahm Emanuel, the President’s Chief of Staff, famously said that a crisis should never be wasted.

It may even explain why the financial crisis conveniently occurred in the last weeks of the Bush term and during the campaign for the presidency.

It also explains why the so-called “stimulus” bill has done nothing to create jobs and, in fact, why some ten million Americans have lost their jobs in the past year while billions were allocated to countless political pork projects rather than taking steps to lower the taxes on corporations and small businesses in order to actually stimulate hiring and growth.

Alinsky also preached the importance of intimidation and of ridicule to achieve one’s goals. Though guarded, the President used both at the meeting to discuss Obamacare. Just ask Senator John McCain or Representative Eric Cantor.

Again, because the mainstream media, still in love with a President whose approval ratings now stand at only 44% and heading south, neither vetted him as a candidate, nor analyzed the Alinsky approach that he cites as the greatest influence in his life. The public can be forgiven for not knowing that Alinsky’s book is dedicated to “the very first radical”, none other than “Lucifer” a.k.a. Satan

Now perhaps you can understand why, when the 2,400 page bill was actually put on display during the meeting, President Obama dismissed it as “political theatre” and “a prop”, but it was neither. How can one discuss such a massive bill without, at least, bringing it to the meeting allegedly intended for that purpose?

The bill, however, contains some of the most wrenching and damaging changes to the nation’s healthcare system and the insurance programs involved with it that it cannot and must not be so casually dismissed.

If Obamacare passes, the healthcare system that Americans value will be destroyed and turned into one resembling the failed systems in neighboring Canada and in Great Britain where horror stories of delayed and denied care are routine.

Barack Obama is the apotheosis of Saul Alinsky’s gameplan to destroy the republic and replace the Constitution with an all-powerful socialist central government.

First, we must by drowning Congress in calls, faxes, and emails, make it abundantly clear that we are opposed to Obamacare. We must sway as many fence-sitters as possible.

Then, in November, we must vote out of office those incumbents who have supported and voted for the House and Senate versions of it.

And lastly we must return power in Congress to the Republicans who have been chastened and learned from their mistakes in the 2006 and 2008 elections. The nation’s future depends on it.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at Warning Signs. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Read more thought provoking articles at Warning Signs

Filed under: 111th Congress, 2010 Elections, America (USA), Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Conniving Politicians, Democracy, Democrats, Fanatics, Fear-mongering, Fraud/Waste, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Alan Caruba, Health Care Reform Bill, Obamacare, ObamaCare Catastrophe, President Obama, Saul Alinsky, Tony, Warning Signs

By Adam Raezler

Delegates and heads of state from 193 free and sovereign nations gathered in Copenhagen this past December with the hopes of agreeing on a binding international agreement to combat global climate change. Before Copenhagen, two similar international conferences were held with the purpose of addressing global climate change. Both, with the most recent held in Kyoto, Japan, have failed. However, many internationalists believed that the “hope and change” that swept through America in 2008 would also come to Copenhagen. President Obama’s attendance was thought to be the best chance the United States had to agree to an international accord on climate change. Mr. Obama’s presence at the conference transformed the Danish capital from Copenhagen to Hopenhagen.

While many of us agree that it is our responsibility to be diligent caretakers of our environment, we must be cautious to avoid being swept up in the new global fad of environmentalism. Americans must be vigilant and quick to defend our sovereign right to determine our own national environmental policies, free from the tentacles of the international community. Americans have always believed in the concept of self-governance and   …    self-determination and if we do not work to preserve these rights, they will quickly be diminished. Internationalists, and even several American policy makers, have used the issue of global climate change in an effort to create a panic, which they believe is the only way to persuade Americans to surrender their sovereignty to a new global environmental treaty and regulatory commission. Global climate change has become the Trojan horse for those seeking to destroy the philosophy of sovereignty and self-determination. Close examination reveals it to be an effort to construct a massive international structure that wishes to determine the environmental policies for our nation.

The question of who can best determine environmental policies on issues such as cutting CO2 emissions – countries for themselves or an unelected international body – lay at the heart of this conference. These decisions would have an immense impact on local and national economies, both in the United States and around the world. Many Americans would think that the environmental policies of the United States are best determined by our democratically-elected government, the administration and the current leaders of Congress believe that we should surrender our sovereign right to legislate our own environmental polices into the hands of unelected and undemocratic international institutions.

The goal of this United Nations-sponsored conference was to draft a binding treaty that would impose a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions by all nations that UN scientists say are necessary to avert a climate change catastrophe. This article is not intended to debate the science of climate change, but it is worth noting UN scientists reversed several of their positions after Climategate exposed flaws in their findings. Just this past week, head UN scientist Yvo de Boer announced his resignation effective July 2010. The conference also aimed to construct an international regulatory body that would be charged with inspecting American energy consumers such as schools, farms, hospitals, community centers, churches, small business, and private residences to ensure their compliance with all terms of the newly created treaty, especially with regard to their carbon emissions. This compliance commission would then transfer its findings to a group of unelected, non-American, and non-transparent international bureaucrats based in Europe.

These international bureaucrats would be given the power to render judgment and issue penalties on the United States for any perceived shortcomings in complying with the terms of the treaty. These provisions of the desired treaty clearly violate the principles of independence and self-governance that are enshrined in our Constitution. The Founding Fathers displayed their true political genius when they incorporated the Tenth Amendment into the constitution. The Founders knew, based on their relationships with Great Britain and Europe, that American sovereignty would once again come under siege from Europe. Therefore they declared, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Founders made it clear that the powers not delegated to the federal government would pass to the states and the people, not to a foreign treaty or group of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

When President Obama addressed the opening of the United Nations General Assembly in 2009, he spoke in depth about his deep commitment to multilateralism and that he views an international system in which there is no single dominant power but rather a community of power. While at Hopenhagen, Mr. Obama’s eyes were opened to the harsh reality of an international system that is led through his “community of power,” and not by the United States. At Copenhagen, the bloc of 135 developing nations, which includes China, flexed its muscle to show the world that it is the dominant leader of this new community of power, and with the absence of American exceptionalism, the United States and our sovereignty suffered a brutal beating. In addition to demanding that the United States agree to an international climate treaty and its compliance commission, the bloc of 135 nations also had two other enormous demands.

The Ethiopian Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, who was tasked with representing all the African nations, unveiled these demands. He proposed that wealthy, developed nations, such as the United States, Japan and the western states of Europe, provide financial resources to the developing nations so that it can work to combat climate change. The financial resources, also referred to as mitigation and adaptation funds, would be paid by these wealthy, developed nations because global climate change is primarily their fault. The developing world not only had the audacity to place the blame for climate change on the United States, but also demanded that American tax dollars be sent to them as reparations for the damage that we have done to its planet. Prime Minister Zenawi stated that he would accept $30 billion in the short term with an increase to $100 billion by 2020.

The bloc of 135 nations also demanded that the developed world transfer its green technologies to the developing world free of charge so that it can begin the process of installing green technologies and establishing industries in its nations. The United States was not only expected to pay billions of dollars in reparations, but we were also required to freely hand over our science and technology that we are using to help us become more energy efficient and become the global leader in green technology. In return for the transfer of our knowledge and resources, we receive nothing.

While the Copenhagen conference failed to produce the treaty the developing world, including China, desired, it did get the administration to pledge to begin paying the demanded reparations. The administration pledged a promise of support for $30 billion over the next three years with the goal these payments growing to $100 billion by 2020. While the American economy is still struggling to regain its footing, the administration felt that the best use of $30 billion, borrowed from the Chinese, would be to give it away to the nations that became the leaders in this “community of power.” The administration also forged a deal with China, India, Brazil and South Africa for each of the five nations to reduce CO2 emissions and created a system of checks and balances that would require each nation to report its progress to the other four nations.

The failed conference in Copenhagen is a classic example of history repeating itself. I was always taught that if we fail to know our history, we are doomed to repeat it. Americans must remember the failed Bretton Woods conference of 1944 and its results. Copenhagen was not the last attempt by internationalists to erode our sovereignty and force their will upon us. While Bretton Woods failed to establish an international economic institution, the conference did produce the blueprint for the creation of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The Copenhagen conference has drawn the road map to creating an international environmental regime in Mexico City, that will do all it can to destroy American sovereignty.

We live in a time in which we no longer need to fear the coming of the Redcoats. If Paul Revere were to do his famous midnight ride tonight he would cry out “the international bureaucrats are coming!” The bureaucrats are not just coming to New York, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles, but are marching into our local communities to monitor our carbon footprint. They are coming with their international orders and authority to monitor our churches, schools, hospitals, small business, and homes. Heaven help us if they find us guilty of failing to comply with their desired levels of carbon emissions.

During the run up to the conference and even afterward, there was little said as to why the average American family should be concerned with the negotiations and back room deals taking place at Copenhagen. At its core, American sovereignty boils down a simple question: who decides? Do we want our energy policies, which have an immense impact on our daily lives and our local economies, decided by our elected officials or do we allow non-American internationalists to decide what the best and most appropriate energy policy is for our local communities and our nation? Additionally, American families must be concerned with the fact that during the conference the President committed $30 billion dollars over the next three years to the developing world instead of investing those funds into American jobs and our local communities. While families teach their children the importance of taking care of our environment, we are witnessing our ability to determine our own energy policies transfer to the United Nations.

Look for the next issue to confront the Convention on All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and why women in the United States do not need this treaty to ensure their equal status in our society.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Adam Raezler holds a Masters from Norwich University in Diplomacy and International Terrorism.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

Filed under: America (USA), Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Blundering Bureaucrats, Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Conniving Politicians, Democrats, economy, Environment, Environmental activists, Fanatics, Fear-mongering, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Spine Donor Politicians, U.N. – United Nations (United Nitwits) Tagged: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions, Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Gas, Climate Change Religion, Climategate, Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, FSM (Family Security Matters), Global Warming Hype, Kyoto, President Obama, The Kyoto Protocol, Tony, U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

By Nick Loris

Green jobs have been the foundation to any of President Obama’s jobs speeches. “Building a robust clean energy sector is how we will create the jobs of the future,” he said in a speech last month. We’ve long argued that subsidizing jobs comes at the expense of others and will result in net job losses. Sunil Sharan, director of the Smart Grid Initiative at GE from 2008 to 2009, details in the Washington Post how smart metering will create jobs but destroy many more in the process:

It typically takes a team of two certified electricians half an hour to replace the old, spinning meter. In one day, two people can install about 15 new meters, or about 5,000 in a year. Were a million smart meters to be installed in a year, 400 installation jobs would be created. It follows that the planned U.S. deployment of 20 million smart meters over five years, or 4 million per year, should create 1,600 installation jobs. Unless more meters are added to the annual deployment schedule, this workforce of 1,600 should cover installation needs for the next five years.   …  

Although a surge of new digital meters will be produced, the manufacturing process is highly automated. And with much of it accomplished overseas, net creation in domestic manufacturing jobs is expected to be only in the hundreds. In R&D and IT services, high-paying white-collar jobs are on the horizon, but as with manufacturing, the number of jobs created is forecast to be in the hundreds or low thousands. Now let’s consider job losses.

It takes one worker today roughly 15 minutes to read a single meter. So in a day, a meter reader can scan about 30 meters, or about 700 meters a month. Meters are typically read once a month, making it the base period to calculate meter-reading jobs. Reading a million meters every month engages about 1,400 personnel. In five years, 20 million manually read meters are expected to disappear, taking with them some 28,000 meter-reading jobs.”

Job destruction through efficiency improvements isn’t a bad thing, but it is when the government forces it upon us. If new smart metering technologies are economically sensible, the private sector will introduce these technologies to the market. Just as the government shouldn’t attempt to create jobs, it shouldn’t protect jobs from being destroyed, either. Sharan writes, “[I]nstead of creating jobs, smart metering will probably result in net job destruction. This should not be surprising because the main method of making the electrical grid “smart” is by automating its functions. Automation by definition obviates the need for people.” We replaced ditch diggers with mechanized agriculture equipment with the end result being a net gain in productivity and wealth. The process of creative destruction allocates capital and labor to better use, increases gains from productivity and makes us all better off. Using stimulus money for smart metering is unnecessary if it such a good idea.

The other way the government can destroy jobs through a clean energy initiative is to mandate and subsidize labor intensive, inefficient, and expensive power sources. If it takes more labor and capital to produce renewable energy, there is a net drain on the economy. Government spending will create some jobs to build windmills and solar panels and work at biomass plants but this diverts labor, capital and materials from the private sector that could be used more efficiently to create even more jobs

An Institute for Energy Research-commissioned study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid by Gabriel Calzada found that, for every green job created, 2.2 jobs in other sectors have been destroyed. Furthermore, Spain’s government spent $758,471 to create each green job and used $36 billion in taxpayer money to invest in wind, solar, and mini-hydro from 2000-2008. The country’s unemployment rate is currently at 19.4%.

Losing jobs through increases in efficiency and productivity is a sign of progress. Losing jobs through government mandates and subsidies is a sign of Congress.

Contributing Author Nick Loris writes at The Heritage Foundation and he is a Research Assistant at The Heritage Foundation’s Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.

Read more informative articles at Heritage – The Foundry

Filed under: 111th Congress, America (USA), Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Blundering Bureaucrats, Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Conniving Politicians, Democrats, Environment, Environmental activists, Fanatics, Fear-mongering, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, Infrastructure Problems, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Climate Change Religion, Global Warming Hype, Green Jobs, Green Technology, Heritage – The Foundry, Smart Meters, Tony, Unemployment Concerns

By Scooter Van Neuter

WASHINGTON (SR) – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s statement yesterday at the healthcare summit that the Democrat’s healthcare reform plan will create “four million jobs, 400,000 almost immediately – and not just jobs, but jobs in the entrepreneurial world,” appears to have rescued the legislation.

Based on Pelosi’s scientific calculations, the  GOP today threw their unanimous support behind the President’s modified Senate healthcare reform bill. “We had no idea it would create so many millions of entrepreneurial jobs, how can we possibly object?” GOP leader Michael Steele told reporters today.

When pressed on how and where she came up with the job figures, Speaker Pelosi told reporters Friday, “Simple, that’s how many entrepreneurial government employees it’ll take to make it work.”   …  
My comments: Why didn’t the Democrats tell us this in the first place? Let’s celebrate our coming national prosperity (and free healthcare!) with a delicious margarita!

Read More Satire and Humorous Comments at Scooter’s Report

Filed under: 111th Congress, America (USA), Blundering Bureaucrats, Conniving Politicians, Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Humor, Images, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Satire, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Health Care Reform Bill, Obamacare, ObamaCare Catastrophe, Political Humor, Political Satire, Scooter’s Report, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Tony

See more videos at the NewsBusted video channel

See and Read more Quality Material at NewsBusters

Filed under: America (USA), Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, News and Views, Politics, Propaganda, Public Opinion Tagged: NewsBusted, NewsBusters, Political Comment, Political Humor, Political Satire, Tony

By Andrew Bolt

The Institute of Physics, representing 36,000 members, submits a devastating assessment of Climategate to the British parliamentary inquiry into the scandal:

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital…

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented.

Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ‘self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers…

This submission in effect warns that this recent warming may not be unprecedented, after all, and those that claim it is may have been blinded by bias or simply fiddled their results and suppressed dissent.

I’ll repeat: Climategate reveals the greatest scientific scandal of our lifetime.

UPDATE

AND TAKE THE NOBEL OFF HIM AND HIS DISCREDITED OUTFIT

Less than three years after receiving a Nobel Prize for terrifying people:

Rajendra Pachauri, the controversial Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to face an international inquiry into the performance of his organisation.

Environment and Climate ministers meeting in closed session in Bali last night insisted that an independent review should be carried out following the publicising of mistakes in its last report, and a row surrounding Dr Pachauri’s robust response to his critics. If his management is found to be at fault his position could become untenable.

Participants in the unprecedented meeting – held at the annual assembly of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Governing Council in Bali – were sworn to secrecy over the decision and it is only expected to be announced after its detaled scope and composition have been worked out by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organisation, the two UN agencies that oversee the IPCC’s work.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Filed under: Blundering Bureaucrats, Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Environment, Environmental activists, Europe, Fanatics, Fear-mongering, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, Great Britain, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, U.K. Tagged: Andrew Bolt, Climate Change Fraud, Climate Change Religion, Climategate, Global Warming Alarmism, Global Warming Hype, Rajendra Pachauri, Tony, UK Climatic Research Institute (CRU), UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)