"CAP AND TRADE" When you finish reading this document, you must see the document entitled World Tyranny: Warnings about the Insane Who are Trying to Create a Communist World Country, which notes that creating one worldwide communist country is the goal of a proposed climate-change treaty that is being worked on at the United Nations, which will kill your freedoms in the United States of America, and, by the way, around November 20, 2009, I learned that a hacker had recently obtained 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other electronic documents from the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University, Norwich, the United Kingdom, that provide evidence that pro-manmade-global-warming scientists have been working to surppress good research of many other scientists that shows the manmade-global-warming idea is a hoax (Johnson, Keith, and Jeffrey Ball. "Climate Emails Stoke Debate." The Wall Street Journal, 22 November 2009.; Eilperin, Juliet. "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center." The Washington Post, 21 November 2009.; Hickman, Leo, and James Randeron. "Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists." The Guardian (The United Kingdom), 20 November 2009, 18:15 GMT.)
and
Carbon Dioxide
Facts and Nonsense
by
Victor Edward Swanson,
publisher
The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan 49721
copyright 2014
June 25, 2014
(Version 46)
Warning
"CAP AND TRADE"
and
Carbon Dioxide
Facts and Nonsense
Something bad is on the horizon for the United States of America, and it is being pushed on you by many Democrats in the U.S. Congress and by the President of the United States of America, especially U.S. President Barack Obama, and that something bad is "cap and trade." You might think "cap and trade" deals with capping the amount of foreign products that enter the country and end up on the shelves of stores, but you would be wrong, and you might think "cap and trade" deals with employment, maybe to keep foreigners from taking away jobs from Americans, but you would be wrong. "Cap and trade" is a sinister way of hurting the economy of the country, and the idea is to tax things that give off "carbon dioxide," and, basically, it will put a direct tax on businesses and hurt businesses (they will have less money with which to use to hire people for jobs), but, really, it will put more of a tax burden on people--consumers--who use anything that can be associated with carbon dioxide, and that means it will really hurt low-income people, since, for example, a tax on gasoline will be for everyone (the price of a gallon of gas is equal for everyone in an area), and low-income people will be hurt more than those with more income.
By the way, the cap-and-trade bill that is being put together, such as in May 2009, is informally known as the Waxman-Markley Bill, and one of the organizations that dislikes cap and trade idea is the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
Facts:
People breathe in air, which has, for example, nitrogen (a type of gas) and oxygen (a type of gas), and people exhale some of what was breathed in and carbon dioxide, and it is oxygen that people have to have to live.
Plants must have carbon dioxide to live, and when they use carbon dioxide, they give off oxygen as a by-product.
Carbon dioxide is not pollutant!
Carbon dioxide is not dangerous to human life or animal life.
Nonsense:
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, so if a politician says that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, then the politican is dumb or is lying.
Carbon dioxide does not deplete the ozone layer of the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide is not the cause of asthma.
Facts:
If there is no carbon dioxide in the air, people die.
Carbon dioxide is not "carbon monoxide," which is dangerous to humans and animals.
Background materal to remember:
"On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts vs. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the Administrator is required to follow the language of section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court decision resulted from a petition for rulemaking under section 202(a) filed by more than a dozen environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations.
"The Administrator signed a proposal with two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:* The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gages--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threatenthe public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding.This background material above comes from a Web page at the United States Environmental Protection Agency that I found on October 23, 2009, and there was more information, and the page was:
* The Administrator is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of O2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. This is referred to as the cause or contribute finding...."http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
I add that the U.S. President George W. Bush administration was opposed to the idea of the EPA being able to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, and the five justices that made up the majority the led to the adopting of the ruling were Justice John Paul Stevens (who wrote for the majority), Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice David Souter, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Justice Stephen Breyer, and those who dissented were Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice John Roberts, and Justice Samuel Alito, Jr. (Greenhouse, Linda, and Felicity Barringer. "Environmentalists hail Supreme Court ruling on Carbon." The New York Times, 3 April 2007.).
Material to consider:
On May 1, 2009, there was an exchange of talk between U.S. Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming and the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, and the senator was asking questions of Lisa Jackson in relation to a nine-page document that was put together by someone of the White House (of Barack Obama's administration). Officially, the meeting took place at a hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee in the morning on May 12, 2009, and the nine-page document was prepared by the White House Office of Management and Budget, and the document was unsigned and undated (Broder, John M. "E.P.A.'s Greenhouse Gas Proposal Critiqued" Green, Inc., 12 May 2009, 2:39 p.m. ). The document--associated with Barack Obama's White House--notes that the Environmental Protection Agency (or the EPA), which is a part of the federal government, did in an April 2009 proposal related to regulating carbon-dioxide emissions ignored scientific questions and economic considerations for political considerations. Here is the text from the meeting:
Senator John Barrasso: "...And that, that brings to my concern and the question, Ms. Jackson, about the EPA's recent proposal finding greenhouses gases, as you said, are a danger to the public health and welfare. It, it really appears to me that that decision was based more on political calculation than on scientific ones. Hum, in a memo that I received this morning, and it's marked 'Deliberative Attorney Client Privilege'--nine pages--you're mentioned on every page of this memo, it's a White House memo. Council in this administration repeated, repeatedly questions the lack of scientific support that you have for this proposed finding. It's here, nine pages. This is a smoking gun, saying that your findings were political not scientifica, not scientific. Here, page two. 'There's concern that the EPA is making a finding based on harm from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects.' You then talk about regulating greenhouse gases and the economy. Dow Jones Newswire this morning--'U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, "is likely to have serious economic consequences for businesses, small and large, across the economy." That's what a White House memo warned the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year.' Here it is! 'Making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the economy, including small businesses and small communities.' How do you square that when you say...'I don't want any overriding affect on the economy of small businesses'? But this own internal document, marked 'Deliberative Attorney Client Privilege' says that everything you're proposing is going to have serious economic consequences for our businesses in this nation. Charlie Munger, who is the, ah, Warren Buffet's partner at, dah, ah, Berkshire Hathaway, he was recently on CNBC. He said an artificial market in government mandated carbon credits would be, quote, 'monstrously stupid to do right now.' He added that the move is almost demented, considering other nation's intention to continue industrial development, emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases. I could go on, but I am fascinated to, to see what you have been saying and yet to see what the White House has been writing and where you're on every page. Would you like to comment?"
Lisa Jackson: "Certainly, I'd like to comment, Senator. I, I don't have that document in front of me, ah, so I'll comment generally, hum...." (There was a slight interruption in her talk because of procedural matters.) "I will answer briefly, Senator, because, I, I suspect you'll have this discussion many times. I, I disagree with several of the characterizations. The first is that the endangerment finding is a scientific finding, mandated by law, mandated by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled two years ago that EPA owed the American people a determination as to whether greenhouse gases either in whole or individually endanger public health and welfare. That analysis had been done, ah, really before I took the oath of office. Hum, we did review it, as I promised to do at my confirmation hearing. We reviewed the science of it, we went through, ah, inter-agency reviews through the White House, so again I'm not sure what that document may say. It's deliberative so obviously it's people's opinions. Hum, and it does not mean regulation. I have said over and over, as has the president, that we do understand that there are costs to the economy of addressing global-warming emissions and that the best way to address them is through a gradual move to a market-based program like cap and trade. There's a difference between a cap and trade program, which can be authorized by legislation and it is being discussed and a regulatory program. With respect to regulatory to EPA's regulatory authority, it is true that, if the endangerment finding is finalized, EPA would have authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, and what I've said in that regard is that we would be judicious, we would be deliberative, we would follow science, we would follow the law, and I would call your attention to our greenhouse-gas registry rule where we particularly didn't look for small businesses to register, hum, or have to report emissions, if you want an indication of where we know the, the significant sources of greenhouses gases are--they're in transportation and utility sector."
Senator John Barrasso: "Ah, one last quick question, Madam Chairman, if I could. Could, could you please expend, explain by what authority can the EPA to not include all of these other emitters of carbon dioxide, who do reach the emission thresholds set out in the Clean Air Act, I mean, how can anyone in your administration decide where to draw that line? The law as you just said is clear. So how do you not go after everyone or expose yourself to lawsuits for all those others."
Lisa Jackson: "Senator...I know this has been an issue that we've gone back and forth on. It's one I look forward to having continued dialogue on. If it comes to that point where we're into a regulatory mode on greenhouse-gas emissions, I will say only the two following things. I am not prepared here ta outline the legal strategy. Certainly, it would be one of the things we would propose as part of a regulatory agenda. The second thing I would say is to remind you that we in, under the Clean Air Act have the potential to regulate all those sources you talked about now for other contaminants--schools and hospitals and farms and Dunkin Donuts, and we don't because we use, we, we make regulations smartly to address the threat in the best way possible and with an eye toward understanding that we don't want to, hum, unduly affect those who can least afford to pay. So I do believe that if the regulatory process allows us the opportunity to make those decisions and to do it, but we're not at that point yet."
The exchange of talk between Senator John Barrasso and Lisa Jackson is really about the nine-page document that was leaked from the White House--a document that shows up the myth that carbon dioxide is a danger to humans and the planet..
Remember: Barrasso also said: "...This will affect any number of other sources, including lawn mowers, snowmobiles, and farms. This would be disaster for the small businesses that drive America."
By the way, this meeting of May 12, 2009, did get covered on the same day by the C-SPAN network and by Rush Limbaugh (on The Rush Limbaugh Program, which is a nationally syndicated radio program).On the evening of Friday, June 26, 2009, the Waxman-Markey Bill was voted on in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the bill proper was about 1,200-pages long, and the bill had an attachment amendment that was about 300-pages long; almost no one in the U.S. House of Representatives was able to read the bill or the full bill before voting on it, as had happened with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which had been passed on February 17, 2009 (the amendment to the Waxman-Markey Bill was only available to be read on June 26, 2009, at about 3:00 a.m.). It was on Friday, June 26, 2009, that the public was really learning about at least some of the nonsense is in the bill, which is now in the U.S. Senate. For one, the bill taxes things related to carbon, such as the production of gas and the production of electricity, and the bill has a provision in which low-income persons all over the country will be sent monthly checks to compensate for the known rise in energy bills that the legislation will cause (you should see the idea of "wealth redistribution," which Barack Obama is working to achieve in the country, and to learn more about Barack Obama's push for wealth redistribution in the country, you should see my document entitled T.H.A.T. #55, which can be reached at this link: T.H.A.T. #55). On Friday, June 26, 2009, Mark R. Levin (of The Mark Levin Show, which is a nationally syndicated radio show) reported on some of the bad that is in the bill, and some of the problems are: (1) It mandates California's expensive new building code for the nation (which, for one, demands a 30-percent increase in energy efficiency for new construction immediately); (2) It has new mandatory regulations and civil penalties for home builders, and if the state in which a constructor of a building exists does not adopt the federal code, the federal government can assess penalties (the federal government is eviscerating local building codes and imposing its will on state and local governments); (3) It allows concession-based codes that can supplant codes in the bill (so if you spend money to comply with the codes in the bill, the codes could be changed on a whim the next day, and you would then have to spend more money to comply with the updated codes); (4) Every home sale is conditional on a home energy audit, new energy rating assessment, and energy labeling program; (5) For a seller of a home, there is a new energy rating assessment and energy labeling program that will penalize a home for having older windows, original fixtures, and dated appliances (a house would be harder to sell, or the house would have to be updated, though existing things, like fixtures, work fine); (6) As early as 2012, the bill eliminates all lighting technology used in many outdoor lighting situations, such as the parking-lot lighting at stadiums, and some new type of lighting system will have to be installed; and (7) rules of home owners associations, like rules of local building codes, will be supplanted by federal-government rules. There are many more problems, but I do not list them.
Now, think about the problems presented in the previous paragraph. Do you see how the Waxman-Markey Bill (this supposedly "save-the-planet bill") is nonsense and is costly? How is the environment being saved if you have to make a bunch of new things and use a bunch of energy to make the new things to replace things that work and are penalized by the federal government? Do you see how the bill is nothing more than a way to tax you more? (In 2008, Barack Obama lied when he said that 95% percent of taxpayers would no pay more in taxes.) Do you see how the bill will lead to the making of new products in other countries and not this country, since the makers of things in this country would be taxed to death? Do you see how jobs will be lost in this country, because things will be made in other countries?
The Waxman-Markey Bill is garbage and is being forced on the country by people who are trying to kill the country, the head conspirator of whom is Barack Obama! (See: Madness in a President and Other Matters of a Defective Mind.)
Another very, very bad event took place on Wednesday, July 8, 2009, when Barack Obama was in Italy and took part in a G8 meeting, at which members nations came to agreement in principle on a "climate-change" idea. Some member nations, such as the United States of America (under Barack Obama), agreed n principle to stop the Earth from heating up more than 3.6 degrees by 2020. The idea in the previous sentence shows how dangerous and insane Barack Obama is, and it shows more of how Barack Obama is purposely working to kill the United States of America, which he hates. There is evidence the planet is in a cooling phase right now, so it is unlikely the planet will get 3.6 degrees (Fahrenheit) warmer by 2020, but Barack Obama has an excuse to push to have a tax carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States of America and can then hurt the industry structure of the country. If the planet does not get 3.6 degrees (Fahrenheit) warmer by 2020, Barack Obama can claim that reducing carbon-dioxide emissions saved the planet, which will be nonsense thought. The agreement also puts the United States of America under rules of other countries, especially communist countries, such as China, which would like the United States of America to be hurt and degraded. Barack Obama can push the idea on the American public and politicians that the international community--only a few countries of the international community--is cutting back on carbon-dioxide emissions, and Barack Obama can tax everything dealing with carbon-dioxide emissions, and that will mean that U.S.-based companies will cut back on making things and will mean that U.S.-based companies will stop making things, and that will allow foreign countries to make even more things for the United States of America and put the United States of America even more in debt to the world (and more jobs in the United States of America will be lost or never be created). And the big question is--How can a few nations of the world (out of the over one-hundred nations) or how can man hope to stop the Earth from heating up any given amount (which it may or may not do by itself), since man does not have, for one, a power source as big as the sun that can be controlled or can counter what the sun and nature can do?
On October 14, 2009, and on October 23, 2009, I was able to get information from Lord Christopher Monckton of England, who was and is a climate-change expert, and he talked about how the manmade climate-change movement is nonsense, but he mostly talked about a very bad United Nations climate-change treaty that was being worked on, and it is a treaty that will lead to a global communist nation, which would have power to supersede The U.S. Constitution, and you can learn more about the topic in my document entitled World Tyranny: Warnings about the Insane Who are Trying to Create a Communist World Country, which can be reached by using this link: World.
Here is an event that shows how dangerous Barack Obama and his team are. It became public knowledge on November 19, 2009, and days following November 19, 2009, that the persons who have been pushing hard for decades the idea that man is killing the planet and who have been trying to get politicans to declare carbon dioxide as something harmful to the planet and get politicans in countries in the West to enact cap-and-trade policies have been pushing a lie about manmade global warming, such as by faking information and hiding real data. However, Barack Obama is still pushing the idea of manmade global warming, and Robert Gibbs, who is the White House spokesman for Barack Obama, said on Monday, November 30, 2009, to press people, "...I don't doubt that, ah, ah, there, there's such a list. Ah, Les [Les Kinsolving], I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of this [manmade global warming]...." The statement was a response to a question about whether or not he was aware of the list of about 31,000 scientists--26,000 of whom are Ph.D.s--who reject the idea of manmade global warming. So, despite the evidence that the manmade-global-warming idea is a myth and a hoax, Barack Obama and his team care not, but that is to be expected since Barack Obama and his team have ideas based in communism, socialism, Marxism, thuggery, and what I will call "enslavism," and their goal--as I see it--is to become the holders of slaves--the people of the United States of America.
By the end of November 2009, people around the world were using the term "Climate-gate" to describe the manmade-global-warming scandal related to the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (in Norwich, the United Kingdom), NASA (of the United States of America), and other entities, and since November 19, 2009, Climate-gate has been spreading, and information about it has been increasing, and some people--especially dangerous politicians--were trying to ignore the scandal. In early December 2009, FoxNews.com reported that Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit (or CRU) of the University of East Anglia had to step down (at least temporarily) from the directorship of the CRU till the results of some type of investigation into Phil Jones' work were known. On December 2, 2009, during a session of the Environment and Public Works Committee of the U.S. Senate, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (a Democrat related to California) said: "...Ah, first of all, my understanding is the hearing Representative Markey had was on climate science in general and this issue was raising, was discussed, just as you've raised it at this hearing. Ah, you call it climate-gate, I call it email theft-gate. Whatever it is, the main issue is, ah--'Are we facing global warming or are we not?' I'm sure you would agree that's the basic question for us. Hum, I'm looking at these emails so that I can, ther, there have been, ah--even though they, they were stolen--they are now out in the public, and we are looking through these emails. We are also calling on leading scientists of the world. We may well have a hearing on this. We may not. We may have a briefing for senators. We may not. We're looking at this. This is a crime..." and "...Now, ah, what I have in my hand here is a letter from the chair of the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, ah, Mr. James McCarthy, and I ask unanimous consent to place it into the record, 'The body of evidence that human activity is the prominent agent in global warming is overwhelming.' And he says there was these emails but these facts remain. And put that in the record. Also put in the record press release from the Union of Concerned Scientists that says, 'Opponents of climate change legislation are trying to deceive the American public on climate science. After years attacking the science on its merits and failing, they're now using stolen emails to attack climate scientists directly...." [Note: Barbara Boxer noted that the emails were stolen, but she did not dispute that the emails had true information, showing the fraud that is going on by some scientists, who--I call--bad scientists, and Barbara Boxer did not read facts from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (an international non-profit entity) or the Union of Concerned Scientists (which is not really a group of only scientists but is a group of people who are environmentalists and it seems at least socialists) that proved manmade global warming was going on, and Barbara Boxer did not note that James McCarthy is a professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University, which is a highly liberal school or can be described as a left-wing school, and James McCarthy has ties to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or the IPCC) of the United Nations, which cannot be trusted as a source for any climate-related information and which is involved in trying to set up the international world government related to the climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, of December 2009.] On Monday, December 7, 2009, during a press conference in which the Obama administration reported that there was compelling evidence that manmade greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, which people exhale when breathing, are dangerous to the health of humans, and Lisa Jackson, the director of the Environmental Protection Agency, made such comments as, "It's time we let the science speak for itself...." and "The planet we leave to the next generation will be a very different place than the one we build today...."; the day happened to be first day for an international climate summit at Copenhagen, Denmark, where a number of politicians of world were hoping to create some type of international government through an international climate treaty that would make, for one, The U.S. Constitution subservient to the rules set down by the international government and the new treaty, and the conference was scheduled to last into the next week. Liberal-based newspapers, such as the Detroit Free Press, were still pushing stories that promoted manmade global warming and the goodness of climate-change rules and laws.
Honor and truth are important features in a man, and when a man is honorable and truthful, people can learn the truth about the real world from the man and make their lives better, and through research that I have done, I can report that Albert Gore, Jr., who is a prominent figure in the work to push the manmade-global-warming idea on the world, especially the United States of America, for, it seems, his gain, is a man who cannot be trusted, and this short section shows some facts about who Albert Gore, Jr., is and why he cannot be trusted for what he says.
Here is a simple fact list. Al Gore, Jr., was born on March 31, 1948, and is the son of a former U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator named Albert Gore, Sr. Al Gore, Jr., was the Vice President of the United States of America from January 20, 1993, to January 20, 2001 (when Bill Clinton was the U.S. President). Al Gore, Jr., is an environmental activist, and he is credited with starring in the documentary called An Inconvenient Truth, which was released in 2006 and won an Academy Award in 2007. In 2007, Al Gore, Jr., and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or the IPCC), which is a part of the United Nations, won as a team a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
I begin by talking about the documentary--which is a word that maybe should not be apply--called An Inconvenient Truth, which is a work that tries to convince viewers that the world is dying because of man. In October 2007, it was public knowledge--for people who learned--that a British court found that the movie had at least eleven falsehoods, only one of which is the ice at Antarctica is melting away when it is actually getting thicker. At least around April 2008, it was public knowledge that Al Gore, Jr., had fake video in the documentary; in fact, it was ABC News that reported that the documentary had material from the 2004 science-fiction movie entitled The Day After Tomorrow.
Al Gore, Jr., was a guest on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien on Thursday, November 12, 2009, and here is part of what he said on that show: "...People think about geothermal energy, when they think about it at all, in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places, there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the Earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the Earth is, is hot, ah, and if you go down far enough, you can get so much heat it can be used to generate steam and make electricity. And they say that, here in the United States, we have 35,000-year supply of energy just from geothermal. And they now figured out how ta do the drilling with the new drill bits that don't melt in that heat, ah, in order to get access to that elec, source of electricity...." Al Gore, Jr., was fast and loose with information, as I can show. The temperature of the surface of the Sun is about 5,510 degrees Celsius. The crust of the Earth is about 22 miles thick, and the very hot core is thousands of miles down, and the temperature of the "inner" core is about 5,700 degree Kelvin (or about 5,427 degrees Celsius). (By the way, I have used an oxy-acetylene welding torch, and when the torch is being used to do welding, the heat of the flame can range from 2,000 to a high of about 6,000 degrees Celsius.) So, Al Gore, Jr., seems to hint that the heat in the Earth will only last 35,000 years, but the Sun should be around--affecting the heat of the Earth--for billions of years more.
The Slate had an interview with Al Gore, Jr., that was posted on the Internet on December 8, 2009, and Al Gore, Jr., noted: "...I haven't read all the emails, but the most recent one is more than ten years old...." His statement is false. I have seen some of the emails, and some of those emails had dates that fit within the time period of the last couple years.
By the way, a Web-page article-video piece associated with an entity called Hyscience (http://hyscience.com) entitled "Video: Al Gore Sued for Global Warming Lies by 30,000 Scientists and Weather Channel Founder" had a short video clip (lasting about five minutes and twenty-five minutes) of the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman (now a weather forecaster at KUSI-TV, San Diego), and the video, which was posted on November 25, 2009, had information from John Coleman noting that a court case is being planned against Al Gore, Jr., by some 30,000 scientists who say that manmade global warming is a lie.One of the people who has been highly involved in pushing the idea of manmade global warming is James Hansen, who has been associated with NASA and who recently had a book released entitled Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity. James Hansen appeared on Late Night with David Letterman, and the interview opened with David Letterman saying that had new little information about the topic but that he feels the world is "doomed." The interview by David Letterman, who supports Barack Obama, who is a Marxist and communist and worse that those, was a one-side piece. Here is a part of the interview in which the two talked about the emails and other electronic documents related to "Climate-gate":
David Letterman: "...I'm sorry to interrupt, but I want to get to the point about the, the emails in, in London and dah downplay this and don't talk about that, and it's really not bad as it was. What, what is that? I don't understand it. And what was the point and what was the resolution."
James Hansen: "Well."
David Letterman: "You have about four seconds."
James Hansen: "Okay, well. There was some bad judgment by some scientists at the University of East Anglia. But the truth is--and, and they said some things and tried--they should release their data, for example. Science works that way. You've got to release your data. But the truth is it doesn't change the science one iota. The, we can see what's happening with the climate all around the planet, and we know what's going to happen if we stay on business as usual, but the one point--if I could make this in my last three seconds--the actions that are needed to solve the problem actually make sense for other reasons. We have to get fossil fuels anyhow...that's an addiction, which we could solve except there are people making money off of them, which are influence our government. There is, ah, there are more lobbyists--four times more lo, oil-energy lobbyists in Washington than there are congress people...."
I have to give an analysis of the last paragraph of thoughts given by James Hansen, because it is really filled with many defective thoughts. For years, people have been trying to get the raw data from the University of East Anglia, but the people at the University of East Anglia refused to release the raw data even when pushed to by the Freedom of Information laws in the United Kingdom, and it was even stated in an email of Climate-gate that the people at the University of East Anglia would rather destroy the raw data before ever giving out the raw data. The charts and materials based on the raw data put out by the people of the University of East Anglia was the driving information for the people around the world to use about idea of manmade global warming or global warming, so what other data exists that proves the idea of manmade global warming--a lot of scientists have data that shows manmade global warming is a hoax. Why must, for one, the United States of America get of fossil fuels? First, politicians in the U.S.A., especially Democrats (many of whom are Marxists, socialists, and communists today), have blocked companies from drilling for oil on lands that are a part of the U.S.A., so the country has had to get oil from other countries. Yes, people make money off of fossil fuels--there are gas-station operators that make money, and there are truck drivers who make money moving gas and oil around the country, and there are guys and gal working a refineries who make money, and there are guys and gals working on oil rigs who make money, and there are guys and gals working on oil tankers who make money, and there are guys and gals who maintain pipelines who make money, et cetera. If there was no oil, there would still be lobbyists for some type of energy in Washington, D.C., and the lobbyists would probably still outnumber politicians. Such a piece of crap James Hansen is! And as David Letterman might try to convince you of--There has been no "resolution" yet! The end results of Climate-gate have not come.On Monday, December 14, 2009, I was typing up and working on a new document for the Web site of The Hologlobe Press--Sharia Law, Shariah-Compliant Finance, Radical Islam, and Barack Obama--and was listening to The Frank Beckmann Show on WJR-AM, Detroit, Michigan. At one point during the show, Frank Beckmann played an audio clip of a portion of an interview (a question-and-answer moment) that had taken place recently between a reporter-type (a filmmaker) and a man named Dr. Stephen Schneider (a pro-global-warming man) at Copenhagen, Denmark, during the climate conference. Here is a text version of the audio clip that I heard:
Reporter: "What do you think of the behavior of Professor Phil Jones [of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia] in asking colleagues to delete emails and ta, and the destruction of publicly-funded data was gathered by public funds?"
Stephen Schneider: "I don't know what he asked, what he said. I don't make comments on redacted emails presented to me by people whose values I don't trust. I would have to see the whole thing, so I cannot very well comment. What I can say is that private communications that people have between each other certainly are not, are not public documents, and with..."
The reporter started to talk over Stephen Schenider.
Reporter: "...But the university has confirmed they are accurate."
Stephen Schneider: "They, everybody says privately, ah. Well, no...."
There was a commotion in the audience, and a interview between the two was interrupted by a U.N. security officer (with a gun), and a person could hear, "If you don't turn that off, I'm going to take it away from you" (which was probably said by the security guard), and there were other words exchanged.
Yes, a man was silenced because he was pushing a point that was exposing the lie about manmade global warming or manmade climate change, and I can say, "Welcome to the world of climate-change tyranny and oppression!"When a dangerous man with the ill mind speaks, what was said should never be forgotten. While in Copenhagen, Denmark, for the U.N. climate summit, Al Gore, Jr., said on December 14, 2009: "...there's a ninety-five percent chance that the entire north polar cap during the summer months could be completely ice free within the next five to seven years...." The absurdity of the statement is beyond what a man who thinks logically would ever say, and it shows that nothing Al Gore, Jr., says--especially about so-called manmade global warming--can be believed. His thoughts are expendable.
The Climate Summit was still going on on December 17, 2009. On that day, about four inches of snow fell on Copenhagen, Denmark--and snow falling in that amount is unusual (Weinberg, Christian. "Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming." Bloomberg.com, 17 December 2009. http://www.bloomberg.com....); by the way, on December 13, 2009, Edmonton International Airport (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) set another record low--it was -41.6 degrees Celsius--and it beat the previous record low of -36.1 degrees Celsius, which had been set on December 13, 2008 ("Alberta Shivers Amid Record Lows." CBC News, 13 December 2009, 8:04 p.m. MT. http://www.cbc.ca....). And on December 17, 2009, in Copenhagen, Hugo Chavez (the president of Venezuela) made this statement (which is the English version provided by a translator and which is not complete here because the translator and Hugo Chavez were sometimes talking at the same time): "...There's a ghost lurking. And Karl Marx said a ghost running through the streets.... That ghost is silent amongst us....And that ghost....Nobody wants to name him. It's capitalism. Capitalism is that ghost...." You should see that the topic of the Climate Summit is not about climate change--it is an attack on capitalism and the United States of America--and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Copenhagen on December 17, 2009, and she made a statement that showed the Barack Obama adminstration was willing to give $100 billion dollars--of U.S. taxpayer money away--a year by 2020 to the climate-change fund, all in the name of climate change ("Climate deal closer." Detroit Free Press, 18 December 2009, p14A.), and the total amount is about $1,000 billion (which is one-trillion dollars).
On Friday, December 18, 2009, when the U.N. Climate Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, was nearly done, people learned there had been at least one agreement made related to emissions during the summit, and it involved the United States of America, China, and a few other countries, and the agreement will not be discussed here, since I would rather show some nonsense that took place on Charlie Rose, a weeknight television show shown on PBS, on the same day. Charlie Rose, who is the host, had four guests take part in a discussion about the Climate Summit and related topics; the guests were James Hansen (of Columbia University), Jeffrey Sachs (the Earth Institute of Columbia University), Eileen Claussen (of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change), and David Fahrenthold (of The Washington Post). The interview was a collection of nonsense from left-wing individuals, guided by a left-wing television host (Charlie Rose), all of whom were yet pushing the lie about climate change. I now show a few segments of the interview in text form.
Here is one part (and a few words were left out, when two persons were talking at the same time):
James Hansen: "...We need, ah, we need some leadership on this."
Charlie Rose: "...the president is the only bully pulpit that can provide it."
Jeffrey Sachs: "I, I think that's right. It, it may turn out ta be too late, because now, of course, even the Senate consideration of legislation is put off till next spring...."
Charlie Rose: "..cap and trade bill."
Jeffrey Sachs: "Exactly! And now we hear, yah, all the murmuring that that's too close to the November election, ah, and so it could be they don't take this up next year. I do believe that there is another good option, and that is the Environmental Protection Agency root, and I at this point think that that would be as strong as this very weak and, dah, ah, and, and, dah, ah, in, in a way, ah, mess up cap-and-trade, ah, legislation that the lobbyists have already sunk their teeth into, so the Environmental Protection Agency really went after it and said, 'You can't have power plants like this, and automobiles are gonna have to go through, ah, generational change to electric vehicles on a clean grid and so forth.' We could do this under the Clean Air Act, and I think that may be the way we're gonna go."
James Hansen: "You know there was one thing positive in Copenhagen, and that was Al Gore and John Kerry each said something tha--which I took as very positive--Al Gore said, 'It would be better to have a price on carbon than to have a cap-and-trade. And that's a first time he's said that very clearly, although he--I know talking privately to him--that he believes...."
Charlie Rose: "That everybody believes in, ah, an attack, a carbon tax, rather than..."
James Hansen: "A carbon tax, but...."
Eileen Claussen: "Well."
James Hansen: "...it, I prefer to call it a non-tax, because if you give the money back to the public as a dividend or as a payroll tax deduction, then there's no net tax, and so that's been the problem that people call it a tax...."
That covers one segment filled with nonsense, one piece of which is the wish to push the Environmental Protection Agency to set policy, and I urge you to read the section several times and study it so that you see how dangerous these people are and will be for the country.
Here is another piece of nonsense from the interview:
Charlie Rose: "Could they have had an agreement in Copenhagen?"
Jeffrey Sachs: "If, ah. First of all, two years ago, if we had had a government--which we didn't have then--that was, ah, that, that even recognized this problem, ah, of course, we would have saved our time. George Bush wasted the world's time for eight years! So let's remember that fact...."
You can see how Jeffrey Sachs is blaming U.S. President George W. Bush for doing nothing. In jest, I say, "I guess it will be written in the last history books by those who are dying in the heat of this dying planet that George W. Bush killed the world by doing nothing for eight years. Such nonsense that is from defective-thinker Jeffrey Sachs, who is such as dangerous man, who seems not willing to note manmade climate change is a lie.
Here is another part:
Charlie Rose: "When it is going to be too late?"
James Hansen: "Well, we're getting very close to passing tipping points...."
It is too bad this episode was not done on Saturday, December 19, 2009, when a big, big snow storm hit, for one, the states along the Atlantic Ocean, then they may have been sitting in their chairs while their heads and shoulders were covered with snow.Here is some fun stuff. On December 23 and 24, 2009, a big storm hit the middle region of the United States of America, and, on December 24, 2009, John Yang reported on NBC Evening News with Brian Williams that Dallas, Texas, was going to have the first white Christmas in eighty years; a few days earlier, a big snow storm had hit the eastern United States of America, and some places got a large amount of snow--for example, Washington, D.C., got about 16 inches of snow (which Barack Obama got to see after returning from the U.N. climate-change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, where it seems he wanted to sell the U.S. out to international communists through an international climate-change treaty), and Wintergreen, Virginia, got 30 inches of snow. I say in jest, "If looks as if it's too late to save the planet--man caused these big storms. We're doomed!"
By the way, in T.H.A.T. #69, which was published on January 10, 2010, you will find a section that reports on the climate-change story that was done on PBS News Hour on December 24, 2009, which, for one, noted how people with asthma are going to flood hospitals when the temperature rises in the near future and how poor people will not be able to work as hard in the increased hot weather in their attempts to get themselves out of poverty (which--I say--has been caused, for the most part, by their governments, which have been and are headed by dictators, tribal chiefs (with old tribal ways and beliefs), communists, or other bad people), and my report shows why PBS News Hour cannot be trusted for news related to climate and should be forgotten.
I happen to be a television historian and a sort of an expert about tourist attractions in Michigan, and at the Web site for The Hologlobe Press, I have published a monthly television-themed Internet-only publication entitled T.H..A.T. and a monthly travel-themed Internet-only publication entitled Michigan Travel Tips since April 2004, and in some of the editions published since September 2008, I have put in stories related to manmade global warming or manmade climate change, and in this section of this document, as a mini-review, I present information about things that happened with the weather that got reported on television that you may or may not have seen. World News with Diane Sawyer, a weeknight newscast that is shown on ABC-TV, was given a premiere on Monday, January 4, 2010, and the first story covered by that show was the cold weather and usually cold weather that was blanketing the North American continent. On Tuesday, January 5, 2010, WorldFocus, which is a weeknight newscast made available by American Public Television to PBS-associated stations, did a story about the cold and very cold weather in North America. On Sunday, January 10, 2010, Tom Apsell did a report for the Sunday edition of Today on NBC-TV, and that report covered the unusually cold weather in Europe, and, at one point, Tom Apsell had to note that England was having the coldest weather in thirty years. On Sunday, January 10, 2010, NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, an evening program, had to do stories about the "deep freeze," because the cold weather could not be avoided, and the main reporter for one story was Ron Mott, who noted, for one, how the cold weather was hurting crops in Florida, and another story had Samantha Mohr of the Weather Channel talking about how long the really cold weather would last, and Lester Kolt read material about the extra cold weather that people had in Europe.
I note the stories in the previous paragraph to show how liberal-based entities are sort of being forced to report on the cold weather around the planet, which pro-manmade-global-warming or pro-manmade-climate-change people say is going to die in a few years, and such stories must be irking those pro-manmade-global-warming or pro-manmade-climate-change people immensely.On January 14, 2010, I did some research about a man named Dr. Henry Pollack, the author of A World Without Ice (which is a book), because I had heard audio of him taking part in a panel discussion related to climate change and the automobile industry at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan, on January 13, 2010, and the panel discussion, the host of which was Frank Beckmann of WJR-AM, 760, Detroit, Michigan, had been broadcast on WJR-AM on January 14, 2010, and a portion of the panel discussion exists in text form in Michigan Travel Tips #70, but here I provide text of a statement that Dr. Henry Pollack had made at the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco, California, on October 22, 2009. The text shows to a person who breaks it down for logic and commonsense how defective Dr. Henry Pollack is, though he has been, for example, a professor of geophysics at the University of Michigan, Dearborn, Michigan, such as at the time that the statement was made. Here is the text from this man who is a pro-manmade-global-warming man or a pro-global-climate-change man:
"Let me, ah, here make a plug for an earlier book that I wrote called Uncertain Science, Uncertain World and point out that, ah, we live with uncertainty all the time, and we seldom let it, ah, ah, prevent us from making the important decisions of life. Ah, uncertainly should not be, lead to policy paralysis. Uncertainty is part of the world. And, ah, the two, ah, ah, questions, ah--there are several--but the two that lead the list in terms of climate change are--(1) 'Is the climate changing?' and (2) 'Are humans playing a significant role in it?' Now, the IPCC is its 2007 report answered the first question by saying that climate change is unequivocal. That's an extremely strong word for scientists to use. Ah, unequivocal means, you know, there's no mistaking, there's no question left, eh, eh, every line of evidence is suggesting--very strongly--that climate is changing, and dah, and when you recognize the, the strength of, ah, the whole body of independent lines of evidence, ah, you come a play, you come away very strongly persuaded that--yes indead--climate change is real. So, the, the scientific community basically has said there really is no uncertainty that the climate is changing. Now, the question of 'Are humans part of it?' was also addressed by the IPCC, and their conclusion was that, ah, there is a ninety-percent probability that humans are a major factor in climate change since the middle of the twentieth century. Now, you can focus on the ten percent that's left, ah, as uncertainty, but I, I like to point out that, ah, it, nine out of ten are very good odds. If you walked into a casino and they owner of the casino said, 'Play any game you want out there until you win,' nine chances out of ten, you'd, you'd probably walk about with a lot of cash in your pocket. Ah, so, I think that, you have to recognize what, ah, a ninety-percent probability really means. It's a very strong statement--yes, with a little bit of wiggle room--but, ah, you know, I wouldn't want to wiggle in that space. Ah, the, the conclusion is very strong that humans are playing a very strong role. And, ah, one of the reasons that I de, that I...an entire chapter in the book devoted to the human fingerprint on Earth or the human footprint. And, ah, in it I talked about, you know, moving Earth and damming Earth and polluting the oceans and polluting the atmosphere, because I wanted to lay the groundwork that humans are doing a lot of things on Earth. Climate change is not just, you know, the, ah, principle effect, it's just one of many effects, and once you see all the things that humans are capable of doing, recognize that humans are the most-important geological agent on the planet today, then grasping, ah, their role with climate change is less of a daunting task. So, I, I think there will be uncertainty, but, ah, ah, but if we wait for uncertainty to disappear, we'll wait forever, and, dah, we have to move on in the face of uncertainty...."
There are things to keep in mind. The material from the IPCC is untrustworthy, since the information on which the IPCC bases statements and such is flawed and false. 'Nine out of ten' are very good odds, if the information on which the odds are figured is good information, but, in this case, the information is flawed. What does man's moving the Earth have to do with anything? Remember: The Earth does not have feelings, since it is not a living entity, and, every day, ants move some of the Earth, ocean waves move shores of the Earth, and meteorites hit the Earth and change it, and moles make tunnels, and beavers make dams, and the movement of the plates of the Earth are continually changing the surface structure of the Earth and pushing up mountains, and glaciers are scraping the Earth, and earthquakes, such as the big earthquake of January 12, 2010, at Haiti, makes changes to the Earth, and one erupting volcano can affect the face of hundreds of square miles of the Earth. Also, when parts of the Earth are moved, such as tons of rock to make roads, they remain on the Earth, since they are not sent out into space.
Even today, Henry Pollack is yet pushing the hoax--manmade climate change or manmade global warming.On January 21, 2010, Mark R. Levin, who is the host of The Mark Levin Show, which is a nationally syndicated radio show played an audio clip of Gordon Bloom, who is a member of the European Parliament, and here is the statement in text form, which had been made on January 20, 2010: "...I fought my way through the blizzard in Copenhagen, like many of you did. Ah, interesting isn't it that we've had the coldest winter so far on record in London for thirty years. It's the same in Poland. It's the same in, ah, Korea. It's the same in China. Ah, we've had the coldest temperatures in Florida, Arizona, Texas--the first snow in Texas, I think, for a hundred years. And, of course, as Charles Koran* of The London Times said, 'My goodness me, my goodness me...we simply don't get it.' Of course, of course, that's what global warming is all about. We'll got to get used to freezing temperatures. Well, we've seen the Al Gore hockey stick, which is still I gather being show, shown in London, ah, ah, state schools. Al Gore, snake-oil salesman, crook! We've seen Professor Phil Jones from the East Anglia University, crook! And, now, you won't know about this yet, because it's been kept out of the public domain, the New Zealand National Climate Database--and I have the figures here--all fraudulent. When are you all going to wake up? Scam! Scam! Scam!..." [I do note that the comment about no snow in Texas is somewhat incorrect, but he was generalizing, and he did say 'I think,' while trying to remember. * = I am unaware of this person at this time, and the spelling is what I use from what I heard.]
Since April 2004, I have published monthly Internet-only publications that focus on television, and what I present in this paragraph could fit in one of those publications, which are informally called T.H.A.T.. In October 1994, viewers of PBS stations around the country began to learn things from a television show entitled Bill Nye, the Science Guy (and Bill Nye would later be seen in the show in syndication, under the title Disney presents Bill Nye, the Science Guy). Examine some of what Bill Nye said on a broadcast on MSNBC on February 10, 2010: "...These guys, ah, claiming that the snow in Washington disproves climate change are, are almost unpatriotic. It's, it's really, they're denying science, so they're very happy to have the weather forecast be accurate within a few hours, but they're displeased or, or unchanted by predictions of the world getting warmer. It's really, ah, it's, it's, ah, it's, ah, shakes me up...." This man has stature in the eyes of--at least--children or young adults, and he can persuade people. The statement by Bill Nye shows that Bill Nye passes along crap thought, as a bad teacher--one who indoctrinates children and does not really teach children--does. A big hoax is going on, as I have shown in this document, and yet Bill Nye pushes, pushes, and pushes the lie and the propaganda, using his gained clout. By the way, noticed how Bill Nye pushed the idea that a person is "unpatriotic" by disbelieving in manmade global warming or manmade climate change.
Since "Climate-gate" started in November 2009, a lot of important news events have taken place, and let me note some of them (those not already reported in this document). In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or the IPCC) of the United Nations released a report about climate change (its fourth main report), and, in December 2007, the IPCC received a Nobel Prize related to the report, and sharing in the Nobel Prize was former Vice President Al Gore Jr. (of the United States of America) for his film An Inconvenient Truth, and, in late January 2010, it was becoming public knowledge that the 2007 IPCC report about noting that the glaciers of the Himalayas would be gone by 2035 was defective and fake, and the IPCC had to make a retraction about the Himalayan claim, and, in early February 2010, it became public knowledge that claims made about electric generation through wave power was defective, using, for example, defective information from such sources as climate-change pressure groups, dissertations of students (such as a student of Al-Azhur University in Cairo, Egypt), and press releases and newsletters (Sheppard, Noel. "UN May Retract Melting Himalayan Glaciers Claim, Will Media Care?" NewsBusters, 17 January 2010; Grey, Richard, and Ben Leach. "New errors in IPCC climate change report." The Sunday Telegraph (in the United Kingdom), 6 February 2010, 9:00 GMT.). Around February 6, 2010, a big snow storm hit the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States of America, and, for example, Washington, D.C., received about 33 inches of snow, and about three days later, another big storm was in the eastern region of the United States of America ("'Snowmaggedon' buries Mid-Atlantic." Detroit Free Press, 7 February 2010, p. 14A.), and, by the way, on February 9, 2010, Barack Obama complained to BusinessWeek that he had to shut down Washington, D.C., for several days because of the weather ("Obama's Corporate Messaging." BusinessWeek, 10 February 2010, 11:10 p.m. EST.). A lot of snow--an unusual amount--fell in northern Texas on Thursday, February 11, 2010, and Friday, February 12, 2010, and, for example, a new record for snow falling in a twenty-four-hour period, which was 12.5 inches, was set in that Thursday-Friday period at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (Heine, Frank. "Snowfall Shatters Record, Leaves 180,000 Without Power: New 24-hour snowfall record now at 12.5 inches for DFW." NBCDFW.com, 12 February 2010, 1:14 p.m. CST.). Around February 26-27, 2010, another big storm hit states along the Atlantic Ocean, and some places, such as some places in Maine, received a foot of snow, and many airline flights were cancelled, and many persons lost electricity (Carola, Chris, and Geoff Mulvihill. "Northeast storm's wake: Nearly 600 without power." The Associated Press (via Real Clear Politics), 27 February 2010.; Mulvihill, Geoff, and Michael Rubinkam, Randy Pennell, Joan Loviglio, George Walsh, Shawn Marsh, Kiley Armstrong, Ula Ilnytzky, and Joshua Freed. "Snowstorm in Northeast, rain pounds New England." The Associated Press (via Yahoo News), 25 February 2010, 6:51 p.m. ET.).
Announcement: On Saturday, February 13, 2010, Robert Harrabin interviewed Phil Jones, once a member of the climate research unit of East Anglia University in the United Kingdom, for the BBC, England, such as for the Web site for the BBC. A number of pieces of important information about "Climate-gate" or "Climategate" came to light. For example, Phil Jones admitted that there had not been any 'statistically significant' global warming of the Earth in the last fifteen years (or 15 years), and, in essence, Phil Jones admitted that his keeping of records or facts was defective, and, in fact, Phil Jones noted that his ability to keep records was 'not as good at it should be.' And that is more evidence that the manmade-global-warming idea or the manmade-climate-change idea is a hoax. (Petre, Jonathan. "Climategate U-turn as scientist of centre now admits: There has been no global warming since 1995." Daily Mail (London, England), 14 February 2010, 5:12 pm.; Tapscott, Mark. "Global Warming Shocker! Climategate scientist admits no warming since 1995 UPDATED: Or did he?" Washington Examiner, 14 February 2010, 8:58 a.m. EST.)
Although the manmade-global-warming idea or the manmade-climate-change idea is a lie and a hoax, it is very likely Barack Obama is going to keep pushing the manmade-global-warming idea or the manmade-climate-change idea is on the American people forever, because he is a type of man who is using the manmade-global-warming idea or the manmade-climate-change idea to advance his defective political ideologies and change the country into something that it was not intended to be by the Founding Fathers. Look at what the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (or NOAA), a woman named Jane Lubchenco, said in announcing the 2011 budget request for NOAA on February 17, 2010: "...NOAA's 2011 request includes investments for the core climate services and observations needed to enable the nation to effectively address the impacts of climate change. Climate science covers a range of inquires from topics that have been well studied and documented, such as the tracking and fate of greenhouses gases, to those on the cutting edge of knowledge, such as the consequences of ocean acidification and the melting of sea ice...." I guess she missed out on hearing Phil Jones' statement that noted there has been no global warming in the last fifteen years and missed out on all the lies that have been exposed about global warming so far, and, by the way, it was on February 17, 2010, that The Wall Street Journal reported that, on the previous day, BP PLC, ConocoPhillips, and Caterpiller, Inc., had announced that they had pulled out of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.
Even though the manmade-climate-change idea or the manmade-global-warming idea has been and is being shown to be a hoax, movies and television programs that push that the belief that the manmade-climate-change idea or the manmade-global-warming idea is true are still in the minds of people and are still being shown to people, such as An Inconvenient Truth (the 2007 theatrical movie tied to Al Gore, Jr.), The Age of Warming (a CBS News Presents presentation of January 20, 2008, that featured Scott Pelley as the host), and Extreme Ice (a Nova presentation that was originally shown by PBS on March 24, 2009), which is the focus of this section. PBS rebroadcast Extreme Ice on February 16, 2010, which was about four months after the "Climategate" scandal (or "Climate-gate" scandal) had started to come to light, and I saw much of the program when it was shown as yet another repeat representation on WTVS-DT, Channel 5.2, Detroit, Michigan, on Sunday, February 21, 2010. About halfway into the program, the narrator (Jay O. Sanders) said that the "glaciers almost everywhere will disappear..." and the program hinted at the troubles that people are predicting will hit the Himalayan Mountains, and the narrator said, "...But the biggest cost will be the loss of these huge natural reservoirs of fresh water, water that one sixth of the world's population depends on. The hardest hit will be in Asia, where nearly a billion people get there drinking water from Himalayan glaciers. The abrupt collapse of the world's mountain glaciers raises even more disturbing questions about the Earth's biggest tracts of ice--the polar ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland." Around the time that the previous quotation was given, the program showed statements given by Mark Serreze (of the National Snow and Ice Data Center) and James White (of the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado), and, during the program, some of the other so-called experts presented were Jason Box (of Ohio State University) and Rich Alley (of Penn State University, which has been implicated in the "Climategate" scandal). Here was a prediction made by the narrator: "...The ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica won't disappear, but their combined melt is expected to add about another foot. The total equals an estimated sea-level rise approaching three feet or one meter by about twenty-one-hundred. It may not sound like much, but over one-hundred-million people live within three feet of sea level. Cities around the world will spend trillions building up coastal defenses. Low-lying regions, such as Florida, Vietnam, and Bangladesh, will be devastated. Many island nations will seek to exist..." A viewer of this program who is aware of Climategate can see in the program gave some evidence of melting, but that viewer of this program who is aware of Climategate can see the program is defective and cannot be trusted. Who were or are some of the people pushing this program--this lie--on the world? Certainly, the managers of PBS are a part of the group, especially since they ran the program again--about four month after the Climategate scandal had become public. The senior executive producers were Paula S. Apsell and John Bredar (who represented National Geographic Television), and the packagers were Nova, National Geographic Television, and Far West Film Company. (By the way, I do have to add, as a note to myself, that the Rich Alley, who represented Penn State University, seemed to be weird in appearance and speech pattern.) I saw, during the repeat showing, that funding for Extreme Ice came from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Pacific Life, ExxonMobil, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Merrill Lynch Wealth Management, David H. Koch, and "Viewers Like You." I must report that, on March 28, 2009, The Telegraph, a newspaper in the United Kingdom did a story about Nils-Axel Morner, a former chairman of the International Commission on Sea Level Change, who had about thirty-five-years of work doing research about sea levels, and Nils-Axel Morner said that rising sea levels was nonsense (Booker, Christopher. "Rise of sea levels is the greatest lie ever told." The Telegraph (the United Kingdom), 28 March 2009, 6:25 p.m. GMT), and I must report that, on February 22, 2010, Fox News reported that a group known as Nature Geoscience had formally retracted statements made in a public research paper that the sea levels would rise by about two-point-seven feet by the end of the twenty-first century ("Scientists Retract Paper on Rising Sea Levels Due to Errors." FOXNews.com, 22 February 2010.)
Note: For more information about television, you should see my monthly Internet-only publications informally entitled T.H.A.T., and to reach the catalog page for the publications, you can use this link: T.H.A.T..It is time to talk a bit about business--even capitalism. There are good reasons to have bonds and stocks. In essence, a stock is issued by a company to raise money (not all companies issue stock), and the money raised might be used to build a factory or renovate a factory, and the person who buys the stock can sell it anytime that the person wants, and the person can hold the stock as an investment for years or decades, and over the years, the stock may offer dividends (earnings), and when the stock is sold, it may be sold for more than it was bought, less than it was bought or for he same price. Bonds are used by companies to raise money, and, unlike stocks, bonds have a certain life span, given to them when they are issued, such as one year or ten years, and over the life of a bond, it may be held till matures by the original buyer or it may be bought and sold a number of times (passing through the hands of numerous entities or people). Really, stocks and bonds are tied to things that companies product or make or offer, and that is because a stock or bond is issued to actually make something.
Now, I come to the matter of "carbon credits." Carbon credits are tied to "cap-and-trade" ideas, and carbon credits are not really tied to producing anything, like a product, since they are somewhat mythical, being something issued by a government and tied to production or supposed production of greenhouse gases, and, for the sake of this paragraph, I will say that a "carbon credit" represents so much amount of carbon dioxide. Generally speaking, a government will give every company carbon-producing-upper-limit figure, which represent a certain amount of carbon dioxide that the company can produce in a year and, in theory, represents a certain number of "carbon credits," and if the company produces more carbon dioxide than it is allowed to, the company has to pay a penalty (a tax) or buy carbon credits (each of which represents so-much allowed-to-be produced greenhouse gas), and if a company does not produce as much carbon dioxide as is represented by the carbon-producing limit that it has, the company can sell those carbon credits to another company (which may not have enough carbon credits). To sell carbon credits (or really, the financial instrument known as a "carbon offset"), there has to be a marketplace, like a farm market that you might see in a town or city, where you can by fruit and vegetables, and, really, a marketplace to sell carbon credits is like a stock market.
The reason for the cap-and-trade/carbon credits business--as stated by some politicians, such as communists of other countries--is to reduce the emissions of greenhouses gases worldwide, and the cap-and-trade is an international effort, which involves the United Nations, international agreements (such as the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was adopted in 1997 and went into effect 2005), and the fraud known as manmade global warming or manmade climate change (one promoter of which has been former U.S. Vice President Al Gore).
In the United States of America, the federal government is not involved in a carbon-credit program yet, and I say that that is good, since a carbon-credit system, which is tied to the cap-and-trade idea and the hoax of manmade global warming, would suck money out of the budgets of businesses that should be used to, for example, produce things or pay employees, but within the United States of America, there is a "marketplace" for the trading of carbon credits, and that place is called the "Chicago Climate Exchange," which is based in Chicago, Illinois. The Chicago Climate Exchange (or CCX) was created in 2003, and the founding entities were American Electric Power, Baxter International Inc., the City of Chicago (Illinois), DuPont, Equity Office Properties Trust, Ford Motor Company, International Paper, Manitoba Hydro, MeadWestvaco Corporation, Motorola Inc., STMicroelectronics, Stora Enso North America, Temple-Island Inc., and Waste Management Inc. The man who is considered the founder of the Chicago Climate Exchange is Richard Sandor, and the Chicago Climate Exchange is operated by a company known as Climate Exchange PLC, and, really, the exchange is involved trades related to six so-called greenhouse gases (which are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, perflourocarbons, and hydroflourocarbons).
Incidentally, associated with the Chicago Climate Exchange is the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange.
Here is a fact: In 2000 and 2001, Barack Obama was a member of the board of the Joyce Foundation (a charitable foundation) that presented one-point-one-million dollars to the start-up costs for the Chicago Climate Exchange; by the way, Barack Obama was a member of the board of the Joyce Foundation from July 1994 to December 2002, and around 2000, the president of the Joyce Foundation was Paula DiPerna, who, in November 2001, left the Joyce Foundation to become a member of the Chicago Climate Exchange.
By the way, around April 2010, these were the persons on the board of directors for the Chicago Climate Exchange--Warren Batts (an Adjunct Professor of Strategic Management at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, who, for example, is a former CEO of Tupperware and a former member of the board Sears, Roebuck, and Co.), Bruce H. Baine (Vice President -- Strategic Policy Analysis for American Electric Power, who, for example, serves on the board of the International Emissions Trading Association), Carole Brookins (who, for example, was the United States Executive Director to the World Bank Group in Washington, D.C., from 2001 to 2005), Susan M. Cischke (who is the Senior Vice President, Ford Motor Company), Stuart Eizenstat (who heads Covington & Burling, which is an international law firm), Lee Rosenthal (who is a principal at Rosenthal Collins, which is a commodities and futures trading firm, which is based in Chicago, Illinois, and who once was the chairman of the Chicago Board of Trade, which is based in Chicago), Richard L. Sandor (who is the chairman and CEO of the Chicago Board of Trade), Maurice Strong (who is the chairman of the Earth Council, who was once the Under-Secretary of the United Nations), and Clayton Yeutter (who was involved in creating the U.S.-Canada Trade Agreement).
Keep some related information in mind. In early 2010, Goldman Sachs, which is an investment firm, owned about ten percent of the Chicago Climate Exchange, and it was in late April 2010, that the Security and Exchange Commission of the federal government accused Goldman Sachs of fraud in an investment scheme. Generation Investment Management, which was started up in 2004 and really began doing business in earnest in 2005, is an carbon-related investment firm based in London, England, and around April 2010, Al Gore (who was the U.S. Vice President from January 1993 to January 2001 and was involved in the now-discredited environmentally themed film entitled An Inconvenient Truth) is the chairman, and David Blood, who was once the chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is the chief executive officer, and in early 2010, General Investment Management owned about ten percent of the Chicago Climate Exchange. In early 2010, the chairman of the Chicago Climate Exchange was Richard Sandor, who was also a member of the International Advisory Council of Guanghua School of Management at Peking University (China).
Big money--trilliions of dollars (or thousands of billions of dollars)--are in the minds of people pushing "cap-and-trade" legislation and "cap-and-trade" business. If a cap-and-trade federal act were passed by the United States of America, you can see through the names that I have presented in this section who could profit from the effects of the federal act, such as Al Gore and, in some way, Barack Obama. If a cap-and-trade federal act were not passed by the United States of America, you can see who--what leaches of society--would not profit greatly by the business of trades that would have been generated, such as Al Gore and, in some way, Barack Obama.
The cap-and-trade system produces nothing and simply moves money around, taking money from real producers and giving it to non-producers, and those involved in the process of helping to move the money around have the potential to make big-time money for producing nothing, and it seems very likely to me that those people--should they be blocked by making big-time money or by losing what money that they have invested in the scheme so far--would not be nice and would not be happy.Time for a joke! And so the Earth was killed and died on Thursday, April 15, 2010 (not because it was tax day in the United States of America). On this day, an incredible amount of smoke and ash from an exploding volcano in Iceland filled the air in parts of Western Europe, and thousands of airline flights had to be canceled because debris went up somewhere around 36,000 feet into the air. Certainly, so much smoke and ash was put up into the atmosphere that we have passed the point of no return--that tipping point of no return--for the amount of carbon dioxide that the atmosphere could handle before the process of turning the Earth into a fire ball in a few years would start. We're doomed!!!!!!
Another joke took place on the world in early June 2010. In early June 2010, Phil Jones was made the Director of Research at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, having passed through well a comprehensive review by Sir Muir Russell. Although it has been publicly shown that the work of the Climate Research Unit was defective and that the manmade-climate-change idea is a hoax, the management at the University of East Anglia embraced Phil Jones and made him the "Director of Research."
And I do believe I will pass along another bit of humor. Around June 2010/July 2010, Democrats--really communists, black radicals, socialists, et cetera--in the U.S. Congress were working to put together and, it was hoped, pass a "cap-and-trade" bill, which would lead to, for one, the government's imposing taxes on anything that emitted carbon dioxide--"cap-and-trade" is such a defective idea, such a devilish idea, such a horrible idea for a country--and if the bill should become a law, the United States of America will be hurt monetarily. On Thursday, June 22, 2010, U.S. Senator John Kerry (a Democrat related to Massachusetts) made this statement: "...The levels of carbon dioxide that are going into the ocean is higher, the acidity is higher, it's damaging, ah, the ecosystem of the oceans. You know, all of our marine, ah, ah, crustacean that depend on the formation of their shells that acidity un, undoes that, coral reefs, ah, the spawning grounds for fish--run that one down and you'll see the dangers. Predictions of sea-level rise are now three to six feet. Their higher than they originally were going to be predicted over the course of this century because--nothing happenings?--but becauses and effects are cumulative. The arctic ice is disappearing faster than was predicted, and instead of waiting till 2030 or whenever it was to have an ice-free arctic, we're gonna have one in five or ten years. You have run every single prediction...." I had a hard time transcribing John Kerry's words, since John Kerry's thoughts and sentences were defective and were like ramblings, and John Kerry, while running off his scare speech and pushing his nonsense, provided no proof of his statements, such as facts from a reliable scientific entity or reliable scientific entities. (By the way, to me, John Kerry even sounded a bit drunk, but I am unable to, through offering this text version of his statements, make a proof about my thought about his being drunk, and there is no way me to present signs of "drunkness" through text.)
In 2009 and 2010, I heard several interviews conducted by radio talk-show hosts of Lord Christopher Monckton (of England), who is an expert on climate change, and I was able to record some of the interviews and put them into text form, and the material exists in my document entitled World Tyranny: Warnings about the Insane Who are Trying to Create a Communist World Country. On Thursday, April 22, 2010, Frank Beckmann of WJR-AM, 760, Detroit, talked with Lord Christopher Monckton on the air, and one thing Lord Christopher Monckton talked about during the interview was cap-and-trade legislation. To learn more about cap-and-trade ideas, you should see World Tyranny: Warnings about the Insane Who are Trying to Create a Communist World Country, especially the section covering the interview between Frank Beckmann and Lord Christopher Monckton of April 22, 2010. (By the way, it was on April 22, 2010, that new EPA rules for contractors who work on, for example, houses built before 1978 went into effect, and the rules require contractors and workers to attend a special class and get certified in doing renovation or rebuilding work, and that is because of lead paint, and contractors and workers can be fined up to $37,500 for each violation of the new rules.)
Every day, Barack Obama or Barack Obama's associates in the U.S. Congress--mostly Democrats--are pushing forth bad bills and laws on the American public, and on May 12 2010, another bad bill was made public. On this day, U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman (an "Independent" related to Connecticut) and U.S. Senator John Kerry (a Democrat related to Massachusetts) publicly presented their new bill known as S. 1773: Clean Energy Jobs and America Power Act. In essence, this bill, which is often informally called the American Power Act, is another attempt by the Democrats, especially Barack Obama, to impose the cap-and-trade idea on the people and industries of the United States of America, and one of the features is to put caps on CO2 emissions and on greenhouses gases in general.
On Thursday, November 18, 2010, I became aware of some thoughts recently presented by Ottmar Edenhofer, an economist and a man associated with the I.P.C.C of the United Nations. I discovered material related to him through an article entitled "IPCC Official: 'Climate Policy is Redistributing the World's Wealth'" at the Web site for The Global Warming Policy Foundation (Zeitung, Neue Zurcher. "IPCC Official: 'Climate Policy is Redistributing the World's Wealth." The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 18 November 2010, 13:16.). Here are some nonsense statements from Ottmar Edenhofer that I saw: "So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits." and "...The climate summit in Cancun at the end of this month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War...." and "First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole." Study the quoted material, and especially look at how Ottmar Edenhofer used "expropriated" in one sentence. You should see how Marxist--dangerous idiots--talk.
On Monday, November 29, 2010, another United Nations-related climate summit began, and it was a summit based in Cancun, Mexico, and it was scheduled to run twelve days, and about 193 countries were taking part. On the first day, it was already clear that it would be a summit that would push nonsense thought and defective ideas. For example, on the first day, an entity known as Oxfam International (an aid organization) reported that about 21,000 persons have already died in 2010 because of weather events, and what was being pushed--without commonsense or truth--is manmade climate change was to blame for the weather killing people, and it was noted that the number was twice that of 2009 for the same period. Yes, the people associated with Oxfam International were pushing the idea that they could prove that 21,000 persons of the world--of about 6,884,500,000 persons of the world--have already died in 2010 because of the weather (but I say that they could not prove that "man" has caused the weather to change and to kill the people, and it will never be proven and can never to proven). In addition, a number of "papers" about the climate were presented on the first day, such as those published by the Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge (or the Royal Society), which is made up of about 1,314 "fellows" (of the roughly 6,884,500,000 persons on the planet), and one idea being pushed was that, if carbon dioxide emissions were not drastically dropped in the "world" or around the "world" over the next ten years, the average temperature of the planet would increase four-degrees Celsius (or seven-point-two-degrees Fahrenheit), and that would cause floods and droughts, and there would be mass migrations of animals. I put the word "world" in quotations in the previous sentence so that you would pay attention to the word. At the conference during the first day, a Professor Kevin Anderson (the director of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, which was founded in 2000 and which is tied to, for example, the University of East Angelia, a disgraced entity) pushed the idea that, to save the world, the developed countries would have to stop economic growth for the next twenty years, such as by rationing electricity, but if you think about the "world," Professor Kevin Anderson's idea is about halting growth in the developed countries but not in the so-called underdeveloped countries or not-developed countries is defective thought--if the developed countries have no growth and if the other countries have growth, is not there growth in the "world," especially if the non-developed countries are not limited in how much they can grow over the next ten years or next twenty years? There is a logic problem with Professor Kevin Anderson and the others at the summit who believe Professor Kevin Anderson's idea. Really, all that Kevin Anderson is promoting is stalling the economies of developed countries, especially the United States of America, and that is the way of enemies of the United States of America. Keep in mind: A big purpose of the summit is to push the idea of getting developed countries to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by fifty percent by 2050. The summit ended on Saturday, December 11, 2010, and the countries had come up with agreements (sort of), and the agreements were contained in what was called the "Cancun Agreements" package. One of the agreements was to set up a fund called the "Green Climate Fund," which was intended to end up being a fund that would provide up to one-hundred-billion dollars a year to developing countries to deal with becoming developed by using green technology and deal with deforestation, but the summit did not come up with specifics about where the money for the fund would come from and who would be required to pay into the fund.
The Washington Times published a story entitled "Michaels: China-style dictatorship of climatologists" on January 17, 2011 (Michaels, Patrick J. "Michaels: China-style dictatorship of climatologists." The Washington Times, 17 January 2011, 6:01 p.m.). The story talks about how James Hansen, who has been mention a number of times in this document so far was in China around November 2010 and was proposing that China lead a boycott against the United States of America if the government of the United States of America does not push the people of the United States of America into reducing carbon emissions. I urge you to see the story. "For the record" and to entice you to see the article, I present to quotations contained within the story: "After agreement with other nations, e.g., the European Union, China and these nations could impose rising internal carbon fees. Existing rules of the World Trade Organization would allow collection of a rising border duty on products from all nations that do not have an equivalent internal fee or tax..." and "The United States then would be forced to make a choice. It could either address its fossil-fuel addiction ... or ... accept continual descent into second-rate and third-rate economic well-being." My presentation here and the article show that James Hansen is really working destroy the economic system of the United States of America, even if it means using coercion.
Really, those who are pushing the manmade-global-warming idea are evil people and bad people, and here I show two areas where the evil and bad people are working. It is impossible to prove that, for example, your driving a car that uses gasoline can cause and increase in global warming that will cause snow to melt on a mountain or ice to melt at the Arctic, and it is impossible to prove that, because automobile companies have made cars, the auto makers have caused the ice to melt in Antarctica, and no one can prove anybody has caused harm to the environment and should pay a fee for damages, especially pay a fee for damages to any government entity. Columbia University is one of the communist breeding grounds of the country, and, by the way, Barack Obama--a communist and worse--attended the university from 1981 to 1983. In January 2009, Columbia University, which is based in New York City, New York, started up the Center for Climate Change Law program at the law school of the university, and the purpose of the program is to teach students legal techniques that can be used to sue people for hurting the environment, such as by releasing carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere. Even though it is impossible to prove any person is killing the Earth by producing carbon dioxide, which plants need, evil persons are working to extract money from people and entities--especially big companies--by threatening to sue in court or by actually starting up lawsuits. Incidentally, in 2006, the Attorney General of California at the time--Lee Luckyer--started up the lawsuit in federal district court against six automobile companies because they had hurt and were hurting California, and, at the time, Lee Luckyer said such things as "Global warming is causing significant harm to California's environment, economy, agriculture and public health" and "The impacts are already costing million of dollars and the price tag is increasing." In September 2007, the case against the six auto makers was shut down--"dismissed"--but, of course, the auto makers had had to waste money and time to fight back against Lee Luckyer and his associates. A person with common sense would well understand Lee Luckyer is a defective man and an evil man, but it seems he is far from being as bad as Barack Obama is. Barack Obama has a White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and in April 2010, the Advisory Council of that entity issued a report called "A New Era of Partnerships," and, basically, one thing promoted in the report was to have churches and community entities push or preach Barack Obama's belief in manmade global warming or manmade climate change to people around the country. By the way, that means taxpayer money has already been used fund a propaganda machine--that which has a goal of having, for one, priests preach the idea of manmade climate change or manmade global warming, which is a lie, and, indeed, there are people of churches and such who would take up preaching Barack Obama's nonsense, such as those like Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a black radical and racist who was Barack Obama's reverend for twenty years.
Evil people are everywhere in the world, even in the United States of America, and one such person is Al Gore, a former vice president for the United States of America. On February 1, 2011, Al Gore made a blog post in response to Bill O'Reilly (of the Fox News Channel), who during the previous week had sent out a wish for Al Gore to explain why the northeastern region of the country had been getting a bunch of big snow storms. At Al Gore's blog site, Al Gore had (for example): "In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snow storms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow" and "A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasing violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species." By the way, basically, on February 1, 2011, and February 2, 2011, a big storm crossed midsection the United States of America, and it forced people to deal with rain, freezing rain, and snow, and, for example, Chicago, Illinois, was one place that got around 20 inches of snow, and, really, many places along a line that can be drawn between Chicago, Illinois, and Tulsa, Oklahoma, got ten inches to twenty inches of snow. If you look back in this document, you will see information that shows some people predicted the Himalayas were going to be free of snow by 2035 because of global warming--caused by man--and it was all nonsense, and you will see information about Al Gore's discredited film called An Inconvenient Truth. As the weather goes from cold to hot and hot to cold, the evil people keep having to switch their positions and change the nature of their predictions.
Note: On Monday, January 31, 2011, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (a Republican related to Wyoming) introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate called "Defending America's Affordable Energy and Jobs Act" (or S. 228), the purpose of which was to set a limit on what the EPA could do in relation to making rules about greenhouses gases, making it so the EPA could only make such regulations through congressional authorization.Now, get ready for some logic and some calculations about what the Barack Obama administration seems to have in mind to kill jobs and drive up energy costs in the United States of America--or hurt the United States of America. On January 9, 2011, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency--Lisa Jackson--testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. Look at some of what was said by Lisa Jackson and U.S. Representative John Shimkus (a Republican related to Illinois) at one point:
John Shimkus: "This hearing is, is about jobs and effects of jobs. And I think we can make an argument on carbon dioxide not being a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and that we've gone around the legislative ability by usin' the court and using regulatory authority to regulate something that should not be regulated. But let's assume you all are successful. I have in front of me a, ah power plant that's being built--sixteen-hundred megawatts--if we mandate them to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by sixty percent, what amount of the energy they produce will have to be used to capture that carbon? Do you know what that is?"
Lisa Jackson: "Sir, I, I'm sure you're gonna...."
John Shimkus: "It's twenty-two percent of, of the energy that they were gonna put on the grid will now have to go to capture. If you go to eighty-five percent, do you know how much energy that would require? Thirty percent of what they were gonna put on the grid to sell.... Do you believe in the law of supply and demand?"
Lisa Jackson: "Do, do I believe in the law of economic...."
[They talked over each other.]
John Shimkus: "...economic one-oh-one."
Lisa Jackson: "...demand. It's not a tentative case, sir. It is a...."
John Shimkus: "No. Do you believe it?"
Lisa Jackson: "It is an economic model, and I was trained in it."
John Shimkus: "Do you believe it?"
Lisa Jackson: "Yes, I believe...."
John Shimkus: "And if you constrain a product and there is a high demand, that costs go up?"
Lisa Jackson: "It depends on the elasticity of the cost curve."
John Shimkus: "And I would say that here's an example of us having power on the grid that this regulation is now going to constrain, 'cause were gonna have to use energy to capture carbon, which is not energy we can put on the grid so that people who are gonna buy this have to buy--what?--higher power. You know what the capital expense for this power plant is if they're gonna, ah, build new facilities to capture carbon, what is the new capital expense at sixty percent? It's one-point-eight-billion dollars they will have to. If it's eighty-five percent, they're capital expense--this is new spending--two-point-three billion."
Lisa Jackson: "Sir. Under...."
John Shimkus: "They're next. Do you know where they have to go, to pipe the carbon captured sequestration how far? We think, we think the closest might be seventy miles. Who's gonna pay for the pipeline! And then how big a sequester facility has to be there? The point is this regulation is gonna skyrocket electricity costs, which will destroy jobs!"
Yes, Barack Obama did once say--in January 2008--to the San Francisco Chronicle that energy costs are going "necessarily skyrocket" under him, and you have just seen one reason that energy prices will rise--pushed along by the Environmental Protection Agency--Lisa Jackson--by using as cover the hoax that is manmade climate change.PBS is, for the most part, a network that pushes liberal political views and sometimes hard-line liberal political views, which is one reason some politicians--"conservatives"--are working cut back federal funding to PBS (and you can learn more about PBS by seeing the document entitled T.H.A.T. #83, which can be reached by using this link: T.H.A.T. #83), and one of the most liberal programs is Need to Know, which is a weekly program hosted by Alison Stewart and Jon Meacham. Need to Know has been around since May 2010, and on February 25, 2011, the program once again did a report about global climate change or manmade global climate change, and once again, the program passed along lies and a views pushed by hard-line environmentalists (communists). One main topic covered was the trouble with flooding that, in essence, a few citizens right at the Atlantic Ocean in Norfolk, Virginia, are having, and the flooding was blamed on manmade global warming brought on by the use of carbon-based fuels, but, of course, the program did not note that over the decades and centuries water levels rise and fall--not because of so-called manmade global climate change but because water levels rise and fall over the decades and centuries as a rule of nature, and the rise and fall is really noticeable where oceans meet land, which can be worn away by water. A person would have to be ignorant or crazy to think the water level right at the meeting place of an ocean and land would not vary over the years as a course of nature--it is certainly impossible for the water level to be the same for decades and decades and decades. By the way, the government of Norfolk spent some one-million dollars to raise a short bit of road--about a quarter mile--about eighteen inches to please a few citizens, such as people who had raised the foundations of their houses by several feet to keep flood water out of their houses in the near future and are unwilling to move and are making others pay for their nonsense--thinking they are deserved something because nature is not perfect and is hurting them. (The story reminded me of the people who build expensive houses on hillsides in California where landslides are commonplace.) Also on the program was an interview segment done by Alison Stewart with an author named Mark Hertsgaard, who was put on the show to promote his new book, HOT: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth.
Now that you have an overview of the full climate-related report, I can pass along some details of what was said, and I do it in two paragraphs, the first of which covers the recorded report and the second of which covers the interview with the author, and I give explanations about what was said and that I present in bracket segments, and keep in mind, when people mention "climate change," they are really talking about "manmade climate change"..
Here is part one (covering the report entitled "The Sea Also Rises":
Alison Stewart said, while introducing the recorded report: "...But for those who want proof that sea levels are rising as the planet warms, they need to look no further than Norfolk, Virginia...." [Because water levels are rising at Norfolk is no proof that so manmade global warming is involved. There is no proof the planet is warming because of manmade reasons. Here, Alison Stewart pushed a proof based on no proof.]
Leslie Kaufman (The New York Times) made comments in the piece such as: "If you go to someplace like Norfolk, you can actually see the sea level rising, and you can feel its impact. If you look at a map put out by NOAA, you can see Norfolk is going fastest. That's why we went there, ah, to show, ah, in theory what it will look like for the rest us in five or ten or twenty years." [Leslie Kaufman, a woman, was putting out predictions based on no facts, and she was using a scare tactic on the audience.]
William Brangham (the correspondent): "Globally according to the best scientific measures, sea levels have gone up five to eight inches in the last hundred years, a side effect, scientists say, of our heavy use of carbon-based fuels, like oil and gas and coal...." [During this part of the report, the report showed an exhaust pipe of a vehicle with exhaust coming out, and it showed smoke stacks. Here, a person should ask--"Who are the scientists talked about?" Also, a person should ask--"What is the basis of the statements made by the scientists or what research facts are the statements made?"]
William Brangham (the correspondent): "According to The New York Times, scientists predict that sea levels could rise three feet more in the next eighty or ninety years, which would wreak havoc on shoreline communities across the globe. Here, in the U.S., New York, Miami, New Orleans, the Carolinas, parts of California--all of them--could be in serious danger." [William Brangham referred to a piece entitled "As glaciers melt, science seeks data on rising seas." Elsewhere in this document, you will seen information that "three-feet" rise thought, and you will see that it has been disputed, yet William Brangham pushed it and used it as a scare tactic. It is unknown whether or not there is going to be a rise of three feet in eighty or ninety years--in essence, anyone living today will never be around to prove whether or not the prediction was right.]
Leslie Kaufman: "But the global sea rise, eh, is rising. It's significant. And it's accelerating." [I ask--"What is the proof of "accelerating"?]
William Brangham: "The City of Norfolk is particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise, because not only is the sea around it going up but much of the land underneath it is going down. Here's why. Norfolk is one of America's oldest cities. It was constructed on top of wet lands and tidal creeks nearly four-hundred years ago because of its convenient access to the Chesapeake [River] and to the Atlantic Ocean. But over time that soggy land underneath naturally started to sink downwards." [Here, William Brangham brought up the idea of sinking land. So it goes in nature. It will probably sink more in the future. I wonder how Venice, Italy, is doing today? Over decades and centuries--without what could be called any "manmade global warming"--the water level at Venice, Italy, has gone up and down, and it will probably go up and down in the years to come.]
William Brangham: "But the state's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the second, is deeply skeptical of climate-change science. He's investigating a prominent climatologist for fraud, a charge the scientist's employer has already cleared him of." [At this point, the report showed a picture of a man who seemed to be the scientist. [I know not who the scientist is.] Yes, the employer--the employer--cleared the scientist of a charge of fraud, which means nothing. Remember: Phil Jones, who had been involved in "Climategate" scandal, was rehired in at the University of East Anglia, England, as this document shows. The employer is not a court and is not impartial! What the report was trying to do is show Ken Cuccinelli in a bad light.]
Jim (a science writer), who lives at Norfolk, said, responding to the idea about whether or not he is skeptical about the rising seas: "No! I see it first hand! I call tell folks who are skeptical that, when you see the effects--short-term at least--of climate change, there, it's not a question of belief, it's a question of experience. " [It seems the man's name is Jim Schultz. Here, Jim passed along the idea that if you can see the water is rising it must be because of manmade climate change. That is nonsense! In the report, Jim was called a "science writer." Jim cannot be trusted, because his logic is defective.]
Here is part two, which is the interview of Mark Hertsgaard:
Mark Hertsgaard, whose book has predictions of a future with "mass flooding" and "severe drought", said: "If you only followed American main-stream news coverage, you would actually think that the climate deniers might have a point, you know, even though virtually every scientific organization in the world--starting with our National Academy of Sciences--has said repeatedly that climate change is real, it's happening now, and it is dangerous and must be dealt with. And I think that, ah, ah, a big part of the responsibility here lies with our colleagues in the media who have approached this with this kind of false balance of--on the one hand, here's one scientist who says it's true, on the other hand, there's another scientist who says it's not. Ah, that may fit old fashioned notions of journalistic balance, but I would call it 'journalistic malpractice' in fact, because the reality is that about ninety-nine percent of the world's scientists say that climate change is happening and it should be dealt with and about one percent say it doesn't." [Here, you have big big example of "journalistic malpractice," since Mark Hertsgaard lied.]
Mark Hertsgaard said: "I know a lot of those people, and virtually every environmental beat reporter knows that the scientific case on climate change has been settled long ago, as the National Academy of Sciences says." [Liar!]
Mark Hertsgaard said: "Oh, I'm, I'm, I will always be a journalist. I revere the profession of journalism, but my journalism has become more activist, I would say that, ah, partly because I look at, ah, my colleagues in the media and I frankly think that they're not doing a very good job of, of reporting this issue." [Such crap this is!]
Mark Hertsgaard said: "I also don't think the Obama White House has done a very good job of messaging on climate change. The President came into office clearly understanding the gravity and the urgency of the climate threat and then stop talking about it, ah, apparently because their own internal polling suggested that clean energy polled better, and that's part of, I think, what happened when the climate deniers, in late 2009, switched the agenda back. They were partly able to do that because there was not a clear message coming from the White House." [Here, Mark Hertsgaard passed along lies and crap. For instance, in November 2009, "Climategate" broke, and people learned how much of the manmade-global-warming data was fake and crap. And since at least January 2009, Barack Obama has been pushing the lies about manmade global warming.]
Mark Hertsgaard said: "The one place that is not well known that is equally at risk is Tampa, Florida, in terms of its threat to, ah, climate change in particular to, ah, sea-level rise and the extra strong hurricanes that we'll be seeing a lot more of in the years to come." [Here, Mark Hertsgaard passed along an unsubstantiated thought about stronger hurricanes.]
Note: For the most part, Mark Hertsgaard presented his material in a scare-tactic format.
I could have reported on so much more, such as thoughts presented by a husband-and-wife team, who had flooding at their home several times, and yet they stayed put, and now they spend a lot of time watching a barometer and tidal charts to see for when the water might come again, though there are not enough men and women living in Norfolk who could stop the water. I did enough. Remember: There is something called "cause and effect," and the entire climate-change segment on Need to Know did not prove that the flooding at Norfolk has been or is the result of so-called manmade global climate change, and I say that there is certainly no way to prove the little bit of flooding at Norfolk is because of manmade global warming, but Need to Know pushed the idea that it was, and that is nonsense, and that is the way of communists--lie.On September 1, 2011, a company called Solyndra (based in Fremont, California) filed for bankruptcy, and around the time, people began to expose what Solyndra was. For example, on Wednesday, September 13, 2011, Mark R. Levin--the host of the nationally syndicated radio show called The Mark Levin Show--interviewed on his radio show a former employee of a company that helped make the Solyndra factory. Mark Levin reported that the interviewee was not using a real name and that he had done research to see that his interviewee was reputable. Here, I present a portion of the interview, because you should see the information and compare it with what Barack Obama had been doing for the previous nearly three years and was doing in relation pushing solar energy (and you are urged to see my document entitled The Power and the Power Killer: Energy in the United States of America, which can be reached by using this link: Power). The interviewee was a woman, and she was called "Jenny."
Jenny said: "Um, I actually work for a company, um, that worked on the Solyndra, the solar-manufacturing plant, um...They're in the Bay area [of California]." and "...The interesting thing about it was is while we were out there, while we were building it--'cause it is a half-a-billion-dollar plant--um, everyone already knew that China had developed a more inexpensive way to manufacture these solar panels. Everyone knew the plant wouldn't work. And still did it. They still built it, and, um, basically, they stole that money. Obama flew out and made an appearance out there. And, actually, they're filing bankruptcy next week...." and "Yes, and, actually, it's been less than a year that it's going bankrupt...." and, in relation to a question posed to her by Mark Levin about whether or not she knew the Obama administration knew it was not worthwhile, "Oh, absolutely! I, I wasn't high on the totem pole at all, and even someone like me knew that, and we were still breaking ground...." and "...Supposedly, it was, it was one of those things that the money was already there. They were going to use it. They were actually supposed to build two [plants], and, um, and only one was every done, because I think they actually realized it wasn't going to work. Um, it's, it's just a real shame. In, in less than a year, less than a year open, and it's going bankrupt--half a billion dollars." and "...Even at one point, it was supposed to close--I believe--actually, even sooner, but because of the publicity that Obama bought, brought my his visit whether it was intentional or not, is really the only reason it stayed open...." and "...And I'm not a hundred-percent sure, but I believe the first few contracts for the orders were government anyway." and "...Actually, they had just installed brand-new equipment. They were continuing to install brand-new equipment up to the week that they closed and when they laid everybody off, and that's exactly what they did, they laid everyone off.... It was with no notice! And they cut off their health-care immediately...."
Over the few weeks at least, a number of events took place. For one, on Thursday, September 14, 2011, an FBI team raided, for one, the offices of Solyndra and seized papers and records. The general public learned that Solyndra had received about 535-million dollars in loans from the federal government--pushed through by Barack Obama administration and the "Stimulus Act." Also, on Friday, September 23, 2011, two executives of Solyndra appeared before a U.S. House of Representatives committee, and the two men answered no questions, using the Fifth Amendment of The United States Constitution option, and during the public hearing, which was broadcast on C-SPAN, people learned that over one-thousand persons got fired.
Mark Levin noted during the interview that what the Solyndra enterprise seemed to be was "fraud" and a "scam," as is the entire manmade-global-warming idea or manmade-climate-change idea that pushes the idea that man is killing the planet by using carbon-based fuels.Around November 23, 2011, one of the big news stories--at least for good media outlets--around the world was a story that announced that more e-mails associated with James Hansen, Phil Jones, and others who had been pushed and are pushing the fake manmade-global-warming idea (or the fake manmade-climate-change idea) on the world. The roughly 5,000 e-mails, which were contained in a file called "FOIA2011.zip" on the Internet, were released about a week before another world conference about climate change was scheduled to start in Durban, South Africa (it was scheduled to run from November 28, 2011, to December 9, 2011). Some of what the e-mails showed is that people--who a person would hope would be honorable scientists--manipulated facts about the world climate and did what they did, such as lie, for a political cause.
On December 13, 2011, Lord Christopher Monckton of England was a guest by telephone on The Frank Beckmann Program (a weekday radio program hosted by Frank Beckmann on WJR-AM, Detroit). The focus of the appearance was to talk about the climate conference that had taken place in Durban, South Africa, from November 28, 2011, to December 9, 2011. One thing that Lord Christopher Monckton reported is the conference really did not accomplish anything, which is good for good people of the world, and one reason is the world communities, such as Canada, which has announced recently that it is getting out of the Kyoto Protocol, are dropping support for the manmade-climate-change idea. Near the end of the interview, Lord Christopher Monckton said that they're [the pushers of the climate hoax are] planning to push through a "bio-diversity treaty" (wherever that it), though more and more countries are pulling out of such conferences.
On June 26, 2012, news reached at least some in the public that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had made a ruling related to a case in which states and other entities were challenging the EPA's greenhouse-gas rules, such as those related to the regulating of "carbon dioxide" (which is not harmful to the planet). In essence, the case was shut down--the entities challenging the EPA were considered to have no standing. What happened is the court was allowing bad science--the manmade-global-warming hoax or manmade-climate-change hoax--to continue to rule the day in the United States of America, and the court was letting the EPA continue to do its work in regulating greenhouse-gas emissions (which is based on bad science and lies). [Note: The states and other entities who were challenging the EPA had the option of challenging the EPA through more litegation--higher in the hierarchy of the U.S. court system.]
Between 2012 and June 2014, number of other events took place related to making people believe the planet is dying because of man's use of carbon-based fuels (and even breathing--it can be said--because people breathe out carbon dioxide), and some of the events I report in other documents, such as editions of T.H.A.T. (examples of which are T.H.A.T. #120 (which can be reached through this T.H.A.T. #120 link) and T.H.A.T. #121 (which can be reached through this T.H.A.T. #121 link)). A really big new push to push the lie about global climate changed happened on June 23, 2014, when an entity called the "Risky Business Project" (which had only existed since October 2013) released a 52-page report about how changing climate will adversely affect the economy of the United States of America. The report was entitled RISKY BUSINESS: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States of America (June 2014), and there was a big release event which featured such persons as Michael E. Bloomberg, Henry M. Paulson Jr., and Thomas E. Steyer, all of whom are well-off and rich Democrats or, really, communists. The "Risky Business Project" has a theme as an entity that notes--"Launched in October 2014, the Risky Business Project focuses on quantifying and publicizing the economic risks from the impacts of a changing climate." The entity had no trouble in getting communistic-based media entities to push the story, and, for instance, The New York Times published at least one big story about the "report" [Gillis, Justin. "Bipartisan Report Tallies High Toll on Economy From Global Warming." The New York Times, 24 June 2014.), and the story opened with: "More than a million homes and businesses along the nation's coasts could flood repeatedly before ultimately being destroyed. Entire states in the southeast and the Corn Belt may lose much of their agriculture as farming shifts northward in a warming world. Heat and humidity will probably grow so intense that spending time outside will become physically dangerous, throwing industries like construction and tourism into turmoil. That is the picture of what may happen to the United States economy in a world of unchecked global warming, according to a major new report released Tuesday by a coalition of senior political and economic figures from the left, right, and center, including three Treasure Secretaries stretching back to the Nixon administration...." A smart person can see that the opening to the story was filled with "could" and "probably" and "may" ideas, all predictions of a catastrophe to come, and the story had the feel of a television episode from an old science-fiction series with monsters and wild ideas, such as The Outer Limits, and, really, a smart person can see that the premise of the article was over the top (beyond reality). By the way, on June 25, 2014, the American public would learn through some news entities that, for the first quarter of 2014, the economy shrank at what was called a "3.5 percent annual rate," and the federal government (the Barack Obama administration) was blaming the downturn, which was really bad news, on the cold weather during the period [Note: For decades, the country has had cold weather times, and people have continued to shop and spend money, and businesses continued to make things]. What seemed to be the goal of the report was the make people now believe, if something big was not done immediately to stop climate change, people were going to be put out of jobs soon and would not be able to live, maybe starving and losing homes to rising water and incredible heat. By the way, on June 25, 2014, I went to the website for the Risky Business Project, and at the opening of the front page, I was exposed to an image of a roller coaster that was partially underwater (seemingly presented to make people think their favorite amusement parks were going to be swallowed up by the seas soon). To me, the entire new public-relations tactic from the people tied to the Risky Business Project, which I was thinking was designed to help push yet again for having a federal-carbon-tax imposed on the country (which is high rottenness), was more crap, and, also, I could see that the two-word term "Risky Business" was probably designed to put down the business community in the country--private-run businesses are bad in their minds or they want the idiot Americans to believe private-run businesses are bad (they want the government to run everything, which includes all businesses). The event showed rotten people are still trying to take over the United States of America based on lies!
You may think Barack Obama and his associates are not purposely working to hurt the economy of the United States of America by working to, for one, cripple the coal industry and coal production, but I know a man named Bill Bissett who does believe Barack Obama and his associates are purposely working to hurt the economy of the United States of America by attacking the coal industry. On May 25, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency held a public hearing, and Bill Bissett (the President of the Kentucky Coal Association) was one person at the public hearing, and one reason that Bill Bissett was at the public hearing was to complain about the action taken to cancel a coal-mining permit. At one point during the event, Bill Bissett said, "...If, if the economy rebounds, energy demands are only going to skyrocket, and you're trying to kill coal. Again, in only six states, which I find very suspicious...." (To see more of what Bill Bissett's said to members on the Environmental Protection Agency on May 25, 2010, you should see my document entitled Patriots of the U.S.A. and the Counter-Counter Revolution, which can be reached by using this link: Patriots.)
And anyone who pushes the manmade-global-warming idea or the manmade-climate change idea has to be beaten down, because the person is pushing a lie that can potentially hurt millions and millions of persons--men, women, and children--and it is a scam, if not knocked out, that could lead to the passing along of billions of dollars from good people to very bad people, such as Barack Obama, Al Gore, and other communists and Marxists.
Bibliography:
"Al Gore." Wikipedia.com, 9 December 2009.
"American Association for the Advancement of Science." Wikipedia.com, 12 November 2009.
"Attorney General Lockyet Files Lawsuit Against 'Big Six' Auto Makers for Global Warming Damages in California." Mongobay.com, 21 September 2006.
"Barack Obama." Wikicu.com, 19 December 2010.
"Barack Obama." Wikipedia.com, 24 January 2011.
"Cancun climate summut opens with warnings against delay - Summary." EarthTimes, 29 November 2010, 18:20:47 GMT. (http://www.earthtimes.org....)
"Cancun security under spotlight at climate summit." CTV News, 27 November 2010, 7:17 a.m. ET. (http://wwww.ctv.ca....)
"Carbon credit." Wikipedia.com, 28 April 2010.
"Carbon offset." Wikipedia.com, 29 April 2010.
"China expects Durban conference to firm up countries' climate-change targets." Xinhua News Agency, 23 November 2011, 17:28:39.
"Chicago Climate Exhange." Wikipedia.com, 27 April 2010.
"Climategate 2.0? More E-Mails Leaked From Climate Researchers." FOXNews.com, 22 November 2011.
"Facing Scandal, Head of Climate Research Lab to Temporarily Step Down." FoxNews.com, 2 December 2009. (http://www.foxnews.com....)
"Generation Investment Management." Wikipedia.com, 21 January 2010.
"Inner core." Wikipedia.com, 9 December 2009.
"Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." Wikipedia.com, 30 January 2010.
"James J. McCarthy." Wikipedia.com, 4 December 2009.
"Kyoto protocol." Wikipedia.com, 29 April 2010.
"Royal Society." Wikipedia.com, 28 November 2010.
"Solyndra." Wikipedia.com, 29 September 2011.
"State sues car firms on climate." BBC News, 20 September 2006, 22:40 GMT.
"Structure of the Earth." Wikipedia.com, 7 December 2009.
"Sun." Wikipedia.com, 5 December 2009.
"Tyndall Center." Wikipedia.com, 18 June 2010.
"Union of Concerned Scientists." Wikipedia.com, 3 December 2009.
"Where the storm did its worst." Detroit Free Press, 3 February 2011, p. 11A.
"World population." Wikipedia.com, 26 November 2010.
Anderson, Elisha, and Eric D. Lawrence. "Heavy snow is no blizzard." Detroit Free Press, 3 February 2011, p. 6A.
The Assocated Press. "World warms up for historic climate conference." Detroit Free Press, 8 December 2009, p. 12A.
Barnes, Ed. "Chicago Climate Exchange Has Important Partner: Sen. Richard Lugar." FOXNews.com, 6 may 2009. (http://www.foxnews.com....)
Barnes, Ed. "Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Credit Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress." FOXNews.com, 25 March 2009.
Beament, Emily. "Global warming deal hopes revived after Cancun agreement." The Independent, 11 December 2010.
Borenstein. Seth. "Curbing global warming could save lives, studies say." Detroit Free Press, 26 November 2009, p. 26A.
Capernia. "Chicago Climate Exchange Names Founding Members." Free Republic, 20 September 2008, 09:22:37.
Carola, Chris, and Geoff Mulvihill. "Northeast storm's wake: Nearly 600 without power." The Associated Press (via Real Clear Politics), 27 February 2010. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com....)
Clabough, Raven. "Secrets Exposed: Goldman Sachs May Be Obama's Enron." The New American, 27 April 2010, 15:00.
Childers, Andrew. "D.C. Court Decision Upholds EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulations in Entirety." Bloomberg BNA, 27 June 2012.
"Climate Science Gets a Hug in U.S. Court Decision." Science, 26 June 2012, 5:42 p.m.
Clyne, Meghan. "The Green Shepherd: The White House wants churches to advance its climate change agenda." The Weekly Standard, Vo. XV, No. 31, 3 May 2010.
Crutsinger, Martin. "US Economy Sharnk at Steep 2.9 Percent Rate in Q1." The Associated Press, 25 June 2014, 9;43 a.m. EDT.
Dickerson, John. "'What the Hell Do They Think Is Causing It?': Al Gore talks about global warming, those e-mails, and his new book." Slate. 8 December 2009, 9:45 p.m. ET. (http://www.slate.com....)
Eilperin, Juliet, and William Booth. "Cancun Agreements put 193 nations on track to deal with climate change." The Washington Post, 11 December 2010, 7:07 p.m.
Gillis, Justin. "Bipartisan Report Tallies High Toll on Economy From Global Warming." The New York Times, 24 June 2014.
Gray, Louise. "Cancun climate change summit scientists call for rationing in developed world." The Telegraph (the United Kingdom), 29 November 2010, 7:30 a.m. GMT. (http://www.telegraph,co.uk....)
Gray, Louise. "'Climategate' professor gets his job back." The Telegraph (the United Kingdom), 7 July 2010, 1:02 p.m. BST. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk....)
Hebert, H. Josef, and Dina Cappiello. "White House takes step for an attack on pollution." Detroit Free Press, 8 December 2009, p. 12A.
Hultman, Nathan. "The Cancun Agreements on climate change." Brookings, 14 December 2010.
Hurley, Lawrence. "Appeals court upholds EPA emission rules." E&E Publishing LLC, 26 June 2012.
Jacobs, Michael. "Cancun climate talks: In search of the holy grail of climate change." The Guardian (the United Kingdom), 29 November 2010, 16:48 GMT. (http://www.guardian.co.uk....)
Kay, Julie. "Columbia Law School launches Center for Climate Change law." The National Law Journal, 12 December 2008
Lawless, Jill. "Ash cloud from Iceland clogs European airports." Detroit Free Press, 16 April 2010, p. 6A.
Max, Arthur. "Climate talks in Denmark aim to change the world." Detroit Free Press, 26 November 2009, p. 26.
McLeod, Judi. "Obama's Involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange--the rest of the story." Canadian Free Press, 25 March 2009.
Michaels, Patrick J. "Michaels: China-style dictatorship of climatologists." The Washington Times, 17 January 2011, 6:01 p.m.
Mulvihill, Geoff, and Michael Rubinkam, Randy Pennell, Joan Loviglio, George Walsh, Shawn Marsh, Kiley Armstrong, Ula Ilnytzky, and Joshua Freed. "Snowstorm in Northeast, rain pounds New England." The Associated Press (via Yahoo News), 25 February 2010, 6:51 p.m. ET. (http://news.yahoo.com....)
Murray, Iain. "AL'S WARMING LIES." New York Post, 22 March 2007, 5:00 a.m. (http://www.nypost.com....)
Orlowski, Andrew. "Climategate 2.0: Fresh trove of embarrassing emails: 'All our models are wrong,' writes Jones." The Register, 23 November 2011, 11:36 GMT.
Peck, Sally. "Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths.'" The Telegraph (the United Kingdom), 11 October 2007, 12:01 a.m. BST. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk....)
Petre, Jonathan. "Climategate U-turn as scientist of centre now admits: There has been no global warming since 1995." Daily Mail (London, England), 14 February 2010, 5:12 pm. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk....)
Power, Stephen, and Ben Casselman. "Defections Shake Up Climate Coalition." The Wall Street Journal, 17 February 2010. (http://online.wsj.com....)
Sheppard, Noel. "Al Gore: Earth's Interior 'Extremely Hot, Several Million Degrees.'" NewsBusters, 18 November 2009, 10:27 ET. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs....)
Sheppard, Noel. "Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth." NewsBusters, 8 October 2007, 23:55 ET. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs....)
Sheppard, Noel. "Gore Used Fictional Video to Illustrate 'Inconvenient Truth'." NewsBusters, 22 April 2008, 08:53 ET. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs....)
Skilling, Tom. "Coldest temperatures in two years follow the Blizzard f 2011." ChicagoWeather Center, 3 February 2011, 12:23 a.m.
Starr, Penny. "Sen. Kerry Predicts 'Ice-Free arctic' in '5 or 10 Years.'" CNSNews.com, 23 July 2010. (http://cnsnews.com....)
Tapscott, Mark. "Global Warming Shocker! Climategate scientist admits no warming since 1995 UPDATED: Or did he?" Washington Examiner, 14 February 2010, 8:58 a.m. EST. (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com....)
Tate, William. "Will Dems allow Goldman to manipulate a cap-and-trade market?" The American Thinker, 14 July 2009. (http://www.americanthinker.com....)
Taylor, James. "Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate." Forbes, 23 November 2011, 11:38 a.m.
Warner, Gerald. "Climategate: reinstating Phil Jones is good news -- the CRU brand remains toxic." The Telegraph (the United Kingdom), 8 June 2010. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk....)
Note: On Wednesday, December 9, 2009, I found a Web site that had a very short article entitled "Video: Al Gore Sued for Global Warming Lies by 30,000 Scientists and Weather Channel Founder" and a short video clip (lasting about five minutes and twenty-five mintues) of the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman (now a weather forecaster at KUSI-TV, San Diego), and the Web page had a date of November 25, 2009, and the simple address to the piece was "http://hyscience.com" (the clip was an interview clip from a show called Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld, which is a regular show on the Fox News Channel).
Note: On Wednesday, April 28, 2010, I went to the Web site for th Chicago Climate Exchange and read a number of documents.
Note: On Thursday, April 29, 2010, I went to the Web site for Carbon Futures and read a document entitled "Carbon Credits Explained," which was dated November 8, 2009, and the main Web-site address for Carbon Futures was http://www.carbon-futures.org....
###
Note: The first version of this document was posted on the Internet on May 12, 2009.
For further reading, you must see the
document World Tyranny: Warnings
about the Insane Who are Trying to
Create a Communist World Country,
which can be reached by using this
link: World.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Command and
Control: Barack Obama's Environmental
Protection Agency, which can be reached
by using this link: Command.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Nonsense Statements
and Quotations of Barack Obama, which
can be reached through this link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Madness in a President
and Other Matters of a Defective Mind,
which can be reached at this link: Madness.
To reach the main page of The Hologlobe
Press, use this link: www.hologlobepress.com.
To reach the Site-Summary Page for The
Hologlobe Press, use this link: Summary.
Note: For more thoughts about manmade global warming or global climate change or whatever ties in with the climate and the world, you should see the editions of Michigan Travel Tips that were published after Michigan Travel Tips #56,, and you can reach the catalog for Michigan Travel Tips by using this link: Travel.
###