The screeching charlatans of the global warmists have come out of the closet and admitted their goal is redistribution of wealth. They’ve abandoned any pretense of science and instead are amping up the hysteria aimed at scaring you into paying up lest you die in your own carbon footprint. Obama is the green pied piper leading us down the road to ruin.

By Alan Caruba

What is it with the “warmists”, Al Gore and his clones who keep insisting the Earth is warming, that too much carbon dioxide (CO2) will be the death of us, and that we have to immediately stop burning “fossil fuels” if we are to save the planet? They are the most relentless liars on the face of the planet.

They want us to cover the surface of the U.S. with solar panels and the mountains with wind turbines to generate the energy needed for everything we do. These Green energy alternatives are so wonderful they are producing a mere three percent of our current needs, require government subsidies and loan guarantees to exist, and tend not to be all that great when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

So why are we still hearing from this discredited and disgraced bunch of charlatans and buffoons? In early May, The New York Times published “Game Over for the Climate” by a major offender of the truth, Dr. James Hansen, who for some reason is still the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), despite having pocketed big bucks beyond his humble government salary. In 2007 he split a million dollar Dan Davis Prize with someone else and in 2001, received a $250,000 Heinz Award. Former GISS employees want him fired.

As debased as The Times is, in 2006 the American Association for the Advancement of Science selected Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility. I cite this as a warning that even a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper and formerly respected science organization have long since gone over to the dark side when it comes to global warming. Nothing they have to say on the subject should be regarded as more than pure propaganda.

Suffice to say that Dr. Hansen’s opinion article cited every global warming lie we have been hearing since 1988 when he first gained famed testifying before a congressional committee that we were doomed. In his Times article, he predicted that the “semi-permanent drought” would turn the Midwest into “a dust bowl.” Like every other global warming prediction (that hasn’t come true) this will happen “over the next several decades.” Time enough for Dr. Hansen to pick up a few more awards and fatten his bank account.

The face of the global warming hoax, Al Gore, will not shut up. He made news in August 2011 when he totally lost it while speaking at the Aspen Institute. Anyone, noted climatologists, meteorologists, and mere science writers like myself were the target of his rant for actually citing things such as the fact that the Earth has been in a natural COOLING cycle since 1998 and other inconvenient facts about the climate.

“And some of the exact same people” said Gore, frothing at the mouth, “I can go down a list of their names—are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message. ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!”

The climate is not cooperating. The Church of Global Warming is crumbling around them. People are making fun of them. Parents are objecting to their scaring children with their lies. People actually want to warm their homes in winter and cool them in the summer. Meanwhile, using the global warming lies, the Environmental Protection Agency is trying to shut down the entire U.S. coal mining industry and attacking “fracking” to access natural gas. The Department of the Interior has virtually shut down all oil drilling on federal land and offshore. How crazed is all this?

Gleick

One of their number, Dr. Peter Gleick, formerly of the American Geophysical Union’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics—the irony is too delicious—perpetrated a fraud against The Heartland Institute earlier this year, pretending to be a member of its board in order to secure a list of its donors and allegedly authoring a memo about a scheme to invade the nation’s schoolrooms with a program to dispute global warming. After confessing to the former, he resigned from the task force. An FBI probe is underway to determine if he broke any laws. Heartland has dubbed it “Fakegate.”

The Institute, by the way, is sponsoring its 7th annual conference on climate change, May 21-23, in Chicago, immediately following the NATO conference that will be held in the windy city where it is headquartered. Its theme this year is “Real Science, Real Choices.” Among the speakers will be Czech President Vaclav Klaus, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, vice chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, and two former NASA astronauts.

The lesson we can draw from the last few decades is that the entire environmental movement, of which the global warming hoax is one part, is an extension of what Dr. Robert Zubin, a Senior Fellow with the Center for Security Policy, addressed in his new book, “Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalism, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism.”

Antihumanism has been around a long time. As Dr. Zubin points out, it has taken the form of “Darwinism, eugenics, German militarism, Nazism, xenophobia, the population control movement, environmentalism, technophobia, and most recently, the incredibly demented climatophobic movement, which seeks to justify mass human sacrifice for the purpose of weather control.”

Al Gore, James Hansen, and even President Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, are card-carrying members of this cult. In 1971 Holdren co-authored “Global Ecology” with Paul Ehrlich, famed for his 1968 book, “The Population Bomb.” They wrote “when a population of organisms grows in a finite environment, sooner or later, it will encounter a resource limit. This phenomenon, described by ecologists as reaching the ‘carrying capacity’ of the environment, applies to bacteria on a culture dish, to fruit flies in a jar of agar, and to buffalo on a prairie. It must also apply to man on this finite planet.”

So you need to understand that you are no better than a fruit fly and you need to die in order to avoid depleting the planet’s supply of food and its energy resources.

God knows I would like to ignore or—better still—never have to hear from these climate Nazis, but that is not going to happen so long as The New York Times, the United Nations, and a host of others keep repeating their lethal lies.

© Alan Caruba. 2012

James Hansen who directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has pulled out all the stops in a (hopefully) last ditch effort to convince Gai worshipers that humans must drastically reduce their lifestyles to support his failed theory.

In his New York Times scare mongering piece he claims our very civilization is at risk.

“If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk”

The seas will rise, the animals will die, the earth will burn up and we’ll all drown from fifty foot higher seas. Haven’t we heard all this before? Isn’t this the same wacko who predicted a coming global ice age in the 1970′s?

Hasn’t he read about the GROWING glaciers? Hasn’t he read about the falsified graphs, suppressed dissent and outright lies by his fellow warmists? Even a NASA study has shown that Hansen’s models showing warming have serious flaws.

“Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.”

Hansen profits handsomely from his global warming hysteria.  As Alan Caruba noted in a previous usACTIONnews article “Will Warmists Face Justice for their Deceptions?“:

“It turns out that in 2010 alone he received “between 236,000 and $1,232.500 in outside income”! When you add in all the awards and speech fees Dr. Hansen has received over the years it is a tidy sum while he exploited his taxpayer-funded position.”

James Delingpole is a bestselling British author and blogger who helped expose the Climategate scandal back in 2009. Reason.tv caught up with Delingpole in Los Angeles recently to learn more about his entertaining and provocative new book Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors. At its very roots, argues Delingpole, climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one. In other words, it’s green on the outside and red on the inside. At the end of the day, according to Delingpole, the “watermelons” of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it. – Reason TV

In fact there has been no global warming for the last 15 years. Where has Hansen been? Record cold has occurred in many parts of the world.

The British Met Office recently warned of a mini ice age coming. David Rose reported in the Mail Online:

“The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.”

Oops! How are the seas going to rise, the animals die, the earth burn up and all of us drown from fifty foot higher seas? It looks like we’re more likely to freeze to death or die of starvation from shorter growing seasons.

Rose goes on to explain that a NASA study has shown that the sun seems to be the big factor in the earth cooling off:

“We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

 

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.”

But enough of the coming ice age. The real reason Hansen and his fellow AlGoreaholics continue their hysterical claims in the face of the facts comes down to money. Hansen boldly suggests a carbon tax that would drive up the cost of everything. He sweetens the idea by saying most people would get back more than they paid. This is essentially what Obama and the Democrats tried with cap-and-trade legislation that failed to pass the Democrat controlled congress. Hansen says:

“We should impose a gradually rising carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies, then distribute 100 percent of the collections to all Americans on a per-capita basis every month. The government would not get a penny. This market-based approach would stimulate innovation, jobs and economic growth, avoid enlarging government or having it pick winners or losers. Most Americans, except the heaviest energy users, would get more back than they paid in increased prices.” [emphasis added]

Everything has an energy component. This type of tax would stifle innovation, jobs and growth by driving up the cost of all goods and services.

Hansen is not the first to admit that the global warming scam is really about wealth redistribution. We’ve been warning you that this is all about money and a political agenda not about the environment. Now we have confirmation from the IPCC itself.

A Professor of the ‘Economics of Climate Change’, Edenhofer is Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) whose climate report is the political cover for almost all government action on global warming.

In an interview with Germany’s NZZ Online Edenhofer exposed the real purpose behind the climate change scam [red emphasis added]:

NZZ am Sonntag: The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

Edenhofer: That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Edenhofer: Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

Edenhofer: 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.

But unlike the financial crisis, in climate policy a country benefits if it does not join in.

The financial crisis was an emergency operation – in the face of danger we behave more cooperatively. Such a thing will not happen in climate policy, because it will always remain questionable whether a specific event like a flood is a climate phenomenon. But there is always the risk that individual rationality leads to collective stupidity. Therefore, one cannot solve the climate problem alone, but it has to be linked to other problems. There must be penalties and incentives: global CO 2-tariffs and technology transfer.

We have had the Director of the White House National Economic Council for President Barack Obama teaming up with George Soros to call for global carbon taxes. We had Obama endorsing global taxes on the eve of a UN summit and as a Senator he introduced a bill, the Global Poverty Act (S 2433), to force U.S. compliance with the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which commits the nations of the world to supporting “innovative financing mechanisms” (global taxes) to supplement foreign aid spending. Obama ally and supporter Richard Trumka the AFL-CIO president is working with European socialists to enact a global financial transaction tax.

Five subcommittee chairman in the US House of Representatives sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging her to support the global climate tax to be proposed in the upcoming United Nations climate summit in Cancun Mexico.  The Hill reports that the letter stated:

“A new global climate fund designed within the [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] with the expertise, independence, and mandate to support developing countries in their efforts to build resilience to climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a crucial component of addressing the global problem,” it states.

[The] letter from Reps. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (American Samoa), Brad Sherman (Calif.), Gary Ackerman (N.Y.), Donald Payne (N.J.) and Eliot Engel (N.Y.).

And they don’t really even need congress to make it happen. As we pointed out in a previous editorial the framework for global carbon trading and associated ‘fees’ is already passed in the financial reform monstrosity known as the Dodd-Frank bill:

On page 1,012 Section 750 ‘STUDY ON OVERSIGHT OF CARBON MARKETS’ the bill establishes an ‘INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP’ which includes the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as Chairman of the group, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Treasury, Chairman of the SEC, Administrator of the EPA, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Commissioner of the FTC, and the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration.

The group ‘ shall conduct a study on the oversight of existing and prospective carbon markets to ensure an efficient, secure and transparent carbon market‘.

Section 751 creates the ‘ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETS ADVISORY COMMITTEE’ and makes said committee not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act which says ‘the function of advisory committees should be advisory only, and that all matters under their consideration should be determined, in accordance with law, by the official, agency, or officer involved’ and includes other public safe guards which can be ignored by this committee.

Global regulation and ‘fees’ are also set up in the bill. Section 752 ‘INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION’ requires the the Commodity Futures Trading commission, the SEC, and the prudential regulators (as that term is defined in section 1a(39) of the Commodity
Exchange Act) to ‘consult and coordinate with foreign regulatory authorities on the establishment of consistent international standards with respect to the regulation (including fees) of swaps, security-based swaps, swap entities, and security-based swap entities and may agree to such information-sharing arrangements as may be deemed to be necessary or appropriate’.

Read the bill here

In an earlier usACTIONnews article Phyllis Schlafly exposed the UN plans to redistribute wealth globally:

“UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, speaking in Bangladesh on November 14 [2011], urged world leaders to finalize financing for a multibillion-dollar fund to fight the effects of climate change. He is urging the UN climate-change conference that opens November 28 in Durban, South Africa, to raise $100 billion a year for a Green Climate Fund to help poor countries cope with global warming.

Americans should recognize this language as UN gobbledegook to transfer U.S. wealth to foreign countries run by corrupt dictators. The 190 countries expected to attend the Durban conference would probably think that is a nifty idea.

Ban Ki-moon started his drive for a huge UN climate change fund by making a tear-jerking plea, about a melting North Pole glacier, at the Copenhagen UN conference in December 2009. But despite President Obama’s attendance, designed to encourage UN wishful thinking, Copenhagen results were zero.”

In another article Michael T. Snyder warned about the U.N. also:

In this new UN report, we find the following statement….

Achieving sustainability requires us to transform the global economy. Tinkering on the margins will not do the job.

This is absolutely crucial to understand.

The folks over at the UN don’t just want to change things a little.

Their goal is a radical transformation of the entire world.

According to the United Nations, if we don’t implement their recommendations the consequences will be absolutely disastrous….

But what, then, is to be done if we are to make a real difference for the world’s people and the planet? We must grasp the dimensions of the challenge. We must recognize that the drivers of that challenge include unsustainable lifestyles, production and consumption patterns and the impact of population growth. As the global population grows from 7 billion to almost 9 billion by 2040, and the number of middle-class consumers increases by 3 billion over the next 20 years, the demand for resources will rise exponentially. By 2030, the world will need at least 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy and 30 percent more water — all at a time when environmental boundaries are throwing up new limits to supply. This is true not least for climate change, which affects all aspects of human and planetary health.

So what changes are needed in order for us to achieve a “sustainable” global economy?

Well, the following are some of the disturbing recommendations that we find in the new UN report….

Raise Prices

According to the United Nations, we need to start significantly raising the prices of things that are made in an “unsustainable” way so that they reflect the “true cost” of their production….

Most goods and services sold today fail to bear the full environmental and social cost of production and consumption. Based on the science, we need to reach consensus, over time, on methodologies to price them properly. Costing environmental externalities could open new opportunities for green growth and green jobs

That means that you and I would start paying a lot more for the basic things that we need every day – food, gasoline, etc.

Carbon Taxes

The UN report also discusses the need to use regulations and taxation as tools to penalize economic activities that are not “sustainable”….

Establish natural resource and externality pricing instruments, including carbon pricing, through mechanisms such as taxation, regulation or emissions trading systems, by 2020

This is one of the favorite things that social engineers like to do.  They love to use taxation and regulations as weapons to get people to do the things they want.

So be prepared for more money to be taken from the American people with or without congressional approval.

There are many, many people like James Hansen and Professor of  ‘Economics of Climate Change’ Edenhofer who have their whole sustenance, purpose and being wrapped up in the climate scam. There are trillions of dollars at stake and thousands of people want a piece of the action.

Hold on to you wallet.

Follow Michael Whipple on Twitter

Follow usACTIONnews on Twitter or on Facebook

By David R. Legates Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware

Although he has rarely been willing to discuss or debate energy or environmental issues with those who do not share his views, environmentalist David Suzuki frequently challenges them on other grounds.  In his recent article, “Religious Right is wrong about climate change,” Suzuki claims that some US and Canadian scientists hold religious views that are anti-science.

Suzuki asserts that some climate scientists – including me, by name – put “misguided beliefs above rational thought.” His implicit assumption is that conservative Christian views are irrational and incompatible with science, and that I have replaced Almighty God with the “almighty dollar,” believing the economy matters more than the environment.

As a coauthor of the Cornwall Alliance’s Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science and Economics of Global Warming, which forms the basis for the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming that Suzuki criticizes, I know the Cornwall Alliance fully and carefully integrates scientific, economic, ethical and theological reasoning to support its conclusions. There’s nothing at all irrational about it – unless you consider religion irrational per se.

However, Suzuki is correct regarding one aspect of my belief: the economy does matter as much as the environment. Good environmental stewardship requires sound financial footing – and improving and safeguarding human health and welfare requires maintaining a strong, vibrant, innovative economy that can sustain continued environmental progress.

When a country is in dire need of food, clothing, shelter and other necessities for life, it cannot possibly be concerned with environmental issues. The poor people of India pour untreated sewage into the Ganges River – and then draw their drinking and “cleaning” water from it. So poor that they’re desperate simply for survival, they cannot possibly concern themselves with environmental stewardship. Only when economic improvements allow technological advancements to increase the quality of life, provide ample food and clothing, house citizens, provide clean drinking water, and treat and eradicate diseases can a thus wealthier society turn its attention to caring for the environment.

That is precisely what has happened in more developed nations. As the United States and Canada advanced economically, we developed technologies and policies that increased our quality and length of life. In turn, this has led us to be more proactive with our environmental stewardship.

We emit far less pollution and waste today, both per person and per unit of production, than we did fifty years ago. We feed more people with every parcel of land, we get more energy from every drop of oil, we are more efficient at everything we do, and we are much better stewards of our environment. But none of that could have occurred without a strong and developing economy.

Unfortunately, some so-called environmentalists wish to keep Africa and

African dump

other developing nations in perpetual underdevelopment. They pay them off to be “environmentally conscious,” by giving them handouts – food and monetary aid – to keep them alive and perhaps have little solar panels on their huts. But they also ensure that those poor families never prosper or become middle class – so as to perpetuate environmentalist notions of “noble natives,” supposedly “at one” with their environment and living a “sustainable” existence.

Equally harmful, much of that money is lost to corruption, while the people are forced to continue living in a state of poverty, disease, malnutrition and deprivation, as technologies that could enhance their length and quality of life are denied to them. Among the technologies denied are modern seeds, fertilizers, and high-tech, high-yield farming methods to increase food supplies; natural gas and electricity to heat homes and cook food, instead of cutting down forests and burning wood, thereby degrading indoor air quality and causing lethal lung infections; refrigeration so that people do not have to choose between eating spoiled food and going hungry; and the use of insecticides, including the powerful insect repellant DDT, to spare them from the agonizing illness and death brought on by malaria.

Each of these enhancements requires plentiful, dependable, affordable energy. Yet in the name of “saving the planet” or “preventing cataclysmic climate change,” environmentalists like Suzuki deny developing countries the modern technologies and energy they need to improve their lives and environment – thereby perpetuating high infant mortality, significantly shortened life spans, and greatly decreased quality of life.

Climate alarmism is the rationale for these deadly policies – and that is where political ideology mixes with the new religion of environmentalism. Overstated or non-existent threats to the environment, along with impractical or imaginary ways to prevent the purported threats, are the new scripture on which the adherents develop their theologies and policies for directing and micromanaging the course of human events. Unfortunately, these eco-religionists never encounter (or intentionally avert their eyes from) the misery and devastation that their policies dramatically inflict on the world’s poorest people.  That is because they are too concerned with “saving the planet.”

Back in North America, some wish to have energy rationed or be made increasingly expensive, creating artificial fuel poverty for millions.  Such policies will make food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and medical care – in short, everything – more expensive and scarce, create more unemployed workers, push many people back into conditions of poverty and deprivation, and gravely impair human health and welfare.  This strategy will not save the planet, as they hope, because one of its first casualties will be environmental stewardship. History and human nature both testify that, forced by economic limits to choose between a cleaner environment and food on the table, people always choose food.

In the Parable of the Talents, Jesus told of a master who gave one of his servants a single talent, and then condemned him for hiding it in the earth and not putting it to use. Often we think of the talent only as money or ability, but it really stands for every resource – including natural resources. How will the Master of all creation judge us if we hide our resources in the earth, and then on Judgment Day say, “Behold, you have what is yours”?

If we do not use the resources God has set before us in the earth to care for those in need, our Creator will likely condemn us, saying: “You kept buried what I gave you, instead of using and investing it. You failed to employ my gifts to care for the poor, the hungry, the sick, and those who were dying from disease. You have been worthless, irresponsible stewards of my creation.” We would deserve the same fate as the servant the master called “wicked and lazy.”

I fail to understand how anyone thinking rationally can argue that poverty and economic hardship will enhance environmental stewardship, or that the planet is more important than the people who live on it.

_________

David R. Legates is a Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware, USA.  He is a Christian and a senior fellow of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

By Ileana Johnson Paugh

“The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.” (Tenth Amendment)

While the people of Tombstone, Arizona, are waiting to get water back on line, the federal government is asking them for $80,000 in order to tell me why they cannot have it back unless they use only simple tools to do it with, like hand tools and wheelbarrows. Boulders the size of Volkswagens are trapping the waterlines, buried in some places under 12 ft of mud.

USDA Forest Service alludes to provisions in the Wilderness Act, which forbids the use of heavy machinery. According to Joe Wolverton, II, “water rights granted to Tombstone by the previous title owners predate the enactment of the Wilderness Act by about 80 years.” (The New American)

“The Town too Tough to Die” of 1,600 inhabitants had found itself in the middle of a terrible life and death quandary as a result of the Monument Fire in 2011 which destroyed the Huachuca Mountains pipelines carrying water to the town from the source in the Miller Canyon Wilderness Area. (Joe Wolverton, II, The New American)

According to Hugh Holub, water rights expert, quoted by Joe Wolverton, II,

Sec. of Interior Salazar

“Though the water may originate on National Forest lands, Bureau of Land Management lands, and other federally managed lands, the rights to that water belongs to the farms and ranches and cities.” Lawyers for this administration and environmentalists disagree.

The Club of Rome proclaims in their 1990 publication, The First Global Revolution, on page 75, “The common enemy of humanity is Man.” The paragraph beneath this title describes how they concocted the idea of man-made global warming.

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea of pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill…The real enemy is humanity itself.”

Water shortages can be real or government manufactured like the case of Tombstone, Arizona. The EPA started a “green war” against farmers in the fertile San Joaquin Valley in California; it left one of America’s main agricultural regions a dust bowl in 2009. The EPA-made drought put many farmers out of business, thousands became jobless, and millions of Americans paid higher prices for fruits and vegetables imported from other countries that could have been grown in California. EPA and the environmentalists protected a tiny fish, the delta smelt, while endangering humans.

Maurice Strong and Al Gore are members of the Club of Rome and involved in privately owned carbon-trading groups who stand to gain billions if the man-made global warming fraud survives and the EPA continues to destroy our economy, jobs, and our way of life.

A world government is gaining tract through social science consensus. There is nothing scientific about social science; it is strictly the opinion of a group of people who are in consensus or agreement concerning the need to regulate the planet in line with their beliefs. Science is exact and a fact. Social science is an opinion and a belief derived from personal experience, perception, or five-point scale surveys of groups of like-minded individuals and ignorant people.

In preparation for the UN Agenda Rio +20 conference in June 2012, F. Biermann et al., 33 social scientists, published in Science magazine on March 16, 2012, their contribution to the “earth system governance and planetary stewardship.” The article appears under the heading Science and Government, “Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance.”

It does not take a rocket scientist to determine that government policy is not science, consensus is not scientific, and the liberals’ mantra, “global warming science is settled,” is a lie.

Biermann et al. proposed “seven building blocks,” the result of social science-based research conducted in 2011 by the Earth System Governance Project. This paper was designed to “contribute to the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, which will focus on the institutional framework for sustainable development and possible reforms of the intergovernmental governance system.” The writers believe that, in spite of differences of opinion among social scientists, there is an increasing consensus in many areas, therefore the planet must be ready for one world governance, erasing all traces of sovereignty in the name of saving the planet.

1. A global environmental agency similar to the World Health Organization should be formed to set agendas, develop norms, manage compliance, assess science, and build capacity.

1. Integrate sustainable development from local to global levels into a powerful United Nations Sustainable Development Council.

1. “Better integration of sustainability governance requires governments to close remaining regulatory gaps at the global level,” including the sharing of nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and geo-engineering.

Closing regulatory gaps explains the Executive Order on May 1, 2012 on Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation. “The purpose of the E.O. is to encourage the harmonization of regulatory requirements to simplify regulatory compliance, reduce costs for transnational companies and facilitate international trade.” (Jonathan H. Adler)

1. Governments must place a “stronger emphasis on planetary concerns in economic governance.”

1. Voting on global policy must be weighted for some countries and no veto power granted to anyone in order to speed up international norm setting.

1. “Global governance through UN-type institutions tends to give a larger role to international and domestic bureaucracies, at the cost of national parliaments.”

A simple translation – global governance would supersede national governments. Countries would be divided into regions and/or different interests such as environmentalists, industry, youth, etc. The United States would thus no longer have states; we would have regions and regionalism under the aegis of the United Nations Sustainable Development Council.

1. Equity and fairness (read socialism/communism) would guide the transfer of wealth to poorer countries. The paper proposes “novel financial mechanisms to transfer wealth through global emissions markets and air transportation levies for sustainability purposes.” The middle class would completely disappear under such equity and fairness. Everyone would be equally poor and miserable, with the self-appointed global governance elites at the top.

The paper oozes a sense of urgency, like thieves trying to steal as much loot as possible before they are discovered and unmasked. These 33 social scientists do not want to stop just at transfer of wealth, destroying the middle class, erasing national boundaries, and neutering national governments, they want to “change the behavior of citizens,” and re-orient “the private sector toward a green economy.”

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh ( Romanian Conservative) is a freelance writer (usACTIONnews.com, Canada Free Press, Romanian Conservative), author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her book, “Echoes of Communism, is available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Short essays describe health care, education, poverty, religion, social engineering, and confiscation of property. Visit her website, ileanajohnson.com.

Dr. Johnson can be reached at: ileana1959@gmail.com

By Marita Noon

The wind energy industry has been having a hard time. The taxpayer funding that has kept it alive for the last twenty years is coming to an end, and those promoting the industry are panicking.

Perhaps this current wave started when one of Big Wind’s most noted supporters, T. Boone Pickens, said in an MSNBC interview, “I’m in the wind business…. I lost my ass in the business.” But the industry’s fortunes didn’t get any better when the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial titled, “Gouged by the wind,” in which they stated: “With natural gases not far from $2 per million BTU, the competitiveness of wind power is highly suspect.” Citing a study on renewable energy mandates, the WSJ noted that states with renewable energy mandates “paid 31.9% more for electricity than states without them.”

A comprehensive article in the Financial Times concluded that the “US renewables boom could turn into a bust,” the enthusiasm for renewables “could fizzle out,” the US wind industry is stalling and may go into reverse,” and “governments all over the world have been curbing support for renewable energy.”

Michael Liebreich of the research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance says, “With a financially stressed electorate, it’s really hard to go to them and say: ‘Gas is cheap, but we’ve decided to build wind farms for no good reason that we can articulate.’” Christopher Blansett, alternative-energy sector analyst for the Best on the Street survey, says, “People want cheap energy. They don’t necessarily want clean energy.”

As the Financial Times reports, time-limited subsidy programs “face an uphill battle.” The biggest US program set to expire this year is the production tax credit (PTC) for onshore wind power, which “is the most important factor behind the fourfold expansion of US wind generation since 2006.” Four recent attempts in Congress to extend it have failed.”

According to the WSJ, “The industry is launching a lobbying blitz.” The “2012 Strategy” memo from the American Wind Energy Association includes:

• “To maximize WindPAC’s influence, WindPAC will increase the number of fundraisers we hold for Members of Congress.”
• “Continue the Iowa caucus program to ensure the successful implanting of a pro-wind message into the Republican presidential primary campaign.”
• “Respond quickly to unfavorable articles by posting comments online, using the AWEA blog and twitter, and putting out press releases.”
• “Continue to advocate for long term extension of PTC and ITC option for offshore wind.”
• “AWEA requested a funding level of $144.2 million for FY 2012 for the Department of Energy (DOE) Wind Energy Program, an increase of $17.3 million above the President’s Congressional budget request.”

A wind turbine manufacturer quoted in the Financial Times article says, “If the PTC just disappears, the industry will collapse.” Regarding United Technologies plans to sell its wind turbine business, chief financial officer Greg Hayes admitted: “We all make mistakes.”

Despite twenty years of taxpayer funding, says the Financial Times, “Most of these technologies are unable to stand on their own commercially, particularly in competition with a resurgent natural gas industry that has created a supply glut and driven prices to 10-year lows.” The WSJ opines: “the tax subsidy has sustained the industry on a scale that wouldn’t have been possible if they had to follow the same rules as everyone else.” A level playing field would mean that wind developers would also lose its exemptions from environmental and economic laws that all other businesses must abide by.

It is precisely the fear of having to play by “the same rules as everyone else” that must have propelled the anti-fossil fuels Checks and Balances Project to dig deep to unearth a “confidential” document. The brainstorming document was designed to trigger conversation during an initial meeting of grassroots folks who share the common goal of compelling wind energy to follow the same economic, environmental and scientific rules. While the meeting was held February 1-2, the document’s author didn’t attend (but I did) and his ideas received little attention, months later our little meeting was suddenly in the news.

On May 8, many meeting attendees received calls from several publications, including the National Journal, Washington Times and Bloomberg News – none of whom ultimately ran a story. However, The Guardian did run a story that was picked up and expanded on by Environment & Energy (whose reporter also to a few of us), HuffPost, Tree Hugger, Climate Progress, and others. (Interestingly, Climate Progress and Tree Hugger remove any comment in opposition to wind energy as soon as it is posted.) High Country News also ran an original story that was trigged by the Checks and Balances press release.

These sources resulted in some form of the story being blasted all over the Internet. The wind energy industry panic certainly explains the sudden interest. But why our little group? Washington Examiner columnist, Timothy Carney, provides the answer: “AWEA plans ‘continued deployment of opposition research through third parties to cause critics to have to respond,’ the battle plan states. In other words: When people attack AWEA’s subsidies, AWEA might feed an unflattering story on that person to some ideological or partisan media outlet or activist group.”

The members of this growing “same rules for everyone” coalition are the people who have attacked the subsidies. Our collaborative actions have helped block the PTC extension efforts. And so, through “third party” pro-wind activists, the AWEA has fed “an unflattering story” to a “partisan media outlet.”

A common claim in the news stories is that we are actually an oil-and-gas funded entity. They’ve tied us to the Koch Brothers. We all wish. Apparently they cannot believe that individuals and local groups can think for themselves and impact public policy, without a puppet master telling us what to do and say.

In fact, the group has no funding. As we began to email back and forth over the sudden reporter interest, one meeting attendee quipped: “My trip was funded, in part, by MY brother, who donated frequent flyer miles for my trip. I can assure you that my brother is not part of the Koch family. I paid for the rest of the trip out of my own pocket.”

Yet, the reporters seemed determined to find a funding link. I told the Bloomberg reporter that we each paid our own way, the meeting was held in a budget hotel outside of DC (unlike the AWEA meeting held at taxpayer and ratepayer expense at the prestigious La Costa Resort & Spa in Carlsbad, CA), and we each had to pay for our own transportation, food and lodging. My comments never made it into print. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I am the executive director of companion organizations that do receive funding from oil and gas companies, as well as many individual donors. But like the others, I was invited to the wind meeting as an individual, not as a member of any organization.)

Additionally, we are not even a formal group. We met to consider forming a group. The “leaked” memo addresses finding a group that might absorb us, affiliate with us, or align with us.

Attendees brought their individual issues, observations, and successes. Each contributed important insights. Some viewed health impacts as the most important topic, others, economics – still others turbine setback distances, or bird deaths or land use. Others, including the meeting’s organizer, John Droz, believe that the science – or in the case of Big Wind, the lack thereof – is the best weapon. Other reasons to oppose wind come down to government use of taxpayer money to support something that raises electricity prices, based on the failed hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming.

Because of the meeting, attendees now know we are not alone, and we can call on one another for insight and advice, and to ensure far greater strength in numbers. However, without Checks and Balances director Gabe Elsner “discovery” and subsequent “exposure” of the “secret memo,” we’d still be just loosely affiliated individuals and small citizens’ groups. So we owe Elsner a debt of gratitude. His attack has emboldened us and helped others find us! A representative from the Blue Mountain Alliance sent Droz an email stating, “I probably need to send them a thank you note for leading me to you and your efforts.”

After the murmurings became known, meeting attendee Paul Driessen wrote a data-filled column, “Why we need to terminate Big Wind subsidies.” It garnered more than 700 Facebook “likes” on Townhall.com, suggesting that many readers had recommended it to friends – and friends had recommended it to friends. Within just a few days, his column was all over the Internet.

Wind energy has more opposition than most people realize, and Elsner, who has served as the “third party” in the AWEA strategy, has enabled us to find many more like-minded citizen-voters. While a few attendees at the DC meeting were concerned about all the publicity, attorney Brad Tupi, who has represented citizens victimized by wind energy projects, responded: “I would plead guilty to participating in a meeting of concerned citizens opposed to wasteful, unproven, inefficient wind energy. I would agree that we are interested in coordinating with other reputable organizations, and I personally would be honored to work with the Heartland Institute and others.”

If you do not support industrial-scale, tax-payer-funded wind-energy projects that are promoted based on ideology and emotion, rather than facts and sound science, you can benefit from affiliating with us. Dr. Droz has a wonderful presentation full of helpful information. A few of the many websites represented by meeting attendees include: Illinois Wind Watch, Coalition for Sensible Siting, Energy Integrity Project, and Citizen Power Alliance.

The lesson to be learned from the attack on these hard-working citizens is that we little people can make a difference! We’ve got the rich subsidy-seeking wind-energy supporters running scared – along with the crony capitalism that accompanies them. Remember, “If the PTC just disappears” – meaning if we do not keep giving Big Wind taxpayer dollars – “the industry will collapse.” Your phone call or email to a Senator or Congressman, such as Steve King or Dave Reichert who recently came out in support of the PTC, can make a difference. Tell them, as the WSJ said, “If the [Republican] Party is serious about tax reform … it will vote to take wind power off the taxpayer dole.”

It is time for the AWEA and the politicians who support the PTC to explain why higher electricity costs, human health impacts, substantial loss of property values in rural communities, dead bats and birds, and increased national debt are good for America and her taxpayers!

Marita Noon is the author of Energy Freedom and executive director of Energy Makes America Great and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE).

Editor’s note:

Previously from usACTIONnews.com:

$14 million per permanent “green” wind job – How Obama’s Anti-Energy Policy Kills Jobs

Obama’s policies are destined to damage the economy because they will penalize the efficient, job-creating oil and natural gas industry, …. and [] raise energy costs for American consumers and manufacturers.

By Thomas A. Hemphill and Mark J. Perry at The American

EXCERPTS:

Oil and natural gas companies have been on a hiring spree, adding almost 100 new payroll jobs every day for the last year.

In contrast, job creation in green energy projects has so far been very disappointing. …. Today, according to these companies and state and local government economic development officials, those [wind farm] projects employ only about 300 workers, at a cost to taxpayers of more than $14 million per permanent job. [emphasis added]

…. there are more than 37,000 additional solar jobs at risk, …..

The oil and gas industry could be creating even more jobs if the United States had more of a pro-development policy for traditional energy sources instead of a government-driven, heavily subsidized, green energy approach.

To the extent that oil and natural gas companies are targeted with higher taxes or unfavorable regulatory policies by the Obama administration, American manufacturers will be hurt by higher energy prices, which could jeopardize job growth …

FULL ARTICLE

By Mark J. Perry

By Bruce Thompson at American Thinker

EXCERPTS:

… the administration has even refused to provide documents to senior investigator Richard Larabee, in a Department of the Interior (DoI)  investigation, even though he is an employee of the executive branch.  They are stonewalling investigations by all three branches of government.  What are they trying to hide?

All this leads us to the question: “What does Mr. Mix know that the administration does not want to get out into the light of day?”

So the question before us is, did the administration deliberately sabotage BP’s top kill efforts for political reasons?  They were in the midst of trying to pass “Cap and Trade” legislation in the Senate so as to take control of the energy business through taxation and regulation and thereby promote their political crony capitalist allies in the “green energy” sector.  If they have nothing to hide, they need to fully comply with the legal requests for documents from the various investigations in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government.  Let the public know the whole truth.  That’s the least we should expect from the “most transparent administration in history.”

FULL ARTICLE

By Mark J. Perry at Carpe Diem

The Green River Formation, the world’s largest oil shale deposit, is located in a largely vacant region of mostly federal land on the western edge of the Rocky Mountains that includes portions of Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado (see map above).

Here’s an excerpt from testimony about the Green River Formation that was provided on Thursday by Anu K. Mittal, Government Accountability Office (GAO) Director of Natural Resources and Environment, to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology titled “Unconventional Oil and Gas Production: Opportunities and Challenges of Oil Shale Development“:

“The Green River Formation—an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming—contains the world’s largest deposits of oil shale. USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions. The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates that 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered. At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.”

MP: Surprisingly, this testimony got almost no press coverage, here’s one exception from CNS News.  Shouldn’t it be newsworthy that the U.S. has 1.5 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in  the Green River Formation, an amount even greater than this estimate of 1.392 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves in the entire world?  The GAO did issue a study in October 2010 that may have already identified the vast resources in the Green River area, so maybe this is old news and not worth reporting.

But with current U.S. daily oil consumption running at about 19.5 million barrels, the staggering amount of Green River reserves would by itself supply domestic oil consumption for more than 200 years! The testimony also mentioned that industry experts estimate future development of Green River to be 15-20 years away, but it’s not clear if that’s due to federal regulatory issues or limitations of current drilling technology.

Even if development is 15-20 years away, the vast untapped energy resources of Green River, the largest oil shale deposit in the world, provide additional support for the idea that “peak oil” is “peak idiocy” (Mike Munger explains here).

by The Elephant’s Child at American Elephants

You are familiar with the Sierra Club, aren’t you? They have those lovely books and calendars with famed photographer Ansel Adams pictures of Yosemite and the Sierra Nevada Mountains. All the bookstores have them. The Sierra Club was founded as an environmental organization devoted to protecting Yosemite, the Sierras and the Redwoods.  Did you know that it has become one of the most radical environmental organizations in the world?

They have just declared war on the natural-gas industry. The Sierra Club already has their “Beyond Coal” campaign, and “Beyond Oil,” and they are renaming their efforts against natural gas as “Beyond Gas”. Clever.

Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said “As we push to retire coal plants, we’re going to work to make sure we’re not simultaneously switching to natural-gas infrastructure. And we’re going to be preventing new gas plants from being built wherever we can.

Perhaps you have read about the new discoveries of massive supplies of energy found in shale deposits, and thought gratefully about the possibility that your energy bills would go down. Not so fast. The environmental organizations and the Left want the country to depend on “clean energy,” which is, so far, embodied entirely in wind farms and solar arrays. It is hard to understand their motivation: they are zealots, they are dimwits, they are useful idiots?

•In 2911, the United States produced 23.0 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, making it the world’s largest natural gas producer.• In 2011 the U.S. produced 5.67 million barrels of oil, making it the world’s third largest oil producer. •The U.S. has 261 billion tons of coal in its proved coal reserves. •These are the world’s largest coal reserves and over 27 percent of the world’s proved coal reserves. •Proved conventional oil reserves worldwide more than doubled from 642 billion barrels in 1980 to more than 1.3 trillion barrels in 2009. •The U.S. has 486 billion tons of coal in its demonstrated reserve base, enough domestic coal to use for the next 485 years at current rates of consumption. •This doesn’t include Alaska’s coal resources, which according to government estimates, are larger than those in the lower 48 states. • The world could hold more than 700 quadrillion (700,000 trillion ) cubic feet of methane hydrates — more energy than all other fossil fuels.

♦In 2011, wind power produced 1.2 percent of the energy used in the United States. ♦ In 2011, solar power produced 0.1 percent of the energy used in the United States. ♦ In 2011, hydroelectric power contributed  3.3 percent of the energy used in the United States and 7.9 percent of the electricity. ♦ There are 104 nuclear reactors in the U.S. and construction for all began prior to 1974.

Since 1970, the six “criteria pollutants” have declined by 63 percent, even though the generation of electricity from coal-fired plants has increased by over 180 percent.

The subsidies for wind energy are running out as they were part of Obama’s stimulus plan. If they are not renewed, the wind industry probably cannot survive on its own without governmental force. Aside from all the scandal and crony capitalism in the “renewables” field, wind and solar combined cannot produce the energy we need to keep warm in the winter and cool in the summer. People die from the cold. Germany now has 15% fuel poverty — people cannot pay for the energy they need. Britain has had huge problems with fuel poverty— it wasn’t long ago that British seniors were buying up used books at jumble sales to burn for fuel. And the earth is cooling instead of warming.

The zealots apparently believe that if they just give enough money to their well-connected friends who are involved with “renewable energy” that the industry will somehow take off. If they just ban enough of our cheap, abundant resources, then people will be forced to use “renewable energy,” and if they switch us all to electric cars — oh wait, the electricity for our electric cars is produced by coal-fired or gas-fired plants.  Well, they’ll force us all onto light rail and high-speed trains — oh wait…  You will notice if you are paying close attention that the term “renewable energy” has dropped from favor, and been replaced by “clean energy”— the “renewable” bit only worked when we were running out of fossil fuels. Now that they are truly plentiful, they have to come up with another tactic. Just imagine if we eliminated coal and eliminated natural gas! Basic, elementary common sense and logic fail. Besides that, remember than wind and solar require 24/7 backup from regular coal or gas-fired power plants. How is this possibly supposed to work?  Are they zealots, dimwits or useful idiots?