Butler on Business, May 9, 2013 Carbon Swaps and my latest article

My 10 minute radio chat with Alan Butler on carbon swaps and my latest article. I come on at the 40 minute mark.
http://host1.cyberears.com//19274.mp3

Global Warming Thy Name is a Manufactured Crisis

How much veracity should you ascribe to global warming theories? Aside from the fact that thousands of scientists across the globe have debunked global warming, consider this – proponents of global warming manufacture or delete data to fit their agenda. University of East Anglia admitted, after being caught, to have deleted data that contradicted their “consensus” hoax. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Heartland Institute, one the most prominent scientific and research-based rational voices against global warming alarmists sent out 100,000 copies of Steve Goreham’s book, The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism.

Dr. Craig Clements, Associate Professor in the Department of Meteorology and Climate Science at San Jose State University and Dr. Alison Bridger, Chair, enlightened and “tolerant” scholars that they are, decided to post a photograph of them, simulating the burning of Goreham’s book that contradicts their dogma. Officials at San Jose State University have since removed the offending photo and apologized for the “ill-attempt at satire.”

As Jim Lakely, President of The Heartland Institute, said, the environmentalist “progressive” academics do not just ignore sound scientific evidence that contradicts global warming alarmism, they dismiss any rational proof, refuse to debate, manufacture data, ban any contradictory evidence, and even “committing crimes against The Heartland Institute.” It is a childish and unscholarly behavior to even pretend to burn evidence of opposing views. It is an unreasonable practice for scientists not to consider opposing views because their unilateral decisions can fundamentally affect the lives of billions and professors shape the minds of so many students.

http://blog.heartland.org/2013/05/san-jose-state-professors-would-rather-burn-climate-skeptic-book-than-read-it/

Lord Monckton aptly described the scientists who lack a moral compass as a danger to society. Disinformation about an opponent’s reputation and about science “is now encouraged as long as the inventions further the party line.”

“As with medical science, so with climate science, we have made the dangerous mistake of treating as a high priest anyone who wears a white coat.” A professor or scientist who “knowingly manipulates data in a manner calculated to deceive the scientific illiterates who now govern us” are committing a “grave wrong” and should be made accountable for the damage they create.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/scientists-with-no-moral-sense-endanger-us-all/#kbYKAFl1aOxjR4gp.99

“Food riots in a dozen regions of the world tell us that millions were flung into starvation and death by the doubling of world food prices that, according to the U.N., resulted directly from the biofuel scam that is one of many pernicious spin-offs from what professor Niklas Mörner has called “the greatest lie ever told” – the global warming scare.” (Lord Monckton)

At the same time, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Monsanto, the government of Norway, the Rockefeller Foundation, and Syngenta have built a “doomsday seed bank” inside an inaccessible Norwegian rock Svalbard on Spitsbergen Island, on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, 1,100 km from the North Pole. According to F. William Engdahl, who wrote in Global Research on May 1, 2013, the impenetrable fortress/vault was built “so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future.” Engdahl asks, “What future do the seed bank’s sponsors foresee, that would threaten the global availability of current seeds, almost all of which are already well protected in designated seed banks around the world?” http://www.globalresearch.ca/doomsday-seed-vault-in-the-arctic-2/23503

Global warming proponents benefit handsomely from their schemes, to the tune of billions of dollars. Some trade carbon swaps. Some write erroneous and deceptive Power Point presentations and receive the ultimate prize from European liberals. Others start electric car companies that go bankrupt before they even produce one car or because nobody really wants to buy electric cars that do not go very far on one charge. Others receive government grants and subsidies to provide and store solar power, some build solar panels, and others build electric car batteries. Many of them declare bankruptcy because, as the classic excuse goes, they cannot compete with China.

Some academics create a name for themselves and fortunes by making up studies and conclusions to suit their communist ideology. Fraudulent studies harm humanity in general, but particularly those to whom the study is applicable. Such was Diederik Stapel, world renowned social psychologist from Netherlands and Tilburg University’s Dean of the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences since 2010.

Stapel’s star got brighter when he published a study in Science about an experiment at the Utrecht train station which claimed that a trash-filled environment brought out racist tendencies in humans. In another study published earlier, Stapel claimed that eating meat made people selfish and less social. Yet a third study claimed that association with the word capitalism made people eat more M&Ms. Stapel threw the questionnaires in the trash bin and ate the M&Ms himself.

These studies never took place, every research project of the 55 he published, every result, was a fraud. It was all his political views and agenda. And hundreds of his students’ Ph.D. dissertations were based on his faked data. How many more like this so-called scientists and academics exist in all universities around the world? I have met some Stapel type individuals, the darlings of the academia conference circuit, at universities here in the U.S. Nothing was worthy of publication or modeling with students unless these darlings said so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Liberalism is codified as science based on “consensus” of like-minded ideologues. Once it is codified, there is no possibility for disagreement. If you disagree with their manufactured “science,” you are a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist. This is the case with global warming on a massive scale, falsifying or hiding data to achieve the results wanted to claim vociferously and definitively man-made global warming.

If you are a global warming skeptic, that is too bad. OFA will organize the masses to make sure the low-information voters will be watching you. A letter sent to liberal supporters by Organizing for Action, this administration’s team of community organizers, decried that “so many of our elected officials in Washington who represent us are denying science and using the denial to refuse to take action on climate change.”

According to Ivan Frishberg, House Speaker Boehner and the chairman of the House Science Committee have no right to say that they do not know “if the science behind climate change was real.” But, low information voters, do not worry. “Each and every day that congressional leaders hold on to their bizarre fantasy world, OFA is going to be there, not letting them get away with it. Add your name and say you’re ready to hold climate deniers accountable.”

How about holding global warming/climate change alarmists accountable for their debunked, manufactured crises, faux data, and the billions invested in global warming schemes? How about global warming scare mongers indoctrinating children in schools at a very early age that man is destroying the planet? Last time I checked, it has been quite cold in the last few months and real scientists have proven the fact, not “consensus,” that temperatures have dropped around the globe in the last 17 years.

Rachel Carson published in 1962 her book, Silent Spring, in which she claims that there are no more singing birds because of DDT, a human carcinogen. Without any scientific data to back up her claim, either in the number of birds or human harm from cancer, her book ignited the environmental movement which eventually led to the ban of DDT in 1972.

A real scientist, a physician, Dr. Rutledge Taylor, who studied the tropical world, produced a documentary, “3 Billion and Counting,” painfully depicting the human cost of banning DDT, a move that had “nothing to do with science, just a power grab, and wealthy westerners should be ashamed.” As author and medical doctor, Michael Crichton said, “That’s more people than Hitler and Stalin together killed.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0ZWdX6Z5T4

DDT had been a very effective fighter against malaria-causing mosquitoes. Without the effectiveness of DDT, approximately three million people across the globe die annually of malaria. India and sixteen other countries still use DDT today and they have plenty of singing birds. The liberal replacement solution for DDT? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provides millions of dollars-worth of mosquito nets to people in malaria-prone areas.

The PC police that stifles free speech ridicules anything and anybody that contradicts their globalist agenda. The manufactured scientific “consensus” is driving the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming and the idea that humans are so powerful as to change the climate. In my book, U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy, p. 29, I explained DICED, U.N.’s Environmental Constitution for the World. http://www.amazon.com/U-N-Agenda-21-Environmental-ebook/dp/B009WC6JXO/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_kin?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368117942&sr=1-1&keywords=UN.+Agenda+21+Environmental+Piracy

Only liberals are apparently smart enough to save us and micro-manage carbon dioxide levels through punishing carbon taxes, carbon swaps, and other schemes meant to enrich their pockets and to redistribute the wealth of the middle class in the name of social/environmental justice.

The global warming alarmists have no credibility with informed and rational Americans. “Climatism” has destroyed and redistributed a lot of hard earned wealth and altered/destroyed the lives of billions unnecessarily.

Green Scam, I Am

More and more liberal MSM outlets and environmental groups with deep bank accounts and lavish support from Hollywood celebrities are expanding their propaganda and indoctrination of GREEN to the low information Americans who only hear sound bites delivered with such assurance and expensively made videos that the information seems true. But I see the scam of GREEN, the Green Growth of wealth being redistributed by Uncle Sam, with the help of environmentalists with an agenda that coincides with U.N.’s Agenda 21.

USA Today dedicated on March 1, 2013 a special report and a video to the indoctrination of the masses that had little basis in fact. It enumerated how climate change is responsible for a host of problems in America: “More American children are getting asthma and allergies, and more seniors are suffering heat strokes. Food and utility prices are rising. Flooding is overrunning bridges, swamping subways and closing airport runways.  People are losing jobs in drought-related factory closings. Cataclysmic storms are wiping out sprawling neighborhoods. Towns are sinking.” http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/28/climate-change-remaking-america/1917169/

My question is, if this is true, and flooding will swallow beaches, islands, and any state with an opening to the sea, why do Hollywood celebrities and political elites build lavish homes on the water front, beaches, and tropical islands? If it is not sustainable for us to use fossil fuels, build where we want, and emit CO2, why is it sustainable for them to live in a McMansion, fly in personal jets, own numerous cars, and leave behind a huge carbon foot print? Why not ride bikes, five minutes from home and work like the rest of us are supposed to do?

Do sound principles of Economics explain that the price of food, utilities, and the unemployment rate are caused by global warming? One only needs an elementary knowledge of economics to know that such statements are false. Where do current government regulatory, monetary, and fiscal policies come into place as a cause of the above ills?

The fear mongering does not stop there. The glaciers in Montana’s Glacier National Park are going to melt, the sea levels are rising and the oceans are becoming more acidified. Climate change, heat waves, downpours, drought, wildfires, flooding are the result of burning fossil fuels and are likely to increase. It is so bad that “a remaking of America is likely in our lifetimes – a flicker in geological time. This will transform how and where we live, work, and play.”

I happen to agree that there is a remaking of America in our lifetime, affecting every facet of economic activity, where we live, work, and play, but it is accomplished by U.N. Agenda 21 which has been implemented across the world since 1992. I have discussed this in great detail in my book, “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy.” http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3AUN+Agenda+21%3A+Environmental+Piracy&keywords=UN+Agenda+21%3A+Environmental+Piracy&ie=UTF8

The author of the USA Today article, a self-described “reformed luddite,” who built an eco-friendly home in 2011, defines the planet as being affected this year by the highest concentration of “heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions in at least 800,000 years.”

According to real science, not political consensus, the planet has actually cooled in the last 17 years. Climate change does occur all the time and should not be confused with catastrophic weather events which may come in a cyclical pattern. No mention is made of the Little Ice Age which affected Europe from 1350-1850.

Sebastian Luning and Fritz Vahrenhold wrote in The Cold Sun about the impact of sun on the earth’s climate. The Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715, with only 50 sunspots during a 30 year period (normal sunspots 40,000-50,000), coincided with the Little Ice Age. During this period, agricultural production was seriously reduced and the widespread human suffering was painfully evident in the historical records of that time.

The tomes published by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Climate Change Reconsidered, are a strong scientific rebuttal to United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The recorded temperatures in the 1900s do not form an up and down slope that follows the industrial revolution’s spikes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Instead, the temperatures follow the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles. “Temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s.”

From late 1970s to late 1990s, the natural cycle turned warm and the global warming alarmists used it to their advantage. However, “satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.”

How are land surface temperatures manipulated? According to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), every 25-30 years the oceans undergo the natural cycle of colder water from below roils to replace the warmer water at the surface, affecting global temperatures by fractions of a degree. PDO was cold 1940s-1970s and warm 1970s-1990s. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) was similar. (Peter Ferrera)

United Nations’ IPCC made in 2000 the prediction that global temperatures would rise by 1 percent by 2010 which was obviously wrong. Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, predicted that temperatures would cool and he was right because he knew PDO had turned cold in 1999.

Peter Ferrera explained that “natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

The International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute held a conference in Chicago, May 21-23, 2012, discussing the economic implications of high cost energy as a result of unnecessary regulatory schemes, carbon taxes, carbon swaps, and the push to replace fossil fuels with renewables. http://climateconferences.heartland.org/iccc7/

Real scientists can explain with irrefutable data what causes weather events and temporary changes in temperature. Political scientists and journalist alarmists who promote climate Armageddon cannot defend in a public debate how humans are the cause of “global warming.” Yet based on their alarmist theory, world governments are expanding regulation and taxation in lock step with the dictates of U.N. Agenda 21.

Thinking Americans are skeptics – we do not believe in the “human-induced climate change” environmentalist consensus. The following examples given in the USA Today article do not constitute irrefutable scientific evidence of global warming:

-         “My windows and doors are rotted away and the village is sinking” (Stanley Tom on flooding risk in Alaska)

-         "My house isn't straight anymore. It's tilted." (Jeff Miskill on repeat flooding in Norfolk, Va)

-         "Who's going to hire me now?" (Barbara Roberts on beef processing plant closing its doors in Texas)

Could it be that floods in coastal cities occur because they are built below sea level like New Orleans? Is it not possible that land is naturally sinking? Could it be that some homes are built on unsteady terrain? Is it not possible that oceanic air currents, cold/hot air mass collisions, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes are contributors to catastrophic weather events? Could it be that solar flares are contributors to unusual high temperatures? Is it not possible that sink holes and sinking in general develop naturally in certain prone areas regardless of human activity?

Dr. Heinz Hug, citing peer reviewed sources said, “IPCC assertion that increased global greenhouse gas water vapor causes global warming is wrong.”

Dr. Kaiser said, “The reality also is that all the models used by the IPCC and their followers make untenable assumptions, contain internal inconsistencies and totally disregard the physical basis necessary.”

Science is exact; it does not work by “consensus” as declared by United Nations or activist environmentalists. “Consensus is a societal or judicial term which has no place in science.”

In the same article, Dr. Klaus Kaiser gives a very good explanation why the tropospheric CO2 causes a net cooling effect on our planet, not a greenhouse “blanket.”

“Look at planet Mars. Its atmosphere contains 950,000 parts per million (ppm) CO2 versus 400 ppm on Earth. Yet, on the side of Mars facing the sun, the temperature is about 30 °C like on Earth, but on the opposite (night) side it is well below MINUS-100 °C (approximately MINUS-200 °F). The thick layer of CO2 on Mars does not at all provide a “warm blanket” on its night side – au contraire – all that CO2 in the Martian atmosphere produces a cooling effect through outward radiation of IR energy its molecules.”

Al Gore’s global warming predictions that the sea levels will rise, flood, and swallow islands and lands opening to the ocean are wrong. Nils-Axel Mörner, sea level expert, has recently criticized main stream media alarmists, including the United Nations IPCC, for claiming that Bangladeshi floods are caused by man-made global warming. Independent scientists have proven that floods in Bangladesh are caused by rain over the Himalayas and cyclones that push water inland. “This has nothing to do with the sea,” said Mörner.

We are transforming our way of life fundamentally, our cities, in the name of “greening” them or “smart-growing” them, at great expense and pain to all, based on environmental lies, scientific misinterpretation of data, faux “consensus,” and U.N. Agenda 21’s schemes to redistribute wealth and to control every facet of life. Would it not be easier if the U.N. and its ardent supporters just came in and confiscated our “ill-gotten wealth” overnight instead of stealthily stealing from us in the name of saving the planet?

No matter how much logical and scientific explanation we bring to shed light on the global warming/climate change hoax, and the deliberate misinformation of our population, coupled with the brainwashing in school into the scam of GREEN, we are losing ground to the powerful progressive media that controls the irrational and hypocritical debate.