Unfortunately, like so many other things where Obama is involved, his words regarding transparency were…just words.

The Chamber Post, an Internet blog site, sent in a FOIA request regarding global warming records.

This is what they received in response:

And the Government wonders why The People don’t trust them.

h/t – Word Around the Net via American Digest

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

In the same hearing you have Bernie Sanders pretty much comparing man-made global warming skeptics to those who denied the rise of Nazism:

“It reminds me in some ways of the debate taking place in this country and around the world in the late 1930s,” said Sanders, perhaps the most liberal member of the Senate, during a Senate hearing Tuesday. “During that period of Nazism and fascism’s growth-a real danger to the United States and democratic countries around the world- there were people in this country and in the British parliament who said ‘don’t worry! Hitler’s not real! It’ll disappear!”

These kind of attacks will get worse as the numbers of those who believe the hoax are dwindling and the scandals keep growing.

Just to review some of the developments we’ve seen in the last year:

• Teams heading up to the Arctic to find evidence of GW but are deterred by the cold temperatures
• The EPA admits that its findings on GW are political and not scientific
• Poor methodology used in studies that end up cited as dogma
• Dissenting voices by world leaders are ignored
• The IPCC admits that science does not drive their data
• False claims in UN reports keep appearing
• India, one of the countries that the Thomas Friedman’s of the world are surpassing us in science and technology, establishes its own group to monitor GW because the IPCC is so unreliable
• East Anglia’s falsified data, that is when it was available

This brings me to my question:

What will cause you to question your belief that GW is a man made threat to our existence unless we take radical action? I know you’re not going to turn your back on GW and your belief in it, but all I am asking is where you start questioning? I know your initial reaction will be to send various articles and studies done by people who have a vested financial interest in promoting GW. Or how about “peer review”? Echo chambers.

Or simply, what will make you question your arguments and start acknowledging the other side’s assertions? You may be asking when I am ready to do the same. I already have. To their credit, a few liberals have responded, but none actually answered my questions.

Are any ready to answer this one?

PS One last note – I need to right a plagiaristic wrong. When I came up with the three questions from the last link I posted I thought they were original thoughts, when I did not realize until later that my first two points were originally written by Wizbang’s Jay Tea. I had repeated them so often that I forgot where they originated. The third question is all mine, though.

Crossposted from Brother Bobs Blog

Global warming fanatics have an unwelcome new ally: Osama bin Laden. Unlike enviro-leftists, the terror master recognizes that the green agenda can cripple the U.S. economy.

In the Obama worldview, fighting climate change will “finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.” In the Osama worldview, it will “bring the wheels of the American economy” to a halt.

The president spoke those words to Congress last week during his State of the Union message; the head of al-Qaida was delivering his latest rant for broadcast to his followers.

The president and the Democrats running Congress fail to see the dangers that environmentalist extremism poses to the U.S. But bin Laden has concluded it is a powerful weapon that can destroy us.

The Saudi-born patriarch of Islamist terrorism, from whatever cave he currently calls home, devoted his entire latest audiotape message to global warming. “Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality,” bin Laden declared. “All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis.”

Bin Laden even bashed ex-President George W. Bush for opposing the Kyoto Protocol at the behest of big business; he must have gotten hold of the Democratic National Committee’s talking points.

How do we prevent the promised worldwide calamity of temperatures going up and up? “Drastic solutions” are in order according to the reclusive al-Qaida chief, as opposed to “solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change.”

The world must “stop consuming American products,” he advised, and “we should stop dealings with the dollar and get rid of it as soon as possible.”

That will have “grave ramifications,” bin Laden admitted, “but it is the only means to liberate humanity from slavery and dependence on America.” Doing so would have the added bonus of hurting U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, he added.

So, you thought the Climategate scandal with the cooked global temperature data was something? Well, take a look at how the U.N. came to the scaremongering conclusion that the Himalayan glaciers were melting!

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report
By Jeremy Page
London Times
January 23, 2010

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel’s assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.
…
The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.

“Poorly substantiated?” Oh really? The entire report is filled with the same kind of intellectually dishonest crap! Basically, if some alarmist tells the U.N. that such and such might happen because of man’s carbon emissions they treat it as gospel and put it in the report because who knows? It might be true!

And only last November, this Rajendra Pachauri character was pointing the finger at the skeptics claiming THEIR science was “unsubstantiated.”

A Glacier Meltdown
The Himalayas and climate science.
Wall Street Journal
JANUARY 23, 2010

Last November, U.N. climate chief Rajendra Pachauri delivered a blistering rebuke to India’s environment minister for casting doubt on the notion that global warming was causing the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers.

“We have a very clear idea of what is happening,” the chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told the Guardian newspaper. “I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”

Then again, when it comes to unsubstantiated research it’s hard to beat the IPCC, whose 2007 report insisted that the glaciers—which feed the rivers that in turn feed much of South Asia—were very likely to nearly disappear by the year 2035. “The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers,” it wrote in its supposedly definitive report, “can be attributed primarily to the [sic] global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.”

It turns out that this widely publicized prediction was taken from a 2005 report from the World Wildlife Fund, which based it on a comment by Indian glacier expert Syed Hasnain from 1999. Mr. Hasnian now says he was “misquoted.” Even more interesting is that the IPCC was warned in 2006 by leading glaciologist Georg Kaser that the 2035 forecast was baseless. “This number is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude,” Mr. Kaser told the Agence France-Presse. “It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”

The Journal goes on to list a number of the other wild claims made by alarmists over the years, all of which have been debunked and yet the alarmists never seem to be held accountable for their actions which would cost the world $trillions which might go towards solving real problems like world poverty, hunger, disease, literacy…

It boggles the mind to think that ANYONE still listens to the Warmers and their alarmist nonsense. Still more frightening to see that world leaders take this crap seriously!

Climategate-I was the revelation that climate scientists crusading over global warming at East Anglia University had tried to censor inconvenient data and shut dissenters out of academic journals. Climategate-II is the revelation that the 2007 report of the International Panel on Climate Change, saying Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2035, was not science at all but idle, unsubstantiated speculation.

It speaks volumes for the huge biases within IPCC that it took two years for this hoax to be exposed. Any hoax opposing the global warming thesis would be exposed in ten seconds flat. The IPCC is willing to swallow unexamined what it finds convenient, while raising a thousand technical objections to anything inconvenient. This is religious crusading, not objective science. The tactics being used to discredit and destroy heretics is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition.

Climategate-II is also a sad example of green imperialism. Rather than accept the findings of foreign scientists alone, Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, appointed a panel of Indian scientists on Himalayan melting. “My concern is that this comes from western scientists … it is high time India makes an investment in understanding what is happening in the Himalayan ecosystem.”

The Indian panel, headed by V K Raina, looked at 150 years of data gathered by the Geological Survey of India from 25 Himalayan glaciers. It was the first comprehensive study of the region. It concluded that while Himalayan glaciers had long been retreating, there was no recent acceleration of the trend, and nothing to suggest that the glaciers would disappear. In short, the IPCC had perpetrated an alarmist hoax without scientific foundation.

Wait a second! The IPCC made up and printed false propaganda? Say it ain’t so:

I have been extremely critical of the IPCC for misrepresenting the work I have contributed to with colleagues, and in fact, the entire scientific literature on disasters and climate change. So it was with some interest that I found the following expert comment in the IPCC report (here in PDF, p. 121):

I think this is inappropriate. It leads the reader into interpreting recent events in a particular way without providing supporting information. This suggestion, that the losses in 2004and 2005 draw Pielke’s results into question, needs to be supported with a reference or a solid in chapter assessment. What does Pielke think about this?

(Francis Zwiers, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis)

What is the “this” that Dr. Zwiers suggested was inappropriate? It was all but certainly this passage that survived the review process and appear in the final report:

A previous normalisation of losses, undertaken for U.S. hurricanes by Pielke and Landsea (1998) and U.S. floods (Pielke et al., 2002) included normalising the economic losses for changes in wealth and population so as to express losses in constant dollars. These previous national U.S. assessments, as well as those for normalised Cuban hurricane losses (Pielke et al., 2003), did not show any significant upward trend in losses over time, but this was before the remarkable hurricane losses of 2004 and 2005.

What did Pielke think about this? Good question, easily answered. The IPCC never asked, but that did not stop the IPCC from making up an answer for me, which it did in its response to Zwiers (here in PDF, at p. 121):

I believe Pielke agrees that adding 2004 and 2005 has the potential to change his earlier conclusions – at least about the absence of a trend in US Cat losses.

These comments speculating on my views were made by the IPCC in August, 2006.

~~~

So not only did the IPCC AR4 WGII egregiously misrepresent the science of disasters and climate change, but when questions were raised about that section by at least one expert reviewer, it simply made up a misleading and false response about my views. Not good.

And don’t look over there!

Australia’s peak science agency, the CSIRO, has backed away from attributing a decade of drought in Tasmania to climate change, claiming ”the jury is still out” on the science.

The comments follow the issuing of a CSIRO report yesterday, revealing drought has cut water availability in northern Tasmania’s premier wine growing region by 24 per cent, with riverflows reaching record lows. One of the report’s co-authors, hydrologist David Post, told The Canberra Times there was ”no evidence” linking drought to climate change in eastern Australia, including the Murray-Darling Basin.

”At this stage, we’d prefer to say we’re talking about natural variability. The science is not sufficiently advanced to say it’s climate change, one way or the other. The jury is still out on that,” Dr Post said.

No wonder even the Europeans are starting to have doubts about the ignorant carbon tax scheme:

A poll released Wednesday showed that the public appeared to have turned against the planned tax. The survey by pollster ViaVoice showed 51 percent of the French thought the government should abandon it.

Settled science my ass……

It has been revealed that a “sleight of hand” was used in the computer program that rated 2005 as “THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” Skeptical climate researchers have discovered extensive manipulation of the data within the U.S. Government’s two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. These centers are being accused of creating a strong bias toward warmer temperatures through a system that dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature record reports are based. The two investigators say the system has been distorted in other ways as well. They have documented their findings in great detail in a scientific report that has been posted online. These findings are presented as a part of my television special report ”Global Warming: The Other Side” telecast Thursday night, January 14th at 9 PM here on KUSI TV.

It’s seven parts, 10 minutes each part, but well worth the time:

Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries, said the deal had “the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It’s nothing short of climate change scepticism in action. It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever. Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush.”

John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: “The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport. Ed Miliband [UK climate change secretary] is among the very few that come out of this summit with any credit.” It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen.”

Lydia Baker of Save the Children said world leaders had “effectively signed a death warrant for many of the world’s poorest children. Up to 250,000 children from poor communities could die before the next major meeting in Mexico at the end of next year.”

~~~

Negotiators will now work on individual agreements such as forests, technology, and finance – but, without strong leadership, the chances are that it will take years to complete.

What a freakin joke. A death warrant for 250,000 children becaaaaaause? Isn’t it obvious….the third world countries wanted this scam to continue so those rich nations could pay them off. But hey, some people are still getting rich:

No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

Pachauri built up his riches by powering the India based Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) which later became The Energy Research Institute. The group he was director of since 1981. This group was his launching point in gaining power:

Initially, when Dr Pachauri took over the running of TERI in the 1980s, his interests centred on the oil and coal industries, which may now seem odd for a man who has since become best known for his opposition to fossil fuels. He was, for instance, a director until 2003 of India Oil, the country’s largest commercial enterprise, and until this year remained as a director of the National Thermal Power Generating Corporation, its largest electricity producer.

In 2005, he set up GloriOil, a Texas firm specialising in technology which allows the last remaining reserves to be extracted from oilfields otherwise at the end of their useful life. However, since Pachauri became a vice-chairman of the IPCC in 1997, TERI has vastly expanded its interest in every kind of renewable or sustainable technology, in many of which the various divisions of the Tata Group have also become heavily involved, such as its project to invest $1.5 billion (930 million pounds) in vast wind farms.

Dr Pachauri’s TERI empire has also extended worldwide, with branches in the US, the EU and several countries in Asia. TERI Europe, based in London, of which he is a trustee (along with Sir John Houghton, one of the key players in the early days of the IPCC and formerly head of the UK Met Office) is currently running a project on bio-energy, financed by the EU. Another project, co-financed by our own Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the German insurance firm Munich Re, is studying how India’s insurance industry, including Tata, can benefit from exploiting the supposed risks of exposure to climate change. Quite why Defra and UK taxpayers should fund a project to increase the profits of Indian insurance firms is not explained.

Even odder is the role of TERI’s Washington-based North American offshoot, a non-profit organisation, of which Dr Pachauri is president. Conveniently sited on Pennsylvania Avenue, midway between the White House and the Capitol, this body unashamedly sets out its stall as a lobbying organisation, to “sensitise decision-makers in North America to developing countries’ concerns about energy and the environment”.

TERI-NA is funded by a galaxy of official and corporate sponsors, including four branches of the UN bureaucracy; four US government agencies; oil giants such as Amoco; two of the leading US defence contractors; Monsanto, the world’s largest GM producer; the WWF (the environmentalist campaigning group which derives much of its own funding from the EU) and two world leaders in the international ‘carbon market’, between them managing more than $1 trillion (620 billion pounds) worth of assets.

All of this is doubtless useful to the interests of Tata back in India, which is heavily involved not just in bio-energy, renewables and insurance but also in “carbon trading”, the worldwide market in buying and selling the right to emit CO2. Much of this is administered at a profit by the UN under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) set up under the Kyoto Protocol, which the Copenhagen treaty was designed to replace with an even more lucrative successor.

Under the CDM, firms and consumers in the developed world pay for the right to exceed their ‘carbon limits’ by buying certificates from those firms in countries such as India and China which rack up ‘carbon credits’ for every renewable energy source they develop – or by showing that they have in some way reduced their own ‘carbon emissions’.

It is one of these deals, reported in last week’s Sunday Telegraph, which is enabling Tata to transfer three million tonnes of steel production from its Corus plant in Redcar to a new plant in Orissa, thus gaining a potential 1.2 billion pounds in ‘carbon credits’ (and putting 1,700 people on Teesside out of work).

More than three-quarters of the world ‘carbon’ market benefits India and China in this way. India alone has 1,455 CDM projects in operation, worth $33 billion (20 billion pounds), many of them facilitated by Tata – and it is perhaps unsurprising that Dr Pachauri also serves on the advisory board of the Chicago Climate Exchange, the largest and most lucrative carbon-trading exchange in the world, which was also assisted by TERI in setting up India’s own carbon exchange.

Not only the Chicago Climate Exchange. In recent years he has been appointed to the board of the company Siderian, a venture capital firm, and the Nordic Glitnir Bank. Became chairman of the Indochina Sustainable Infrastructure Fund and been named an adviser to the Credit Suisse bank, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the investment fund Pegasus. And NONE of these companies publish his salary for his “expertise.”

One subject the talkative Dr Pachauri remains silent on, however, is how much money he is paid for all these important posts, which must run into millions of dollars. Not one of the bodies for which he works publishes his salary or fees, and this notably includes the UN, which refuses to reveal how much we all pay him as one of its most senior officials.

~~~

But the real question mark over TERI’s director-general remains over the relationship between his highly lucrative commercial jobs and his role as chairman of the IPCC. TERI have, for example, become a preferred bidder for Kuwaiti contracts to clean up the mess left by Saddam Hussein in their oilfields in 1991. The $3 billion (1.9 billion pounds) cost of the contracts has been provided by the UN. If successful, this would be tenth time TERI have benefited from a contract financed by the UN.

So…..the world’s children will die en-masse because of jackasses like Pachauri who use the silly hysteria of man-made global warming to gain power and money or because the rich nations didn’t pay up?

Of course, it’s non-binding, meaning no one has to do anything:

President Barack Obama announced Friday a “meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough” on a global effort to curb climate change. But Obama said, “It is going to be very hard, and it’s going to take some time” to get to a legally binding treaty.

The ego on this man is blinding. Unprecedented? Dude, it’s NON-BINDING!

President Barack Obama, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and South African President Jacob Zuma have agreed to a political “accord” that the official said will “provide the foundation for an eventual legally binding treaty.”

In the accord, the official said, “nations will list their actions and stand behind them.”

World leaders were looking to President Obama to help break a deadlock at the climate conference in Copenhagen, but prospects had looked bleak as White House officials indicated that Chinese officials were refusing to budge on their refusal to allow a transparent verification system, a stance that would have made a deal difficult to achieve.

Of course Obama will ensure our economy is further weakened by “standing behind” the accord….India and China, not so much.

…Many environmentalists, as well as leaders from both Europe and the developing world, have said they are disappointed there will not be a legally binding treaty finished here in Copenhagen. To delay it until 2012, as the new drafts states, could cause a major outcry from some groups.

The proposal, a political statement labeled “the Copenhagen Accord,” also lacks the kind of independent verification of emission reductions by developing countries than the United States and others are insisting on. It calls upon the world’s nations to collectively reduce their emissions 80 percent by 2050.

A January 2009 poll by Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which can be viewed right here, rated global warming dead last as a priority issue—number 20 out of 20—well below issues like the economy, jobs, terrorism, Social Security, education and Medicare, to name a few. Democrats’ desire to jam Americans by attempting to make global warming a priority and the EPA the tip of the spear is a mistake. Democrats are demonstrating that they are out of step with Middle America and in lock-step with those outliers desiring a command-and-control economy.

This is not to say that Republicans are in touch with the needs of those in the middle, it’s just to point-out the obvious; the public’s interest in addressing global warming is waning. Many folks are quite frankly a bit confused. The rabid zeal with which many of the global warming alarmists advocate and the redistributive wealth solutions they advance leave reasonable people in Middle America wondering if this fanatical environmentalism is the new socialism. Are these environmental extremists like watermelons, green on the outside and red on the inside?

Most Americans have little to no interest in the globalism that attaches to any discussion of reparations or remedies to be paid to developing nations by developed nations as part of a global warming solution. In fact, most Americans are likely more isolationist than not, with tough economic sledding at home and two wars abroad. Further, any solution assumes that there is in fact a global warming problem, which some argue may also be in dispute, given recent revelations that some of the science behind global warming was done to produce a predetermined result.

Given the gravity of the financial cost that any global warming solution would have on the world economy—$45 trillion has been mentioned—no solution should be proposed without a virtual unanimity of solid science behind global warming.

Many Americans have read that 10-20% of global warming is man made and 80-90% of global warming is natural, not man made. Additionally, they believe that global warming is part of a natural cycle that has been occurring on earth for 4.5 billion years.

Nonetheless, the desire for a clean environment is non-partisan—we all want it, and many of us on the left, right and in the middle are doing our part every day to protect the environment and reduce the size of our carbon footprint, without the need for globalism, redistributive wealth solutions, or saber-rattling by environmental extremists.

Climate change activists are right. We are in for walloping shifts in the planet’s climate. Catastrophic shifts. But the activists are wrong about the reason. Very wrong. And the prescription for a solution—a $27 trillion solution—is likely to be even more wrong. Why?

Climate change is not the fault of man. It’s Mother Nature’s way. And sucking greenhouse gases from the atmosphere is too limited a solution. We have to be prepared for fire or ice, for fry or freeze. We have to be prepared for change.

We’ve been deceived by a stroke of luck. In the two million years during which we climbed from stone-tool wielding Homo erectus with sloping brows to high-foreheaded Homo urbanis, man the inventor of the city, we underwent 60 glaciations, 60 ice ages. And in the 120,000 years since we emerged in our current physiological shape as Homo sapiens, we’ve lived through 20 sudden global warmings. In most of those, temperatures have shot up by as much as 18 degrees within a mere 20 years.

All this took place without smokestacks and tailpipes.

But don’t let such common sense logic dissuade the shakedown artists from redistributing the wealth of the “have” nations while holding down the “have not” nations from actually bettering their lives.

Funny how they dismiss McAleer as not worth their trouble. How dare he question them on their “green” credentials. Right?

The U.N. estimates 40,500 tons of carbon dioxide will be pumped into the atmosphere during the 12-day conference – 90 percent of it from flights. The rest comes from waste and electricity related to transport to and from the conference center and lodging in and around the Danish city.

Most of the leaders were flying either on commercial airlines or government-owned jets and Sweden was one of the few to announce plans to offset those aviation emissions – something it does routinely. Most are doing nothing to boost their green credentials and some saw no reason to treat their trip to the U.N. climate talks any differently.

And today on Neil Cavuto the filmmaker was assaulted on live tv today by those oh so tolerant lefties, and Neil rightly points out that you see none of this from the right side of the aisle:

On the conference itself, it appears to be falling apart:

The Copenhagen climate change conference appeared to be imploding from within and exploding from without on Wednesday.

Police fired tear gas, brandished batons and detained more than 200 protesters who tried to push through the security cordon around the Bella Center, as negotiations inside bogged down, for the second time this week, over differences between China and the West over emissions, funding issues and transparency…

On Tuesday, Hedegaard made an emotional appeal for countries to put aside their differences to finalize a deal — after the G-77 bloc of developing nations accused her of trying to ram through an agreement amenable to the U.S. and other big industrialized nations.

But no sooner had Rasmussen assumed the presidency than those tensions burst out in the open again, with China, India, Bolivia, South Africa and Sudan saying they would block attempts by the Danish delegation to produce a draft text favored by most Western countries.

And while the world awaits Obama, his buddy and pal Hugo Chavez railed against the rich:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez held court in Copenhagen Wednesday, criticizing the polluting ways of wealthy nations, like the U.S.

“The rich are destroying the world,” he told delegates. Venezuela’s economy depends heavily on comparatively dirty heavy oil, much of which it sells to the United States.

Just another day in the leftist utopia where a filmmaker who asks the inconvenient questions gets escorted out by security:

Or gets his microphone broken:

After these latest events some are suggesting Phelim should take out the “Not Evil” from his movie….I’m starting to agree.

As much as it is being downplayed, however, the average person is not so much a fool as the left would portray them to be. Polls show that belief in AGW is down to 57% from 81% two years ago, which is why the left is saying we need shock treatments. They better get their eyed on where they are heading as that iceberg is directly ahead.

The Tip of the Climategate Iceberg

A skeptical public repeatedly has been told that questions about purported global warming are closed. “I think everybody is clear on the science. I think scientists are clear on the science … I think that this notion that there’s some debate … on the science is kind of silly,” said President Obama’s Press Secretary Robert Gibbs when asked Monday about the president’s response to the controversy. The flack was talking smack.

Contrary to the whitewash job conducted by propagandists, there are 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has collected more than 30,000 American scientists urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto Treaty, which pushes draconian measures to reduce carbon emissions. Much hay is made of 2,500 United Nations scientists who back Kyoto, but there are many more scientists with Ph.D.s among the 30,000 skeptics than there are among the oft-cited 2,500, most of whom are government bureaucrats without advanced degrees.

Climategate Revelations are but the Tip of a Giant Iceberg, says Atmospheric Scientist

(Dr. Bill Gray) Had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events I would have likely been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate degradation.

There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO_2 ) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate

~~~

The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO_2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO_2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate.

The Cap-and-Trade bill presently before Congress, the likely climate agreements coming out of the Copenhagen Conference, and the EPA’s just announced decision to treat CO_2 as a pollutant represents a grave threat to the industrial world’s continued economic development. We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth. Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country’s sovereignty.

The Climate-Change Travesty

The Financial Times response to the CRU materials is: The scientific case for alarm about global warming “is growing more rather than less compelling.” If so, then could anything make the case less compelling? A CRU e-mail says: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment” — this “moment” is in its second decade — “and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate-change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars — and substantially diminished freedom.

Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. On it, and hence on them, the planet’s fate depends. So some of them consider it virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer-review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over.

The Huffington Post is of course, hyperventilating:

ClimateGate: The 6 Most Dubious Claims About The Supposed “Global Warming Hoax”

A few weeks ago, hackers broke into the emails of one of the Climate Research Unit of The University of East Anglia, and climate skeptics have been having a field day making mountains out of molehills about what the emails contain. The verdict on global warming is in — it’s caused by humans and it is happening and nothing in the emails challenges that. However, with the internet abuzz about what has been labeled “ClimateGate,” we thought we should set the record straight about the rumors, lies and insinuations about what the emails actually contain — and what they “prove” about climate change. “ClimateGate” itself is a misnomer. Perhaps the nickname should be “SwiftHack” for the way people with political agendas have “swiftboated” the global warming reality. As world attention turns to the climate conference in Copenhagen this December, this email hack acts as a distraction from the huge task at hand of getting world leaders to commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As professor Richard Somerville says, “We’re facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public.”

You gotta love it! Hysteric after Hysteric after Hysteric plugging the holes in the dike. Hysterics in their posh accommodations aboard the Hystanic, wining and dining, serenaded by Al, greased out with government largesse, demanding more for their future orders of beluga caviar. Retiring to the smoking room to sit back and and discuss with comic disdain the great unwashed and their plans for their servitude.

HARD ASTARBOARD!

I’ve traveled and worked extensively throughout Mexico and managed to contract Montezuma’s revenge on several occasions and if offered the option, I’ll go with Montezuma on any given day.  The symptoms are similar to flu symptoms, only twenty to thirty times worse than the not so deadly H1N1 wasted and bungled crisis or hoax.  You could say that the H1N1 manufactured crisis wasn’t going as well as the administration hoped nor is the Climate Conference going as well as the Socialist Leaders of Third World Nations had hoped.

I was guiding hunters with my friend Knarley Manners on the Red Deer River In North Central BC, when I contracted the disease, I became too sick to work, so my friend Knarley who was also the boss on this expedition, instructed me to take out the elk meat and trophies with three pack horses and to get his older brother to come back to take my place and to bring in more supplies.  No one likes to be around someone who looks like he is dieing and I needed to go home to rest and get some medicine to recover.

The ride out was hard, my skin felt like my clothes were like sandpaper and rubbing me raw, I was so cold I was shivering and yet I was steaming from under my jacket and suffering from severe stomach cramps.

I was riding my favorite horse Dallas, a Clydesdale Quarter cross that had saved my bacon on several occasions.   I had pulled her from the mare while she was being foaled with calf chains, a major no-no in the horse world; but time was running out and something had to be done, it worked and the foal lived to be a source of joy for thirteen years.  No one else wanted to ride her, she had the habit of wanting to buck really high in the morning while moving towards the men around a campfire.  She scared everyone and to tell the truth, I loved it when she bucked towards guys eating breakfast and drinking coffee around a campfire, their eyes showed a lot of white when 1600 pounds of horseflesh was jumping four feet off the ground in a reckless exuberance that caused sheer panic on the ground.  She knew exactly what she was doing and how to stay out of trouble.  When it was my turn to cook, she made a point of wandering into the kitchen area and watching me work while she stood in the midst of everything without breaking or knocking anything over.  Although everyone was afraid to ride her, including Knarley, I could put six or seven kids on her at home and she would walk around all day as if it were an honor to pack them around the yard, the kids would scream and laugh while she slowly walked around until one of them started to fall off and she would stop until the kid was pulled back on her back or fell the rest of the way off.  She was also a great comedienne, when we were crossing a wild river and the guys were tense and nervous, she would seize the moment by putting her head completely under water and blowing bubbles.  The guys would crack up with laughter and finish crossing the river without the tension.

But today, she knew I was sick and it was a serous trip we were making.  The Red Deer is a deadly wild River that can throw up rocks the size of a Volkswagen once in a while so there was no consideration of foolishness while we walked the narrow trail of frozen mud and ice about twenty feet above the river.

Suddenly my lead pack horse stopped.  You must realize these horses are well trained and know when they are in trouble to stop and wait for the boss to come and straighten out the problem.  The pack horses are tied head to tail with a six foot length of rope.  The rope is tied from the nylon halter on the head and secured to the tail of the horse in front with a squaw knot.  This knot is designed to release if you pull on the loose end of either the tail or the rope.  The rider holds the lead rope of the first pack horse in one hand as a safety measure.  I stopped Dallas and turned around to view a big problem.  My middle pack horse, Bart, had slipped off the trail and was hanging suspended against the sheer wall of the cliff, over the raging river below.

I tied Dallas and walked over to Bart, things were definitely not going well.  The tail of one horse and the head of another was holding up a thousand pound pack horse with one hundred and forty pounds of elk and an elk head and rack on its back.  I realized I was in danger of losing all three animals if I didn’t do something really fast.  I walked over to Dallas and untied two thirty four foot ropes that were tied to the saddle.  (This is the length of a throw cinch for packing with a top pack, this is the pack on top of the panniers that is used to tie the diamond and it is the length I use to picket a horse with a bowline beneath a front fetlock, with the other end tied to a sapling.  Like I said these horses are well trained and can do almost everything, except play checkers.)  I dropped down onto Bart’s back and ran a rope around his belly in front of his hind legs, I then ran the other rope around his chest behind his front legs.  I then tied off both ends of the two ropes to poplar saplings that were growing along the trail.  I untied the two pack horses that had been holding up the suspended horse and led them further down the trail, out of the way.

I then walked back to the horse in trouble and dropped down on him once again and removed the panniers and pack saddle and climbed up on the trail.  At this point I could have cut him loose and said adios; but that isn’t my style.

A man my size can pull on a rope and lift half a horse but not a whole horse, of course I am talking about a strong man not a man ravaged by Beaver Fever.  I untied one rope at a time and pulled to gain a foot of clearance and then retied the rope and repeated the process on the other rope; seesawing the horse up the cliff face until I had about ten feet of free rope that wasn’t being used.  I backed Dallas up to the two poplar saplings and while maintaining the half wrap around the trees, I retied the excess rope to the side rings on her breast collar.  She walked away effortlessly and the poor pack horse came up and over the lip of the cliff.  I made sure to stop her before she crushed him against the poplars.  I backed her and untied the two ropes and unwrapped them from the pack horse while he laid on the side of the cliff in exhaustion and pain.  There was a light snow and the frozen mud was even more treacherous, the decisive moment would come when he tried to stand, it is hard for horses to rise up from a prone position and even harder on ice.  If he slipped now, it was the end for him.

Finally he resigned himself to stand, with a long sigh he pushed himself up with his front legs and brought his hind legs up underneath him.  The legs slipped for a second, but he caught himself and stood.  I led him forward and applied bacon grease to the rope burns and scrapes.  I put the pack saddle on him and laced the packs on with a One Man Diamond.  It was getting dark and we still had about ten miles to the truck and the corrals for the horses.

Now things didn’t go well on that cold day above the river and they didn’t go well when I contracted Beaver Fever; but I saw the problem and overcame the situation with determination and expertise.

Professor Stephan Schneider, from Stanford, a senior member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was promoting his new book at a press conference when he was asked a question about his opinions on the leaked emails concerning the fraud perpetrated by Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University.  Instead of confronting the problem like a man with integrity, he decided that things were not going well and called in  armed security guards to confront the man asking the question.  True, it is hard to explain how a science can be based on fraudulent data, but the questions are not going away.  Relying on an evangelistic fraud like Al Gore to lie away lies with lies will not make the problem go away,  Actually the problem becomes magnified with denial of glaring evidence of fraud and manipulation of data. The refrain that says, “What if the problem is real” is fast running out of credibility.  

There is science and there is faith.  To expect literate cognitive people to fall for the hysterical plea that the risk of a Hoax is too big of a gamble to deny the possibility is preposterous.   It is time for the left to support their absurd claims or let their Hoax horseflesh be swept away by the river of truth and reality.  Their claims are unsupportable and they don’t have the integrity nor the expertise to save their wild claims, I expect them to use this Orwellian tactic more and more in the future to keep their Hoax from being borne down the river of reality with many other fraudulent claims throughout history.  Congratulations Professor Schneider, for being the first Leftist to implement the only strategy the Progressive Marxists have left to continue the Hoax, the Chicago Thug Method of Intimidation.  The River of Reality can be a rough and dangerous ride Professor Schneider, we will see how long you can stay afloat in the light of real science, integrity, and honesty.

One thing all answers have in common: They are all grounded in perception as opposed to reality.

Obama has accomplished the amazing feat of convincing millions of Americans that black is white, that cold is hot, that the bad economy is the fault of George W Bush, and the only things standing between America and peace on earth are those darn Republicans and greedy capitalists.

As author Thomas Sowell points out in ‘Is Reality Optional ?’ social history in the last 30 years has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good. And no-where is this more evident than in the ‘change’ Obama is foisting on the American people.

The empty rhetoric of ’social justice’ and ‘compassion’ is convincingly and successfully being used to justify ever more ludicrous social policies, which just happen to come with a huge price tag and more government control.

Ignored by the left and the media, however, is the inconvenient fact that every single policy promoted by Obama and passed by congress has been a dismal failure. From the jobs ’stimulus’ package that has cost taxpayers a whopping $236,436 per job created – to the the ‘cash for clunkers’ – to the $61 billion bucks taxpayers just lost through the AIG and auto industry bailout.

Add in the $75 billion mortgage relief program to stem the largely government caused ‘foreclosure crisis.’ This program has helped a grand total of 31,000 borrowers to date, a paltry 4% of the 760,000 who have applied.

Despite the dismal failures of these policies, Obama and his cohorts continue advocating more of the same. As Dr. Sowell points out, “The anointed are often wrong but never in doubt.”

Though 80% of Americans are happy with their health insurance, Obama has declared a health care crisis. Obama and congress have devoted most of the year to imposing government run health care on all citizens, despite the fact that 61% of Americans oppose it.

Though evidence has recently surfaced undermining the dire claims of global warming, our elected elites continue to ignore relevant science, insisting that a massive redistribution of our wealth is needed in order to pay an imagined ‘climate debt’ to third world countries. Meanwhile, record unemployment and rising fees and taxes continue to devastate businesses and families across the nation. The exception are federal workers, who just got a 2% pay raise.

As Democrat leaders and their allies take to the airwaves denouncing corporate greed, our public servants are scrambling to enact policies that enable them to extort an ever increasing portion of the wealth created by American workers. In the process, severely undermining the rule of law and ignoring the limitations imposed by our Constitution.

The Obama administration has plunged America into debt to the tune of a record $12 trillion dollars. That’s $39,000 owed by every man woman and child in America. And there is no end in sight.

House Democrats just passed a $1.1 trillion dollar spending bill to fund the federal government. This bill includes $2 billion for ‘climate’ research, major spending boosts for domestic agencies and foreign aid. It also includes more than 5,200 pork barrel projects costing $3.9 billion. On top of that, Democrats are preparing to raise the federal debt ceiling by as much as $1.8 trillion before New Year’s.

Obama’s policies are destroying the dollar and bankrupting America. Moody’s just issued a warning that our triple A rating is in danger. Our president is also in the process of ceding American sovereignty to world bodies like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

What Obama has accomplished is astounding. He has managed in the short space of one year to dramatically alter the historical focus on individual rights and liberties to an ephemeral concept that focuses on government primacy.

Due to Obama’s charisma and his skill in manipulating the system and redefining words to fit transient meanings, many Americans continue to believe Obama’s rhetoric, willfully ignoring the underlying reality. Their belief has taken on a religious fervor based on faith and emotion and any facts to the contrary are summarily dismissed. After all, “Obama won.”

Once again, Thomas Sowell says it best: “We may be entering an era where the greatest dangers to the survival of Western civilization will come from internal social deterioration. Other great civilizations have declined and collapsed. We may be the first, however, to sink slowly into the quagmire, still beaming from ear to ear in self-congratulation at how ‘innovative’ we are in our social policies.”

Obama is a dangerous man. He has convinced millions of Americans that they are entitled to the fruits of another man’s labor. Virtually all of his policies to date have been designed to foster a dependence on government. But what the government gives, the government can take. As millions of enslaved peoples across the globe could attest – if they were allowed.

Crossposted from Right Bias