By Jerome Corsi, WorldNetDaily

 Obama has Nasa focus on “Global Warming” instead of moon missions

The Obama administration plans to ax NASA plans to return astronauts to the moon, according to anticipated 2011 federal budget the White House aims to release to Congress in the first week of February, Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert reports.

Instead, the administration plans to reorient NASA to a much more terrestrial mission – monitoring earth climate changes in an effort to document global warming.

An article in the Orlando Sentinel reported the Obama administration 2011 budget would eliminate money for the constellation program that was supposed to return Americans to the moon by 2020.

Also cut by the Obama administration were two rockets key to the NASA plan to return to the moon – the Ares I rocket to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space stations orbiting the earth and the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies to take humans back to the moon.

"There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no constellation program at all," Robert Block and Mark Matthews of the Orlando Sentinel wrote. "In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects – principally, researching and monitoring climate change."

Read More:

By Matt Cover, CNS News

 This guy is as dangerous as global warming according to the TSA nominee

Erroll Southers, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), said the war on terror should be given “some parity” with other national priorities such as global warming, education, and the economy.

The TSA, an element of the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for the security of U.S. transportation systems, including commercial aviation. Southers made his remarks in a 2008 video interview with the Videojug.com Web site.

In the online interview, Southers was asked, “How high should the ‘war on terror’ be on our list of national priorities?”

Southers answered:  “It should be high on our list of priorities because of, speaking globally, the threat that exists. Due to connectivity that we have with countries such as Israel, France, countries that are seen by groups, by Al Qaeda as being infidels or anti-Islamic, by the true nature of our alliance with them means that we are subject to being attacked as well.

Read More:

By Christopher Booker, UK telegraph

 The big lie is being exposed

A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Read More:

By Michael Barone, Real Clear Politics

Scientist discusses global warming

As Air Force One heads to Copenhagen for the climate summit Dec. 9, it will presumably not make a U-turn while flying over the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia near Norwich, England. But perhaps it should.

The 61 megabytes of CRU e-mails and documents made public by a hacker cast serious doubt on the ballyhooed consensus on manmade global warming that the Copenhagen summit was called to address.

The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals. Some of the more pungent e-mails:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

“Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.”

“I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU temperature station data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

You get the idea. The most charitable plausible explanation I have seen comes from The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle. “The CRU’s main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish.

Read More:

By Jim O’Neill, Canada Free Press

“Today we’re seeing that climate change is about more than a few unseasonably mild winters or hot summers. It’s about the chain of natural catastrophes and devastating weather patterns that global warming is beginning to set off around the world…the frequency and intensity of which are breaking records thousands of years old.”—Barack Hussein Obama

What does the recent release of documents surrounding “Climategate” mean?  It means that the “deniers” who have been claiming that the global warming Chicken Littles are wrong—are right.

It means that the pompous advocates of global warming hysteria, are liars, and/or gullable fools.

The increasingly irrelevant LSM (Lame Stream Media) are in full “damage control” mode.  They are doing an admirable job of trying to ignore the stink, but even the New York Times has had to break down, and say something.

Read More:

New York Post

The Obama administration just blew the whistle on . . . itself: The Treasury Department has reported that Team Obama’s claims about the “nominal” costs of its cap-and-trade bill aren’t really so nominal, after all.

And Team Obama knew it all along.

Nice. In one fell swoop, the Obama folks broke two separate campaign promises:

* No new taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

* Complete transparency in the legislative process.

How exactly did it break these vows? Look at the Treasury report.

The report shows that the cap and-trade bill the White House is pushing in Congress — in which companies have to buy “allowances” for carbon emissions — is far more expensive for Americans than advertised.

Sure, everyone knew the firms would pass these costs along to customers. But supporters of the bill claimed that consumers would face only “nominal” increases — barely $200 a year.

Wrong. The Treasury analysis puts the actual nationwide cost of cap-and-trade at some $200 billion a year — or $1,761 per household. That figure is very close to the $1,870 amount estimated by the Heritage Foundation prior to the vote in the House

Read More: