Dr Tim Ball, Canada Free Press

John Topping, who served as editor of portions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) First Assessment Report (FAR) concerning impacts of climate change, wrote an article titled, “Massachusetts v. EPA: A Turning Point for the US on Climate Change?”

He sees the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) loss as a victory because they can now control CO2, fossil fuels, and the US economy. Frighteningly, it’s based on completely falsified science and is totally unnecessary. It’s what President Obama really meant when he talked about change. In a pre-election interview he revealed his true intention, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” EPA has launched the rocket with its economy-destroying warhead.

Read More:

Reuters

 Obama is digging in to push his Cap & Trade plan

The United States released a new draft report on climate change on Monday, one week before the expected unveiling of a compromise U.S. Senate bill that aims to curb heat-trapping greenhouse emissions.
The report, a draft of the Fifth U.S. Climate Action Report that will be sent to the United Nations, says bluntly: "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced … Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."
Without action to stop them, climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions will rise over 8,000 megatonnes by mid-century, the draft said. By adopting measures detailed in a bill passed last year by the U.S. House of Representatives, these emissions will drop beneath 2,000 megatonnes. They’re now about 6,500 megatonnes. The United Nations measures greenhouse gas emissions in megatonnes, or million metric tons.

The effects of climate change are already evident, the draft said: warming air and oceans, vanishing mountain glaciers, thawing permafrost, signs of instability in the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica and rising sea levels.

Read More:

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: