http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/nelson-mandela-a-candid-assessment?fb_action_ids=10200917621172546&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.UqcXpRlCqRU.like&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B1375801742666676%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%22.UqcXpRlCqRU.like%22%5D

Reblogging    http://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/there-is-no-denying-global-warming/

Here’s the Obama White House document detailing expenditures for climate change. Scroll down to Table 1. There are $5 billion in taxes and $8 billion in payments “in leu” of taxes “That May Reduce Greenhouse Gases” in 2013. I challenge you to find any law or regulation which authorizes these taxes. Congress voted AGAINST these taxes.    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

Obama warned us under his plans, “electricity rates will necessary skyrocket…. Coal-powered plants, natural gas plants, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations, that will cost money, that they will pass that money on to consumers.” 

• Absent any real world evidence that increasing CO2 harms life on this planet…
• disregarding the merits of evidence in thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies that both higher levels of CO2 and warmer climates are beneficial to life…
• in possession only of hypothetical computer models which have yet to work…

the Obama administration and a Democrat-dominated Congress allocated $3.4 billion to projects in 43 states to R&D and demonstrate sequestration of CO2, $2 billion of which is already committed.  And, the EPA will require hydrocarbon-fueled power plants to install this expensive but un-proven technology. 

According to this September 2013 report by the government’s non-partisan Congressional Research Service, “To date, there are no commercial ventures in the United States that capture, transport, and inject industrial-scale quantities of CO2 solely for the purposes of carbon sequestration.”…”For example, DOE states that the cost of deploying currently available CCS post-combustion technology on a supercritical pulverized coal-fired power plant would increase the cost of electricity by 80%.  The challenge of reducing the costs of CCS technology is difficult to quantify, in part because there are no examples of currently operating commercial-scale coal-fired power plants equipped with CCS.  Nor is it easy to predict when lower-cost CCS technology will be available for widespread deployment in the United States.”

The $3.4 billion is just the beginning.  These are just R&D projects.  The plants have not been built yet.  But Obama’s EPA is already shutting down power plants that produce the nation’s electricity.  The final cost could be 10’s or 100’s times more that that $3.4 billion.  And it will all come out of your pocket. 

Is the U.S. government insane?  No, this is big-government operating as usual, distributing the wealth of tax payers to the cronies of elected politicians and bureaucrats.  Like solar, wind, bio-fuel, electric car, ethanol fuel, the money – your taxes and your increased power bills – for carbon sequestration will go to cronies, and like those other technologies, carbon sequestration has no chance of reducing global warming.  There is no real world evidence that human-produced CO2 causes significant global warming.  You are being scammed once again, extorted to be precise. 

Extortion: The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42496.pdf      

The arguments made by NOAA, UN, EPA and so forth are dependent on a hypothesis which has been falsified many times over by real world data.  Proponents of the hypothesis created many computer models during three decades, but so far, none of these models has been able to accurately predict global temperatures retrospectively or prospectively.  A computer model is only a hypothesis.  A hypothesis must be tested against real world data.  The hypothesis predicted that increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would trigger catastrophic warming of the planet.  This has not happened.

Many billions of dollars have been spent attempting to validate this hypothesis over the last 30 years.  However, much to the consternation of the proponents, the planet has not warmed and the models have been unable to predict even the general direction of global temperature.  The actual measured temperature trend has been statistically flat for more than 15 years and during that the same period the trend of CO2 concentration has continued to increase in its long term trend which began before the industrial revolution, that is before humans began using coal, oil and gas.  Climate model after model, more than 70, have continued to predict warming, some continue to predict catastrophic warming, but the global temperature trend, as measured by the most accurate means possible (satellites), has remained trendless, statistically flat.

Weather and climate changes almost continuously locally and globally, but global climate and temperature are averages computed across years and across geography.  Despite temperature swings as much as 50 degrees in one day in some locations, the average temperature for planet has varied considerably less than 1 degree.

In addition, examinations of historical data have revealed that when global temperatures trends have increased, this increase occurred prior to increasing trends in CO2 concentration.  An effect cannot occur prior to a cause, so CO2 cannot be a significant cause or trigger for warming trends.  More likely trends of increasing CO2 are an effect of planetary warming, especially oceanic warming.  Humans contribute only minor CO2 compared to the oceans.

Other studies revealed that CO2 concentrations have historically been several times higher than today’s trace concentration of CO2 and during these elevated periods there was abundant life, e.g. the Jurassic period of dinosaurs and nearly planet-wide jungle.  Many other real life scientific studies with growing various flora and fauna have shown that higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2, even several times higher, result in enhanced growth.  These were not computer models but growing of real plants and animals.

Other studies revealed several periods (e.g. Roman, Middle Ages) when temperatures were warmer than the warmest of modern temperatures and during those warm periods life was abundant, while in contrast cold periods such as the Little Ice Age resulted in high death rates.  In other words, even if the planet were warming, the result would likely be good for living things, not catastrophically bad.

Finally, it has been revealed that many of the studies published by global warming proponents have been faked with manipulated data, and those global warming proponents have made many attempts to ostracize, black list, defame and defund scientists and others who were skeptical of their warmist claims.

In summary, the hypothesis espoused by a relatively small group of climate scientists has failed miserably, although many no doubt will continue to fight for their belief in order to keep their jobs, their grants, and travel benefits.  But, multiple countries have withdrawn support for the UN climate change regime and have begun reversing regulations and taxes on carbon.

Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor in environmental studies and politics in science concluded recently, after reading drafts of the UN climate report AR5 chapter 2,  “Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change — Zombie science — but I am declaring victory in this debate.”  Geologist Don Easterbrook states: “When compared to the also recently published NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) 1000+-page volume of data on climate change with thousands of peer-reviewed references, the inescapable conclusion is that the [UN] IPCC report must be considered the grossest misrepresentation of data ever published.”

Climate of Uncertainty: A U.N. report can’t explain the hiatus in global warming.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304713704579092883286839894

OPINION EUROPE

The Political Science of Global Warming: The U.N.’s latest climate-change report should be its last.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303464504579106993839343868

by Edward Snowden

This article by Edward Snowden was published Sunday in Der Spiegel.

In a very short time, the world has learned much about unaccountable secret agencies and about sometimes illegal surveillance programs. Sometimes the agencies even deliberately try to hide their surveillance of high officials or the public. While the NSA and GCHQ seem to be the worst offenders – this is what the currently available documents suggest – we must not forget that mass surveillance is a global problem in need of global solutions.

Such programs are not only a threat to privacy, they also threaten freedom of speech and open societies. The existence of spy technology should not determine policy. We have a moral duty to ensure that our laws and values limit monitoring programs and protect human rights.

Society can only understand and control these problems through an open, respectful and informed debate. At first, some governments feeling embarrassed by the revelations of mass surveillance initiated an unprecedented campaign of persecution to supress this debate. They intimidated journalists and criminalized publishing the truth. At this point, the public was not yet able to evaluate the benefits of the revelations. They relied on their governments to decide correctly.

Today we know that this was a mistake and that such action does not serve the public interest. The debate which they wanted to prevent will now take place in countries around the world. And instead of doing harm, the societal benefits of this new public knowledge is now clear, since reforms are now proposed in the form of increased oversight and new legislation.

Citizens have to fight suppression of information on matters of vital public importance. To tell the truth is not a crime.

Translated by Martin Eriksson. This text was written by Edward Snowden on November 1, 2013 in Moscow. It was sent to SPIEGEL staff over an encrypted channel.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-manifesto-for-the-truth/5356919      

https://magazin.spiegel.de/reader/index_SP.html#j=2013&h=45&a=119402581

This is an OUTSTANDING article by David Horowitz that should be read and understood by all lovers of freedom, especially tea party members, conservatives, Republicans and libertarians. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362992/uniting-right-david-horowitz/page/0/2

We do have free will, some of us anyway. Free will allows one to override human nature. Some people want to believe so strongly that they believe lies, they suspend disbelief and common sense. “Some” would be about 90% of the population who may listen to warnings, explanations, etc. but they won’t do anything about it until it actually happens.

The brain, genetically speaking, is part of the immune system, it responds when attacked, when hungry, basic needs, etc. An action of free will is a convergence of meta-information over and above the brain’s normal immune functions. An action of free will may not have been tested against nature, it usually isn’t.  We read about it somewhere and it is now part of the meta-information of our life.  Seldom have we actually burned our finger on the hot stove.  Properly used, an intended action of free will must first be tested against natural laws, against reality. Unfortunately, that testing rarely happens and ,instead, implementation is attempted on untested theories, ideologies and beliefs. Of the 10% remaining in the population who were not true believers, then 9% of those remaining are thinkers who will agree on an action plan. But only 1% will study the plan and test it against natural law before acting.

Ah utopia … if only human nature did not interfere, then everything could be perfect [satire].  You might like Robert Heinlein’s book “For us the Living.” Note that the proceeds from sale of the book are given to human exploration of outer space.  It seems Heinlein did not have much hope for the folk who remain on earth.  The economics in the book are interesting for utopian readers and briefly explained at this wiki.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs

“When hopes and dreams are loose in the streets, is well for the timid to lock doors, shutter windows, and lie low until the wrath has passed. For there is often a monstrous incongruity between the hopes, however noble and tender, and the action which follows them. It is as if ivied maidens and garlanded youths were to herald the four horsemen of the apocalypse…Almost all our contemporary movements showed in their early stages a hostile attitude toward the family, and did all they could to discredit and disrupt it. They did it by undermining the authority of parents; by facilitating divorce; by taking over responsibility for feeding, educating, and entertaining the children; and by encouraging illegitimacy. … a disruption of the family, whatever its causes, fosters automatically a collective spirit and creates a responsiveness to the appeal of mass movements.” ~ Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.  Download it for free, here: http://www.gobookee.org/true-believer-eric-hoffer/

“They were running the biggest start-up in the world, and they didn’t have anyone who had run a start-up, or even run a business,” said David Cutler, a Harvard professor and health adviser to Obama’s 2008 campaign.” …much less someone who had run a software business or a healthcare business. The person Obama appointed to run the FDA had never even set foot in a biotech company when she was appointed, yet she was responsible for regulating the entire food and drug industries.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/challenges-have-dogged-obamas-health-plan-since-2010/2013/11/02/453fba42-426b-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story_4.html 

Today, Obama issued an Executive Order “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change” which even the UN IPCC acknowledged is not happening and they don’t know why their climate models are not working. There is no smoking gun; CO2 is not pollution at its current atmospheric concentration or even at several times higher concentrations, nor is human-caused CO2 causing rapid temperature increases. A President interested in helping his country would tear down the EPA bureaucracy created for climate change, as Australia’s newly elected Prime Minister is doing. But not President Obama. Acting directly contrary to abundant scientific evidence, he orders a long list of government departments to become active at all levels across the country to prepare for climate change. So, since there has not been any climate change and there is no real world data that projects unusual climate change, what is Obama’s actual intent? Why do we need so much government control? It is not necessary, it will not be effective, but it already is and will be very costly. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/01/executive-order-preparing-united-states-impacts-climate-change