Archive for the Climategate Category

Hal Lewis resigns, APS scientist calls global warming scam greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud

Posted in Climategate, Global Warming with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 11, 2010 by saynsumthn

OCTOBER 9TH, 2010 4:54
Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society

The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emiritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010

Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists.

We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.

Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

Disturbing Anti-Global Warming,climate change (anti-human life video): blowing up children

Posted in climate change, Climategate, Copenhagen, Global Warming with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 4, 2010 by saynsumthn

WARNING- VIDEOS are Graphic !!!

This offensive video from the environmental group 10:10 was released on 9/30/2010 and then retracted on 10/1/2010.
Furor has erupted over the new 10:10 UK campaign video involving a school teacher (played by Gillian Anderson) who asks her children what they are doing for climate change and blows up her uncooperative students.

Conservatives are rabid. Progressives are embarrassed. It is not clear how many children have been frightened into cutting down their carbon emissions… likely very few.

FULL VIDEO- VERY DISTURBING !!!!

UK’s Eugenie Harvey, director of the 10:10 campaign, says it’s all about “sending signals to our leaders” that emission cuts are attainable and worth pursuing. “The campaign is about amending both behaviour and attitudes. We had a massive surge of members at the beginning, and it has been steadily rising ever since. Globally, we’ve had around 3,000 businesses sign up and 80,000 individuals. In the UK, around 45% of all councils have now signed up, too.” She states, “Somewhat perversely, the failure at Copenhagen actually emboldened us, proving we were not redundant.”

Are The Elite Inviting a Terror Attack in America in order to have a crisis to exploit?

Posted in climate change, Climategate, Glenn Beck, Global Warming, Homeland Security, New World Order, Obama, Rahm Amanuel, terrorism with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 7, 2010 by saynsumthn

I am not certain this would be correct, however it does not look good so far

From: Worldview Weekend:

Brannon Howse: January 6, 2010
Are The Elite Inviting a Terror Attack in America in order to have a crisis to exploit? Brannon says the answer is yes based on several recent events.
1. Obama is diverting intelligence assets to climate research.
2. MI5 told us about Detroit bomber’s terror links a year ago and yet he was not on the no fly list.
3. State Department using “Diversity Visa” to encourage immigrants from terror-ridden Yemen to come to America.
4. DHS plans to only catch 1 out of every 4 travelers that commit “major” criminal violations while entering U.S. on international flights in 2010.
5. Obama is going to release suspected terrorists so they can return to Yemen.
6. Homeland Secretary is incompetent and only got the job as a political payback for supporting Obama when he was running for the White House. If our government was really interested in preventing terror attacks we would place the best and brightest in this position.
7. Rocket launcher found in apartment in Houston along with Jihadist writings and no charges were filed. We open of the phones for your thoughts on this subject.
Click here to: Download the MP3

___________________________________________________________________________________________

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Wednesday afternoon that the unclassified version of a “comprehensive” preliminary White House review of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day will be released Thursday.

According to Gibbs, President Obama will make remarks in conjunction with the release of the review. He expected the release and comments in the early afternoon.

Officials are engaged in separate reviews of passenger screening procedures and the use of terror watch lists. The review to be released tomorrow largely relates to the watch lists, and was prepared by counterterrorism and homeland security adviser John Brennan.

Both Brennan and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will likely discuss their review at the White House tomorrow, Gibbs said. Napolitano’s review has focused largely on detection capabilities and screening.

Following a meeting with top officials Tuesday, the president said that the reviews continue to “reveal more about the human and systemic failures that almost cost nearly 300 lives.”

Officials have already updated government watch lists in the wake of the attack. The president says the system “is not broken” but lamented in comments Tuesday that 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the alleged bomber, was able to board the airplane despite numerous red flags being raised about him.

He said intelligence agencies knew enough to disrupt the terror attempt but failed to connect the dots to do so.

Gibbs said Wednesday that Mr. Obama will continue to examine and evaluate the security situation in the coming months.

As federal prosecutors formally charged suspected terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the preliminary report on the failed bombing of flight 253 is about to be made public. Bill Plante reports.

Joe Biden:
Mark my words. Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking.

Surge in former inmates accused of terrorism

WASHINGTON: As many as one in five former Guantanamo Bay detainees are suspected of or confirmed to have engaged in terrorist activity since being released, say US officials.

The 20 per cent rate is an increase on the 14 per cent of former inmates that a Pentagon report in April said were thought to have joined terrorist efforts, the officials said.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1/7/2010 Obama pulls CIA Agents off terrorism and puts them on ” GLOBAL RESEARCH PROJECTS” Seriously??????????
Deneen Borelli of the National Black Leadership Network discusses the CIAs use of resources as they begin sharing data with climate scientists.

_________________________________________________________________________________
Rham Emanuel

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Glenn Beck Rips Into Saul Alinsky And Obama


Rush Limbaugh on Saul Alinsky

Founder of The Weather Channel speaks out against global warming, 2010 has record freezing temps

Posted in climate change, Climategate, Copenhagen, Global Warming, Left Wing, Liberal with tags , , , , , , , on January 5, 2010 by saynsumthn

The founder of The Weather Channel speaks out against global warming. See coverage of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in The New American magazine:
http://thenewamerican.com

John Coleman slams global warming , ice caps are not going to melt, food supplies will be safe, none of these things are going to happen.

ATTN: Al Gore – watch this and weep : A Cold U.S. Forecast



EXTREME Weather SNOW WARNING for Central – South England

Freeze Warnings in Florida

Snowing in Dallas Texas

Patrick J. Michaels on Climate Change and Global Warming

Posted in climate change, Climategate, Environment with tags , , , , , , on December 22, 2009 by saynsumthn

Cato Institute Senior Fellow Patrick J. Michaels discusses climate change on various television programs. Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society

John Holdren “tax the bads …we’re trying to reduce” Could Children be next?

Posted in Abortion, birth control in water, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Civil Rights, climate change, Climategate, Copenhagen, Eugenics, Holdren, Maafa21, New World Order, Obama, Planned Parenthood, Socialism, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Uncategorized, United Nations with tags , , , , , , on December 15, 2009 by saynsumthn

In 2002 – John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar said this in an interview with Living On Earth:

“We need to accept the principle that it is better to tax bads, things that we’re trying to reduce, and correspondingly, lower the taxes on good things, things we’d like to encourage, like income and capital investment. And in that way, changing the incentive system that’s out there, we would start to move the society off the “business as usual” trajectory, in the direction that would reduce the disruption of climate with which we’re going to have to deal.”

With the recent Copenhagen push for Population Control and the embraceable of China’s One Child Policy – could Holdren have predicted the increase of taxing children?

READ THIS FOR MORE DETAILS Inconvenient Eugenicist, forced abortions and population control pushed in Copenhagen

In the 1970’s Holdren published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Although Holdren may not have absolutely stated that he wanted to add sterilizing agents to the nation’s water supplies to keep the population down, he did say that if the population did not “voluntarily” decrease, this could be one option. And Holdren should know, because he was on panels and in touch with high level government officials, birth control pushers, pro-abortion enthusiasts, and Zero Population Growth experts who were, in fact, espousing this type of coercion.

Holdren stated officially that one of his mentors was a Professor he had by the name of Paul Harrison.

Harrison suggested that infanticide was a legitimate form of population control when he wrote this in his book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, from page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past.

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published a book entitled, No Growth Society,

Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…

In an article entitled: The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects: by Holdren, Ehrlich and Gretchen C. Daily

It appears that Holdren and his company are suggesting that you can sacrifice some humans to save the “environment” ”

From the Footnotes: 7. Harm that would qualify as tolerable, in this context, could not be cumulative, else continuing additions to it would necessarily add up to unsustainable damage eventually. Thus, for example, a form and level of pollution that subtract a month from the life expectancy of the average member of the human population, or that reduce the net primary productivity of forests on the planet by 1 percent, might be deemed tolerable in exchange for very large benefits and would certainly be sustainable as long as the loss of life expectancy or reduction in productivity did not grow with time. Two of us have coined the term “maximum sustainable abuse” in the course of grappling with such ideas (Daily and Ehrlich 1992).

This is no surprise to me and I fully expect that in the push to save “Mother Earth” all “Human Mothers” will be vilified ! Population Control, Eugenics, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, all run together and all seem to attract the same type of people.

SOME HISTORY :

Many people are not aware of the fact that State GOVERNMENTS within the United States openly supported Eugenics. In fact, as early as 1907 Indiana had established the first GOVERNMENT “eugenics court” and the last GOVERNMENT Eugenics court was not closed until 1984, that was in Oregon. These Eugenics Courts, were GOVERNMENT Boards and they required the poor, the infirmed, “feebleminded” and minorities, which, included a large population of black people to appear before them to decide who could and could not pro-create. Remember, Eugenics Boards and GOVERNMENT Boards – were one in the same. Many of these underrepresented people groups were forcibly sterilized and coerced into birth control clinics in order to keep their GOVERNMENT welfare! Recently a well-documented film, called, Maafa21, produced by Life Dynamics in Denton, Texas, has exposed much of this abuse. You can get a copy here: http://www.maafa21.com. You can also google Eugenics in North Carolina, and read the GOVERNMENT documents which that state has opened up and get just a sneak peak of what a run-away GOVERNMENT board with this kind of power can do to people.

Preview of Maafa21:

One other important fact you may not be aware of is the history of the founding of the first group who fought for the legalization of Euthanasia. Most people are not aware that many of the exact same people who originally founded the idea of legalized euthanasia in the US, were the same ones who were on the Board of Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL). To examine this closer – all you have to do is get a copy of the New York Times from January 17,1938.

In 1938, just a few years prior to the American Birth Control League (ABCL) changing it’s name to Planned Parenthood, which today is the largest abortion provider in the nation, a group of American Eugenics Society Members and Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL) members got together and formed the National Society for the Legalization of Euthanasia. Heading this pro-euthanasia panel was a man by the name of Charles F. Potter who, in 1938 was also on the ABCL Committee for Planned Parenthood according to a February 1938, New York Times story. Potter was the leader of the First Humanist Society and organized this entire pro-euthanasia group.

Also on this pro-euthanasia board was: Sidney Goldstein who sat on the American Birth Control League’s National Council and later was on Planned Parenthood’s Board of Directors. Another member was Frank H. Hankins who was a managing editor for Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger’s newsletter called the Birth Control Review. Hankins was also an American Eugenics Society member. Another more famous name who was sat on the advisory board of this pro-euthanasia panel, was Julian Huxley, who was a later recipient of a Planned Parenthood award.

Mrs. F. Robertson Jones was also on this panel, she was an ABCL President, wrote for Sanger’s Birth Control Review , was an honorary board member of Planned Parenthood-World Population and a Board of Director of Planned Parenthood. ABCL Citizen’s Committee for Planned Parenthood member, Dr. Foster Kennedy, was also on the pro-euthanasia panel. American Eugenics Society Member, Clarence Cook Little, who was the President of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), at the same time he was on this pro-euthanasia panel. American Eugenics Society founder and friend to Margaret Sanger, Leon Whitney, also sat on this panel. Whitney advocated forced sterilization, was published in Sanger’s Birth Control Review, and openly praised Adolf Hitler for his Nazi effort. Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger was not on this panel, but she was a member of the American Eugenics Society and many of their members were on this panel. Sanger admitted that she gave a speech to the Klu Klu Klan and in her autobiography , she bragged that she received a dozen invites from the Klan for further speeches. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest Population Control and some would say “Eugenics Control” organization and they receive millions of dollars from the US GOVERNMENT. Care to ask why????

It is important to know this because the “population Control” , “Zero Population Growth”, “Planned Parenthood” crowds are buzzing around this administration and have been heavily involved in government decision making for years. In fact, Sanger’s Planned Parenthood organization receives over $1 million dollars a day from the Government to sterilize and abort this so-called over-populated society. Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute , reports that Black Minorities receive 5 abortions to every 1 white baby aborted in this nation. Is this coincidence or a form of racist and eugenic targeting? ( Special Note: Alan Guttmacher was a Planned Parenthood President and was also a Vice President of the American Eugenics Society. ) Remember that when they removed the GOVERNMENT Eugenics Courts, they appear to have replaced them with Federal Funding of Population Control Groups, like Planned Parenthood.

Do you really believe that if we can form GOVERNMENT Eugenics Boards which forcibly sterilized thousand of Americans, murder 50 million unborn children through abortion with the blessing and funding of the GOVERNMENT to the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, and form euthanasia panels to legalize the act, that we would never have GOVERNMENT death panels? Then…think again !

PS – Holdren wasn’t the first to advocate adding sterilizing agents to the food and water supplies: Watch this clip from Maafa21

More: Fewer Kids, More Abortions, Better Environment

Also View: Robert Reich: Honest about Death Panels? “If you are very old – we’re gonna let you die !”

Elaine Riddick- Forcefully sterilized at the age of 14, full interview from the film: Maafa21:


America’s State of the Climate June 19,2009

Living in Earth – Interview with Obama Science Czar: John Holdren

CURWOOD: From the Jennifer and Ted Stanley studios in Somerville, Massachusetts, this is Living on Earth. I’m Steve Curwood.

YOUNG: And I’m Jeff Young.

Back in 2007 it took a court order to get the Bush administration to follow a congressional mandate and issue a comprehensive report about climate change. But the Obama administration has embraced the opportunity enthusiastically.

Its 192-page report is called “The Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.” It’s heavy on the science, but it lays out the challenges in dramatic, accessible language.

Thirteen government agencies collaborated on the effort, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is headed by Jane Lubchenco.

LUBCHENKO: First and foremost, human induced climate change is a reality not only in remote polar regions and in small tropical islands, but every place around the country in our own backyards. Climate change is happening and it’s happening now.

CURWOOD: Today the levels of heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere are setting us on a course to make our planet hotter than it’s been in 800,000 years.

And the new report warns that if we do nothing the average surface temperature of the planet will continue to get even hotter, by as much as eleven degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

President Obama’s top science advisor, John Holdren, presented the report at the White House. Dr. Holdren is a noted climate expert who in this administration holds the same rank as the President’s National Security Advisor. In a far-ranging conversation, John Holdren was both cautious and upbeat about the future.

HOLDREN: Well I would say the report is clear – the climate is changing – that the impacts are already being felt. In that sense it is a stark report. And in the sense that the projections show all of these adverse impacts getting steadily worse over time, if climate change proceeds unabated, it’s a stark report. But it’s optimistic in the sense that it tells us that if we take appropriate actions to reduce the emissions of the heat trapping pollution that is the main driver of this problem, we can greatly reduce the amount of climate change and the damage from it that occur in the future. And the report is optimistic as well because it is showing the way to steps we can take to adapt to climate change in ways that will reduce the harm over time.

CURWOOD: If the world and the United States doesn’t address climate change, can you give me a couple of examples where people will really notice this.

HOLDREN
: Well first of all I would say we’re already noticing it. People are noticing changes in the growing seasons. They’re noticing the increased frequency of wildfires, the increased frequency of floods in the United States. So the place to start is that we really are already experiencing adverse effects of climate change. What we will see if climate change continues unabated is all of these kinds of symptoms that I’ve described will become more severe. I would say that people in the West are likely to notice increasing difficulties with water shortages. In the longer run, one of the most noticeable effects is likely to be the increase in sea level that comes from a warming world and that we’re already experiencing at a rate that is about twice the rate of sea level rise in the 20th century. You would have in some parts of the country where there might be ten or twenty days a year over 100 degrees Fahrenheit now, you would in the future with these large increases in average temperature, you might have 100 or 150 days a year that exceed what you might call the threshold of very, very hot that would have large impacts on agriculture.

Climate change will mean more droughts in the U.S. West, with some places likely to experience more than 100 days per year with temperatures higher than 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

CURWOOD: Impacts on agriculture? What do you mean?

HOLDREN: I mean the productivity of food crops would go down. You wouldn’t be able to grow as much corn or wheat on an acre of land as you can grow today because the heat stress on the plants would be damaging their capacity to grow and bear grain.

CURWOOD: Some people say look, we’re on this path, climate change is inevitable, we’re in it now, it’s simply gonna get worse and the sense comes up that it may just be too late to do anything. How accurate is that?

HOLDREN: I absolutely disagree that it’s too late to do anything. What the science shows above all is that the more climate change we get the more difficult it’s going to be to cope with it. And we have opportunities by acting now and in the future to drastically reduce the amount of climate change we’re gonna be experiencing. I mean this is a very simple proposition: more is worse, less is better. And we have the opportunity, by taking action, to make it less – that’s what we ought to be doing.

CURWOOD: What do we need to do?

HOLDREN: We need to be reducing the emissions of heat trapping pollution and above all that’s carbon dioxide from burning the fossil fuels from which we get most of our energy today, that is from burning coal and oil and natural gas. What we need to do is to use those fuels more efficiently so we don’t have to burn so much of them to get the goods and services that we need from energy. What we need to do is change the technologies we use to burn them so that we can capture a substantial part of the carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released and sequester it away from the atmosphere. We need to use more renewable technologies which don’t emit carbon dioxide or as in the case of sustainably grown biofuels, only emit as much carbon dioxide when they’re burned as they removed from the atmosphere when they were grown. We need to see if we can address the obstacles that have impeded the expansion of nuclear energy in this country and elsewhere because nuclear energy too is a way to get electricity that does not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And we need to take steps to slow down and halt deforestation and other land use practices that are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere along with the burning of fossil fuels.

CURWOOD: Tell me: what are our range of options here? You’ve outlined how difficult things will be if we do nothing. If we do everything, do we still get to avoid more warming here?

HOLDREN: There is nothing that we can to do stop climate change in its tracks. There’s a tremendous amount of momentum built into the climate system. We are not yet experiencing the full consequences of the heat trapping gases we’re already added to the atmosphere, because of time lags in the way the global system responds. So we will see some continuing increase in global surface temperature and regional increases in surface temperatures no matter what we do. But, we have a big opportunity to minimize the amount of change we will experience. The aim that most scientists who study this matter have agreed is one that is still within reach and is highly desirable, would be to stabilize the concentration of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere at a level that would limit the global average surface temperature increase to about three and a half degrees Fahrenheit above the pre-industrial level. Now, if we do everything right, I think we can achieve that. And to tell you what that means, you really have to look at this, first of all, at the global level, because it is the global concentration of these heat-trapping pollutants that determine how much the temperature goes up.

CURWOOD: Now, as I understand it, between the United States and China, there are about 40 percent of the world’s emissions of carbon right now. And I also understand that you were in China with the negotiating team on the Global Climate Change Treaty recently. What do we need China to do in order to have a reasonable agreement on limiting greenhouse gases for the world?

HOLDREN: Well first of all it is correct that China and the United States are the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, and we do total something in the range of 40 percent of global emissions. And that means that there is no way that the problem can be solved without doing both of us taking very significant actions to reduce our emissions. The United States and China are both already doing a number of things to reduce their emissions but we need to do much more. And it has to be expected because the United States is an advanced industrialized country and China remains a developing country, that the United States along with the other industrial nations is going to have to do more sooner – my personal judgment would be that the United States and the other industrialized nations should peak no later than 2015 and be sharply declining in their emissions after that. And that China and other developing countries need to peak between 2020 and 2025, and be sharply declining after that.

CURWOOD: Assess for me the odds of President Obama going to Copenhagen at the conclusion of the current round of international negotiations on climate change. Will he be there do you think?

HOLDREN: I simply cannot comment on that. I just don’t know at this juncture. It will obviously depend on a whole array of issues in terms of what’s on the President’s plate at the time, and whether it appears that there would be a significant benefit from his going to Copenhagen. And I think it’s much to early to predict how that will come out.

CURWOOD: If the President didn’t go to Copenhagen, it would mean that the negotiations hadn’t worked. How dire would that be for the future of the planet and for those of us here in the United States, living under the conditions of climate change that you outline in your report?

HOLDREN: First of all, I’m not sure that the President not going would mean that negotiations had failed. It might mean the negotiations had succeeded without him and he didn’t need to go. He could simply celebrate the success from Washington. But the second thing I would say is we do need an agreement in Copenhagen. And we’re working very hard with our various international partners to make sure that that happens. But the most important single thing the United States can do is to get its own house in order by passing a comprehensive energy climate bill and having that legislation in place because that will demonstrate that the United States is finally prepared to take the leadership role that the world expects of us in addressing this challenge.

CURWOOD: So, there you are in the Executive Office Building. You’re at the White House. If for a moment, the proverbial magic wand was put in your hand to do anything about this, what would be the first thing you would do.

HOLDREN: The first thing I would do is get enough votes in the House and in the Senate to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill.

CURWOOD: The second thing?

HOLDREN: The second thing I would do is advise the President to sign it.

CURWOOD: And the third thing?

HOLDREN: The third thing I would do is work with industry, government, NGOs, universities and so on to generate the degree of innovation in energy technology that will enable us to meet those targets in the most cost effective possible way.

CURWOOD: As science advisor, what’s the one thing that you’d love to do that you just can’t do?

HOLDREN: Take vacations.

[LAUGHING]

CURWOOD: The climate’s not waiting is it?

HOLDREN: [laughing] The climate is not waiting.

CURWOOD: John Holdren is President Obama’s science advisor. Thank you so much.

HOLDREN: My pleasure. Glad to be with you.

YOUNG: Coming up: the few, the proud, the poisoned– Marine veterans still living with a legacy of contamination. Keep listening to Living on Earth.

Listen to LOE Interviews with Holdren: Here

Al Gore, Glenn Beck, Global Warming, and Forced Abortion

Posted in Abortion, Civil Rights, climate change, Climategate, compulsory birth control, Copenhagen, Eugenics, Glenn Beck, Holdren, Maafa21, New World Order, Obama, Population Control, Violence against women with tags , , , , , , , on December 15, 2009 by saynsumthn

Global Warming’s Real Inconvenient Truth

Monday , December 14, 2009
By Glenn Beck

As the private jet-flying, limousine-riding hypocrites address the world’s catastrophic warming in Copenhagen, let me share with you what Canada’s national newspaper, The Financial Post, had to say about it:

The ‘inconvenient truth’ overhanging the U.N.’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world…. A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

This isn’t some conspiracy notion. Look it up, it’s right there in print. It also happens to be law in the most populace nation on Earth. And we’re being bombarded with this climate change catastrophe hysteria every day.

Now, they’re talking about the real solution: Stop having children. Well, OK, the global elite will be generous enough to allow us one — one child.

Let’s put aside for now any religious overtones. Sure, for those of us who believe the Bible to be the word of God, this may seem to be a direct contradiction to the “multiply and replenish” commandment. But, maybe you’re not religious and you’re not concerned about any of that.

Fine, but the where are the women screaming at the top of their lungs about their reproductive rights? Do those rights only extend to eliminating children through abortion or would you like to hang on to your right to have children as well? Can a government tell you what to do with your body? Where’s their favorite chant: “Get the government out of my uterus”? Well, not mine — but, theirs.

And, just for good measure, how about our freedom? Freedom for women, men, mothers, fathers, families.

There is, of course no provision in the Constitution for this kind of intrusion into our lives. So, you may be thinking, this could never happen? Really? Look at the “global” steps being considered on a nearly daily basis: global taxes; global currency; global economic rules; global solutions to climate change:

(Roll Video)

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change, and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global government and global agreements…

(END VIDEO CLIP)

We were laughed at and mocked when we pointed out that newly confirmed science “czar” John Holdren advocated population control in the 1977 book he co-authored, titled “Ecoscience.” Among the techniques he considered were sterilants in drinking water and forced abortions, as China has employed. Has he ever denounced those methods? No, he has just stated that the much worried about, population explosion never happened, so they weren’t necessary.

Well, here we are again, worried about population.

The climate cultists are also pushing their “less meat, less heat” mantra. But, if we have to become vegetarians to save the planet, so be it, right? After all, that’s all these nations are trying to do in Copenhagen: Save the planet.

Well, I wasn’t totally convinced of their good intentions, until I saw that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe all plan to address negotiators at international climate talks in Copenhagen this week.

Ahmadinejad — with his track record of threatening to drive Israel into the sea, denying that there are any homosexuals in his country when asked at Columbia about reported executions of homosexuals; prosecuting Iranians who speak out for freedom and causing even the United Nations to voice its concerns about the increasingly grave human rights violations in his country — now there’s a guy I truly believe wants to save the planet.

Or Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe: Look at the shape Zimbabwe’s in; we need to listen to this man!

And don’t even get me started on the credibility of Hugo Chavez.

So, are you as convinced as I am that these fine men, with their track records, really do want to save the planet and not just hurt the West with some ridiculous climate agreement?

And we’re being pummeled with all of this, in the name of a discredited global warming scam. “The Goreacle” and his minions are throwing out even lies more to cover up their initial inconvenient lies.

When asked a question about the Climate-gate scandal, Al Gore piled more lies on top of the ones he’d been peddling for years:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GORE: The north polar ice cap is melting before our very eyes. It’s been the size of the continental United States for most of the last 3 million years. And now suddenly 40 percent of it’s gone and the rest of it is expected to disappear within five, 10, 15 years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Forty percent of the polar ice caps are not gone and it’s preposterous to believe that they will totally disappear within 10 years. In September of 2007, there was a 25 percent reduction to the usual minimum ice cover. In the two years since, nearly all of the ice has returned.

We are not supposed to be asking these questions. We’re not sticking to their script. Here’s what happens when we don’t follow their rules or agree that the debate is over:

Professor Stephen Schneider is asked an uncomfortable question at a U.N. climate conference — watch U.N. personnel and security shut it down:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Sir, I am a member of the press.

UNIDENTIFIED GUARD: If you don’t shut that off I am going to take it away from you.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Sorry sir, we are the press.

UNIDENTIFIED GUARD: I don’t care.

I asked you to shut it off. If it happens again I am taking it away from you and you’re going out. Is that understood?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

In real science, the debate is never over. The climate cultists keep saying that we are flat-Earthers. Will the media ever notice? They noticed the horrible, scary signs held up by tea party protesters — the ones that warned we were headed in the wrong direction, toward fascism. The media excoriated them over those signs:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroots opposition going on here?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI: I think they’re Astroturf, you be the judge. They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

But they didn’t even notice the signs held up by the Climate Change supporting protesters — the ones that glorified socialism and communism! These people openly want communism, but the media are silent.

It’s also interesting to me that we are the ones being compared to “flat-Earth” believers. Yet, when Galileo fought against the power structure of his time to enlighten mankind that the Earth wasn’t flat and that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system, it was those who held power that tried to shut him down then — just as those in power try to shut up all those who disagree now.

Well, Galileo is in the tower again. The climate cult is just as much a state sponsored religion now, as the actual state sponsored religion was back in the Dark Ages, punishing Galileo for his opinions. And they’re again locking away the dissenters in a tower of fear, harassment and atmosphere of discrediting some 30,000-plus scientists.

Look, these people have been trying to replace God.

It used to be God, government and you. For centuries, that was the accepted line. Our Founders said, wait a minute, that’s out of order: It should be God, you then government.

Well, to make their new system work — which, coincidentally, is a lot like the old system — climate cultists have to get rid of God. Then they can ask, well who are you to tell me? But if they take God out of the equation, they’re going to need to replace it with something and they have the planet.

Ah, now it works: Earth, government and you. You must serve the planet — the planet replaces God; it’s fixed.

It all comes down to this: The climate cult wants more than just your recycling bin. If that was all this was about, I’d gladly join in. We recycle here at work, I recycle at home. I believe that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of this planet. But what they want is total submission.

It will start with legislation to limit your energy use. It will involve huge taxes — national at first, then global. They will, through the smart grid, control your home thermostat. They will limit the amount you can travel by car. But ultimately, it won’t be enough, as the article in Canada’s Financial Post points out.

The only way to really stop their imagined disaster is to limit the number of human beings on this planet. One child per family is negative population growth. I am against that and I think the science is settled that I’m not alone.

Who are these people that think they can tell us when we can procreate? Where are the people who’ve shouted: government out of my uterus; government out of my choice; government out of my bedroom?

Was it all a lie for you?

Ah, but in the end, their uterus sacrifice will be worth it because the cave-dwelling Piute trout and the salt marsh harvest mouse will finally be able to really thrive. Polar bears could number in the millions — maybe even billions. That will be the ultimate Utopia.

As we approach Christmas, the climate cult is looking more and more like Scrooge to me. And I think Charles Dickens said it best: If we are all going to die anyway, perhaps we had “better do it and decrease the surplus population.”

— Watch “Glenn Beck” weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel

Think forced sterilization and forced abortion can NEVER happen in America? Think Again (Maafa21)

READ: Inconvenient Eugenicist, forced abortions and population control pushed in Copenhagen