Scientist Tied to Global Warning Being Investigated for ‘Scientific Misconduct’

JUNEAU, Alaska (The Blaze/AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears watchin the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article. Newser has more:

Charles Monnett is being investigated for unspecified “integrity issues” apparently linked to his report that polar bears could face an increased threat of death if they’re forced to swim farther as Arctic ice recedes.

Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

--> (Related: New study of NASA data may debunk global warming predictions) <--

On Thursday, Ruch‘s watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett’s behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have “actively persecuted” him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.

Monnett, who has coordinated much of the agency’s research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press.

The complaint seeks Monnett’s reinstatement along with a public apology from the agency and inspector general. It also seeks to have the investigation dropped or to have the charges specified and the matter carried out in accordance with policy. The complaint also says that investigators took Monnett’s computer hard drive, notebooks and other unspecified items from him, which have not been returned.

A BOEMRE spokeswoman declined to comment on an “ongoing internal investigation.” Ruch said BOEMRE has barred Monnett from talking to reporters.

Documents provided by Ruch’s group indicate questioning by investigators has centered on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004, while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, of four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology; presentations also were given at scientific gatherings.

In the peer-reviewed article, the researchers said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances in open water. Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.

They said their observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds and “suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.”

The article and presentations drew national attention and helped make the polar bear something of a poster child for the global warming movement. Al Gore’s mention of the polar bear in his documentary on climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth,” came up during investigators’ questioning of Gleason in January.

In May 2008, the U.S. classified the polar bear as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming.

According to a transcript, investigator Eric May asked Gleason his thoughts on Gore referencing the dead polar bears. Gleason said none of the polar bear papers he has written or co-authored has said “anything really” about global warming.

“It’s something along the lines of the changing environment in the Arctic,” he said. Gleason said others put their own spin on research or observations.

The complaint alleges Gleason and Monnett were harassed by agency officials and received negative comments from them after the article was published. Gleason eventually took another Interior Department job; he didn‘t respond to an email and a BOEMRE spokeswoman said he wouldn’t be available for comment.

Ruch also claimed the investigation is being done by criminal investigators with no scientific background, even though the case is an administrative matter.

Source:  The Blaze  - Cross-Posted at Just One More Pet

So… What Else Do They Not Tell Us …Or Lie About?

ARE YOU READY TO PAY $50 FOR A 100-WATT BULB?

NEW YORK (AP) — Two leading makers of lighting products are showcasing LED bulbs that are bright enough to replace energy-guzzling 100-watt light bulbs set to disappear from stores in January.

Their demonstrations at the LightFair trade show in Philadelphia this week mean that brighter LED bulbs will likely go on sale next year, but after a government ban takes effect.

AP

The new bulbs will also be expensive — about $50 each — so the development may not prevent consumers from hoarding traditional bulbs.

The technology in traditional “incandescent” bulbs is more than a century old. Such bulbs waste most of the electricity that feeds them, turning it into heat. The 100-watt bulb, in particular, produces so much heat that it‘s used in Hasbro’s Easy-Bake Oven.

To encourage energy efficiency, Congress passed a law in 2007 mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals, starting in 2012. Conventional light bulbs don’t meet those goals, so the law will prohibit making or importing them. The same rule will start apply to remaining bulbs 40 watts and above in 2014. Since January, California has already banned stores from restocking 100-watt incandescent bulbs.

Creating good alternatives to the light bulb has been more difficult than expected, especially for the very bright 100-watt bulbs. Part of the problem is that these new bulbs have to fit into lamps and ceiling fixtures designed for older technology.

Compact fluorescents are the most obvious replacement, but they have drawbacks. They contain a small amount of toxic mercury vapor, which is released if they break or are improperly thrown away. They last longer than traditional bulbs but not as long as LEDs. Brighter models are bulky and may not fit in existing fixtures.

Another new lighting technology, organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs, has had problems reaching mass production. OLEDs are glowing sheets or tiles, rather than pinprick light sources, as LEDs are. They’re used as vibrant color screens for smartphones, particularly from Samsung Electronics Co.

But making OLEDs that are big, bright, cheap and long-lasting enough for use as light sources has proved difficult, in part because they use chemicals that are sensitive to oxygen and spoil unless sealed very carefully.

Acuity Brands Inc., an Atlanta-based maker of light fixtures, will be showing some OLED panels at the show. They will go on sale next year, but the price will likely make them technology showpieces rather than candidates for everyday lighting.

LEDs are efficient, durable and produced in great quantities, but they’re still expensive. An LED bulb can contain a dozen light-emitting diodes, or tiny semiconductor chips, which cost about $1 each.

The big problem with LEDs is that although they don’t produce as much heat as incandescent bulbs, the heat they do create shortens the lifespan and reduces the efficiency of the chips. Cramming a dozen chips together in a tight bulb-shaped package that fits in today’s lamps and sockets makes the heat problem worse. The brighter the bulb, the bigger the problem is.

The most powerful pear-shaped LED bulbs in stores today — the kind that fits existing lamps — produce light equivalent to a 60-watt bulb, though there are more powerful ones for directional or flood lighting.

Osram Sylvania, a unit of Germany’s Siemens AG, said it has overcome the heat problem and will be showing a pear-shaped 100-watt-equivalent LED bulb this week. It doesn’t have a firm launch date, but it usually shows products about a year before they hit store shelves.

Lighting Sciences Group Corp., a Satellite Beach, Fla.-based company that specializes in LED lighting, will be showing several 100-watt-equivalent prototypes, including some that solve the problem of cooling the LEDs by using microscopic devices that move air over the chips, like miniature fans.

Before the 100-watters, there will be 75-watters on the shelves this year. Osram Sylvania will be selling them at Lowe’s starting in July. Royal Philips Electronics NV, the world’s biggest lighting maker, will have them in stores late this year for $40 to $45.

However, 60-watt bulbs are the big prize, since they’re the most common. There are 425 million incandescent light bulbs in the 60-watt range in use in the U.S. today, said Zia Eftekhar, the head of Philips’ North American lighting division. The energy savings that could be realized by replacing them with 10-watt LED bulbs is staggering.

To stimulate LED development, the federal government has instituted a $10 million “L Prize” for an energy-efficient replacement for the 60-watt bulb. Philips is so far the only entrant in testing, and Eftekhar expects the company to win it soon. But Lighting Sciences Group plans its own entry, which it will demonstrate at the trade show.

Philips has been selling a 60-watt-equivalent bulb at Home Depot since December that’s quite similar to the one submitted to the contest. But it’s slightly dimmer, consumes 2 watts too much power and costs $40, whereas the L Prize target is $22. Sylvania sells a similar LED bulb at Lowe’s, also for $40.

However, LED prices are coming down quickly. The DoE expects a 60-watt equivalent LED bulb to cost $10 by 2015, putting them within striking range of the price of a compact fluorescent bulb.

Bob Karlicek, the director of the Smart Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., thinks that price is achievable.

But, he said, “it’s not necessarily clear to people in the lighting industry that LED chips were ever meant to go into a bulb.”

What’s really needed, he said, is a new approach to lighting — new fixtures and lamps that spread out the LEDs, avoiding the heat problem.

Video:  Live from LightFair Featuring Richard Heinisch of Acuity Brands - Part 1

Alphabet Soup - Making Sense of the Latest Energy Standards Part 1

Source:  The Blaze h/t to J. Stoner

Rino Gingrich is Done Before He Started

Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday that he strongly supports a federal mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance – a position that has been rejected by many Republicans, including several who likely will be running against him for the Republican presidential nomination.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance.

Gregory played a clip of Gingrich speaking during an appearance on Meet the Press in October 1993:

“I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.”

Gregory asked Gingrich if he would criticize GOP presidential rival Mitt Romney, whose "Romneycare" health program enacted during his time as Governor in Massachusetts mandated that all uninsured purchase health insurance.

Gingrich replied he would not make it an issue in the campaign and said he agreed with key aspects of Romneycare.

"I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay--help pay for health care," Gingrich said, adding, "I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond ..."

Gingrich also admitted that his proposal is a "variation" of the individual mandate, a key component of the Obamacare legislation President Obama signed into law in 2010.

The position staked out by Gingrich appears to be at odds with leading conservative critics of Obamacare, who argue that the law requiring citizens to purchase a private insurance policy is not constitutional.

The Obama administration is currently facing three lawsuits arguing that the federal mandate is unconstitutional, including one filed by a coalition of 26 states.

The issue is on track for a Supreme Court decision in the summer of 2012, which would make it a likely hot-button topic heading into the elections.

Conservative GOP critics like Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli say the mandate is unconstitutional because although Congress can regulate commerce, it can’t require people to engage in a particular “economic activity” just because they live in the U.S.

Conservative judicial experts have also taken exception to the claim made by Gingrich and supporters of the Obamacare law that mandating health insurance is the same as the government requirement to purchase car insurance, noting that driving a car is a privilege provided by states and not a constitutional right.

Cucinelli says that "buying auto insurance is voluntary, since you are only required to purchase it if you choose to drive on public roads. But buying health insurance under the new federal law is not voluntary, as you are required to buy it just by virtue of the fact that you are breathing. The federal government has never before in history exercised its regulatory power to require someone to buy a product or service as a condition of residence in the United States."
Gingrich, though, seemed to disagree with that notion on Sunday, though he was quick to point out the differences between his plan and the federal health law.

“In, in the first place, Obama basically is trying to replace the entire insurance system, creating state exchanges, building a Washington-based model, creating a federal system,” Gingrich told NBC’s David Gregory. “I believe all of us--and this is going to be a big debate--I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for healthcare …"
Romney has not come under fire for not disowning his health care plan, which has caused private health care insurance rates to skyrocket as patient services have declined in Massachusetts.

Gingrich's position quickly came under fire from several conservative blogs on Sunday.

“He tried to distinguish his mandate from the Obama mandate, but with little success,” the American Federalist Journal wrote on Sunday.
“Sandbagging your fellow Republicans in Congress and offering tacit support for a key (unconstitutional) component of Obamacare is a very strange way to begin a run in a Republican primary. Not a strong start.”

The Wall Street Journal called Gingrich’s description of an ideal healthcare plan with mandates a “pretty good description of what the Democratic Congress passed into law last year."

The Journal continued: "Beginning in 2014, most Americans who don't have insurance will be required to pay a fee, with many, depending on income, getting subsidies to help buy coverage through state-based exchanges.”

The conservative website Red State said Gingrich “won’t exactly endear him to the Tea Party crowd or the reform minded movement sweeping the GOP.”

Source: Newsmax

Add to this the devastating reminder of a commercial Newt Gingrich did with Nancy Pelosi supporting climate change (global warming) legislation and in less than a week after announcing, Gingrich might as well take his chips and go home!

Video:  Nancy Pelosi And Newt Gingrich Commercial On Climate Change

This ad is part of the "We Can Solve It" global warming ad campaign sponsored by former Vice President Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.

Don't forget Newt is soft on the borders as well, and then when you add on those who remember Newt’s infidelity issues and he’s got problems!

Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Snowed In: A Photo Journey Across A Paralyzed Europe

What Was That About Global Warming??

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/21/2010 10:30 –0500  -Reuters -  United Kingdom

Traveling to Europe? Not so fast. Most airports in western and central Europe are at best open on an intermittent basis, and at worst completely shut down, with the UK taking the brunt of the storm. Disruptions in traffic continue for a fourth day as travellers across the continent are paralyzed and scrambling to find way to get home, with just 4 days until Christmas. For all those reading Zero Hedge from some airport terminal, our condolences. As always, nothing conveys the story as well as a few simple pictures: we have compiled a representative sample of snapshots from across Europe to show just why all those hoping for a strong holiday retail season in Europe will be very disappointed.

(photo credit AP, Reuters, EPA)

Now what was that about global warming again??

Can Somebody Say Global Warming?? Gore MIA During Blizzards~

AMBER ALERT: Al Gore MIA during blizzards
Glenn is very concerned because Al Gore has suddenly vanished from the public scene. It's almost like he's trying to lay low as the country is pounded with massive snowstorms, BUT he could have also been abducted by some deranged psycho. Speaking of deranged, check out this clip from MSNBC where a reporter explains that all the snow doesn't mean less global warming - it is proof of global warming. ( Transcript, Insider Audio) Ironically, President Obama picked this week to announce the formation of a new global warming bureaucracy within the Department of Commerce. The news conference announcing this new “climate service" had to be canceled due to our D.C. area blizzard.

How out of touch is the radical environmental movement that, sadly, has a deep hold on the Obama Administration?

The Department of Commerce news release announcing the new “climate service" actually said the following, "More and more Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards..."

There's more. The release, paid for with your tax dollars, goes on to say that "People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision making about VIRTUALLY ALL ASPECTS OF THEIR LIVE)." (emphasis added)

This kind of out-of-touch left-wing extremism inspired us here at Americans for Prosperity to create a new video I think you'll find interesting CLICK HERE

But even worse, the Obama Administration, in pursuit of their radical environmental goals, is still pursuing a cap-and-trade agenda that will kill jobs, raise utility bills and gas prices and infringe on our freedoms.

For the last two years, we've fought their radical agenda tooth-and-nail with the help of folks like you. We've held over 80 “Hot Air Tour" balloon rallies from Bozeman, Montana to Jacksonville, Florida and from Little Rock, Arkansas to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to raise awareness of the Left's cap-and-trade energy tax and to get activists to call and email their Senators and Congressmen to vote against it. CLICK HERE FOR MORE ON THESE RALLIES AND OUR EFFORT

Despite the fact that a Pew Foundation poll showed Americans rank "combating global warming" dead last on their list of priorities, President Obama used his recent State of the Union speech to once again demand passage of his cap-and-trade legislation. They even wrote a blank line in the federal budget labeled "allowance for climate policy" to keep secret how much they plan to tax and spend via cap-and-trade. So, the cap-and-trade fight is not over.

Even worse, Obama is not waiting for Congress. The president is now intent on using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to bypass Congress and move full steam ahead to enforce the Left's global warming agenda.

Soon after President Obama's election, this un-elected bureaucracy issued a "finding" that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare and therefore should be regulated by the EPA. Now, the EPA is moving to impose job-killing, freedom-encroaching regulations and mandates on American businesses - at a time when our economy is desperately struggling to create jobs and rebuild prosperity. Over 40,000 AFP activists put official comments in at the EPA on this issue. But to win, we will have to convince Congress to step in and stop the EPA.

Fortunately, there are now serious bipartisan efforts underway in both the House and Senate to do just that - block the EPA's outrageous global warming power grab and return the power to make our country's laws to Congress. At Americans for Prosperity, we're going to be announcing in the near future an intensive effort to combat this job killing EPA power grab. So stay tuned! In the meantime, please take a moment to click here and let your members of Congress know that if they fail to stop the EPA, you will hold them responsible for the consequences.

I hope you’re safe and sound at home if you live in the path of this storm. And you can just look out in your "backyard" for the devastating "impacts" of climate change (that’s what global warming is apparently called during blizzards!).

Tim Phillips – Americans for Prosperity

Related Posts on Global Warming… Get out the hot cocoa and sit in front of the fire, in most of the US, this is the right week so wade through all these links…

EPA’s Greenhouse Gases Declaration

Global Warming Hoax Part II

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

Charles Krauthammer Video… on the Blackmail RE: Carbon Dioxide and the EPA!

Climategate – Hide the Decline

But have no fear… even though they are missing in action as the US is buried in snow… Kerry and Gore plow forward

Snow Job? Gore & Kerry Pushing Climate Change Bill Despite Blizzard

Kerry: 'Dead Wrong' to Write Obit on Climate Change Bill

D.C. Blizzard: More Proof of Global Warming!

Gore Due in Phillippines for Climate Change Talk

Climate Change Legislation Buried Under Record Snowfall

TIME: Global Warming Makes Blizzards Worse

Conservatives Use 'Snowmageddon' to Mock Global Warming

NBC Blames Snowpocalyse on Global Warming – Video

Senator Inhofe’s Family Built an Igloo for Al Gore

Dire Warning: Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty? Lord Christopher Monckton: “We Are At The 11th Hour!”

On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change skeptic, gave a presentation at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN. In this 4 minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning… (I heard him speak about this over a year ago in Australia when nobody in the U.S. was listening… and I have heard others speak about this just to be ridiculed by the powers that be so that the average Americans would dismiss it as lunacy or a conspiracy. There is a conspiracty all right, but on the other side!!)

Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate to which Gore has refused. Monckton sued to stop Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in-favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected. Lord Monckton travels internationally in an attempt to educating the public about the myth of global warming.

The problem with signing this treaty for the U.S. is the way our own Constitution is written, signing this treaty will override our Constitution. The hour for us to stand up is NOW!! And the warning is coming from a foreign friend…

Signing this treaty will not affect any other country like it will affect ours because of the way our Country’s Constitution is written and because of the fees that will levied against us for our “past sins”

Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?

Lord Monckton: Copenhagen Treaty Will Establish Marxist World Government

Sign the Petition Opposing Cap-and-Trade - But it is going to take more than signing this to stop the bigger goal… and we need to stop it NOW!!!

Who else are proponents of this treaty? Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton… to name just a few.

In case there is still someone out there wondering why Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize (in advance) – HMMM… Just Can’t Figure Out the Obama Nobel Prize??? Perhaps the Answer is Thorbjorn Jagland… or perhaps the answer is for delivering America…

Source: Minnesota Majority: mnmajoritydotorg’s Channel

Updated: October 18, 2009 - If you do not see the handwriting on the wall, you had better prepare yourselves for an entirely different world that is about to emerge before us. Obama is due to sign a new treaty in Copenhagen in December at the UN's Climate Change Conference, which effectively cedes US sovereignty to a "new global partnership" headed by the United Nations. Read the following article and then scroll down for a link to the UN's website where you can read in detail about the plans for unifying the world under one government and one monetary system with the ultimate goal being the "equitable" distribution (sound familiar?) of all the world's resources, goods and protections. - CFP: Obama Posed to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_02.shtml - Take notice of the little flag on all of the UN's site pages which says "Copenhagen: Seal the Deal!" They are openly advertising that when this "deal" is signed, it will seal the agenda they have been working towards for years....one world government/NWO.

There is a way to STOP this! It's called a CONTINENTAL Congress. NOT Constitutional Congress which is CHANGING the Constitution! We DO NOT want to CHANGE the Constitution! CONTINENTAL Congress documents abuses which are devastating our country. This is a peaceful, lawful means through which "The People" can stop the violations and restore Constitutional obedience in America.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org
www.GiveMeLiberty.org

Here's one representative who is speaking his mind about Obama's MARXIST background and Obama's wish for a more "global" government. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, (CA-46), spoke on a panel yesterday (Oct. 17) at Western CPAC. The panelists discussed the anti-American and radical policies of the current administration.:

Related Resources:

Global Climate Scam

Copenhagen Treaty Will Demand American Taxpayers Buy “Dignity” for Third World

CFP: Obama Posed to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord

Climate Myths and National Security

Solar Sticker Shock Hits Washington County

Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan

Senators to Unveil Draft Climate Bill

Boxer and Kerry Reintroduce Cap and Trade…

HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming

Read the book that started it all: Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance"

"Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change"

"The Sky's Not Falling! Why it's OK to chill on global warming"

Apollo Alliance Writing Legislation? Stimulus Bill, Cap and Trade Bill, Healthcare Bill? America Needs To Know!

Going Rogue

The Goal…

Green Hell

Red Hot Lies

America for Sale - American for Sale Review

Drill

Copenhagen Treaty Must Be Stopped

Doomsday Called Off - Video

The Great Man-Made Global Warming Swindle - Video

Arctic Sea Ice Video (Jan 2000 - May 2009) - Video

If you missed Big Hollywood's Premiere: Not Evil Just Wrong – The Movie Al Gore does not want you to see!!! Go HERE to order your own copy.

Lack of Understanding Exploited to Perpetuate Climate Science Falsehoods

Edited to add @ 2:30am October 18, 2009: Commenter “Ralph” provides another link to a copy of the New Copenhagen Treaty which Monckton referenced and wattsupwiththat.com posted. This time it comes from an official United Nations website. There is no doubt now. This document is authentic.

Drill

Petroleum is a major part of America’s energy picture. Shall we get it here or abroad?

Given that we’re spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we’ll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences. That means we need to drill here and drill now.

We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. Ac cord ing to the Energy Information Ad min is tra tion, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent.

Those who oppose domestic drilling are motivated primarily by environmental considerations, but many of the countries we’re forced to import from have few if any environmental-protection laws, and those that do exist often go unenforced. In effect, American environmentalists are preventing responsible development here at home while supporting irresponsible development overseas.

My home state of Alaska shows how it’s possible to be both pro-environment and pro-resource-development. Alaskans would never support anything that endangered our pristine air, clean water, and abundant wildlife (which, among other things, provides many of us with our livelihood). The state’s government has made safeguarding resources a priority; when I was governor, for instance, we created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for any potential environmental risks.

Alaska also shows how oil drilling is thoroughly compatible with energy conservation and renewable-energy development. Over 20 percent of Alas ka’s electricity currently comes from renewable sources, and as governor I put forward a long-term plan to increase that figure to 50 percent by 2025. Alaska’s comprehensive plan identifies renewable options across the state that can help rural villages transition away from expensive diesel-generated electricity — allowing each community to choose the solution that best fits its needs. That’s important in any energy plan: Tempting as they may be to central planners, top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions are recipes for failure.

By Sarah Palin

Brazil is on its way to becoming the Saudi Arabia of the America’s and Obama has signed off on Russia and Brazil drilling offshore out from Florida, but we are not increasing our offshore drilling in Alaska. And the rest of the world is increasing their nuclear energy programs… but that is not part of our program… and neither is coal. So what is part of our program??? Our government is planning on passing Cap and Trade, creating ridiculously high taxes, high energy costs and the biggest grab next to to healthcare in our history… and making us even more dependent on foreign oil, coal, etc… Hope it makes you fell all warm and fuzzy inside because it is the only heat you will be able to afford!

Continue reading my article for National Review here

Watch and take Part in Big Hollywood Premiere: Not Evil Just Wrong – The Movie Al Gore does not want you to see!!!

Solar Sticker Shock Hits Washington County

Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan

Senators to Unveil Draft Climate Bill

Boxer and Kerry Reintroduce Cap and Trade…

HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming

Read the book that started it all: Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance"

"Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change"

"The Sky's Not Falling! Why it's OK to chill on global warming"

Apollo Alliance Writing Legislation? Stimulus Bill, Cap and Trade Bill, Healthcare Bill? America Needs To Know!

Going Rogue

The Goal…

Green Hell

Red Hot Lies

Watch and take Part in Big Hollywood Premiere: Not Evil Just Wrong – The Movie Al Gore does not want you to see!!!

The Great Man-Made Global Warming Swindle

Arctic Sea Ice Video (Jan 2000 - May 2009)

“Beware the prophet that has much to profit!” … Dennis Miller (Al Gore anyone…?!?).

Dire Warning: Is Obama Poised to Sign Away U.S. Sovereignty at Copenhagen Global Warming Conference??

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power – Cross-Posted: the Daily Thought Pad - Marion’s Place

Global Warming Narrative & Need for Cap and Tax… Ah Trade Appear to be Off Seriously Off Message

The global warming narrative - that mankind's addiction to burning fossil fuels is rapidly changing the climate - may be about to go seriously off message.

Far from suggesting the planet will get warmer, one of the world's leading climate modellers says the latest data indicates we could be in for a significant period of steady temperatures and possibly even a little global cooling.

Professor Mojib Latif, from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany, has been looking at the influence of cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation. When he factored these natural fluctuations into his global climate model, professor Latif found the results would bring the remorseless rise in average global temperatures to an abrupt halt.

"The strong warming effect that we experienced during the last decades will be interrupted. Temperatures will be more or less steady for some years, and thereafter will pickup again and continue to warm".

With apologies to Al Gore, professor Latif's finding is something of an "inconvenient truth" for the global warming debate.

And the timing couldn't be much worse. World leaders are due to meet in Copenhagen in December to hammer out an agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions to replace the Kyoto Treaty. It certainly won't help if there are a couple of inches of snow on the ground outside the convention centre, and climate models are predicting a sustained period of steady, or even falling, global temperatures.

Professor Philip Stott believes climate sceptics may seize on the research as evidence that the whole global warming hypothesis is fundamentally flawed: If natural cycles can interrupt, or even reverse climate change, maybe we don't need to take it so seriously.

It's not a view shared by professor Latif, who points to the resumption of warming as the cycle completes itself in a few years. The best we can hope for, he says, is a brief respite from global warming.

But the complex message professor Latif's research confronts us with, points up another issue debated on the programme this morning: The thorny issue of the media's handling of science.

The Science Minister Lord Drayson sparked a row when he claimed that the coverage of scientific issues was in rude health at the World Conference of Science journalists. Ben Goldacre, the author of "Bad Science" took exception, arguing that most editors were only interested in revolutionary cures for cancer, or whether coffee made you fat.

After a heated exchange in the blogosphere the two have agreed to debate the issues at the Royal Institution tonight.

Whole Story With Audio

Source: BBC – Tom Feilden’s Blog

Meet your Science Czar! – A Must Read

VOICE: The Glenn Beck program presents Spotlight on Science.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We will restore science to its rightful place.

VOICE: A series dedicated to President Obama's passion for everything science.

GLENN: Yeah, we're going to put science back where she belongs and what a better place to start, what a better way to show the American people that we're serious about science than appointing a science czar. Now, some people are just a little troubled by the whole czar title but don't worry about that. It's just, really just a figure of speech. The administration would never appoint a czar, you know, somebody who doesn't have to answer to anyone who has crazy, way out of the mainstream viewpoints. John Holdren is Obama's new science czar. He's quite an accomplished guy. He's done an awful lot of stuff. For instance, he was the Teresa and John Heinz professor at environmental policy at the Kennedy school of government at Harvard University. (See CFR and NWO Connection) I mean, what could go wrong there? The Teresa and John Heinz (List of CFR Members) professor of environmental policy at the Kennedy school of government at Harvard. At some point shouldn't all of that cancel each other out? He also coauthored a book in 1977 on population control called Eco science. He wrote it with Ann and Paul Ehrlich. Paul Ehrlich, I was trying to think this morning, where have I heard that name before. And then I remembered: An Inconvenient Book. We did this, what, is this two years old now? These are the quotes that I found from the inconvenient book this morning. Quote: It would take I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000. He said that in 1969. In 1970 he said, ten years, in ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of the coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. Do you remember that in 1980? That was crazy. In 1978 he said, giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. He wrote these, he wrote this last thing. He said this last thing a year after he coauthored a book with our new science czar. Now, what has our new science czar done? Well, of course, the big scientific consensus during the Seventies was that overpopulation was going to destroy the Earth. So what was Holdren really thinking? What was he thinking back then? What was he saying? Quote, this is our new science czar, quote: Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods. I want you to know that I am in fact, let me pull up my notebook here. I'm looking up something and I'm going to give it to you here in the next few days. I'm working on, I'm working on some I'm bothered by some things lately that just, that bother me. One is Epicyte.

Stu, do you have that story about Epicyte? I'm going to give you a story in the next half hour about Epicyte. It's a biotech company that was putting sterilization into food. They were putting it in. They were making genetically modified corn here in America that if you ate it or you crushed it up into pill form, it would be, you know, it would be corn that would attack a man's sperm cell. And so it would be birth control through food.

I looked this up and it's leading me some other places. But I looked for the story and what I found in the news story, there's a reason you haven't heard about this and there's no conspiracy to it. But when I give you the story, you'll say, oh, my gosh. This is huge because what Holdren has said, adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that horrifies people than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. There's somebody who's been working on it, a big company, Epicyte, which no longer exists but follow the trail. He says, seems to horrify in that statement as if it's surprising that some people would be opposed to this idea. Seems to horrify people. He says, quote: Indeed this would pose some very difficult political, legal and social questions to say nothing of the technical problems. Does anybody notice that the one problem that he leaves out is the ethical problems? He says it would be politically tough, it would be legally tough. It would lead to some social questions and it's technically tough, but there's no discussion. Our new science czar of political I mean ethical problems. He says, quote: No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. Oh, that's too bad. Unfortunately he's wrong. He says, quote: To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements. It must be uniformly effective. In other words, you can't kill one race of people and not another. Despite widely varying doses received by individuals and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals, it also must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects and it must not affect members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. So God forbid we put it in the drinking water and cows go sterile.

So the ridiculous idea of our new science czar is not dismissed. It's just not ready to go yet. I mean, it might hurt the livestock or the pets. Since that idea is just ridiculous, here's another one he had. Quote: Of course, a government might require only implantation of a contraceptive capsule. So in other words, the government can require the implantation of some sort of a capsule in you that sterilizes you or is a contraceptive, leaving the removal to the individual's discretion but requiring reimplantation after childbirth. So in other words, they are going to they can require you to have something put in you so you cannot have children. You then, if you want, God knows under universal healthcare how you are going to be able to afford to have that taken out or what the procedure would be like. But you can do it on your own time. You can dig it out of you but then the government will require that that is put back in after childbirth. Since having a child would require positive action, removal of the capsule, many more births would be prevented than in the reverse situation. Oh, the good old opt in, opt out game. That's great. Nothing that would connect with a president who's, you know, must read book in his administration is Animal Spirits that specifically talks about devices like opt in and opt out as effective ways to make the population do exactly what you want them to do. But it gets worse.

Quote from our new science czar: Responsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate child bearing should be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption, especially those born to minors who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. It would be even if it would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have an abortion perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption depending on the society.

So what do we have from our new science czar? Something that is so far out of the mainstream, it's hair raising. Forced adoptions. Sterilant in the drinking water or crops. Contraceptive capsules that are required to be implanted. You can then take out and then they would require you after one child to reimplant. Gosh, I hope all this is available in universal healthcare.

When will this country wake up and see where we are headed? We have accepted how many people around this guy and said, "Well, he didn't know. Well, he's not a radical." The people how many communists do we have? I mean, avowed communists? How many people do we have that are internationalists, transnationalists that believe in a global government that are now in our government. How many radicals do we have that are way out of the mainstream?

This is a scary man!!

Source: GlennBeck.com

Related Resources:

• Is Global Governance or a New World Order the Real Goal???
• American Progressivism
• Liberal Fascism
• Saving Freedom
• Catastrophe
• Glenn Beck's Common Sense
• NWO
• Czar Watch
• After the "Special Master of Compensation"
• Czarred and Featherd
• We Warned You About Czars – Jim Harper and Fox’s Neil Cavuto Discuss “Cyber Czar”
• Dancing with the Czars ... Check Out This Video! | The FOX Nation

Scientist: Global Warming Claims a Lot of Hype

Lawmakers who described the alleged effects of global warming are spreading a lot of "eye wash," a top climate scientist says.

Photo: UCLA Shutterbug New Hampshire Jan 2009

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax, S. Fred Singer, a renowned climatologist and professor of environmental sciences emeritus at the University of Virginia, discussed the background behind the recent open letter to Congress he and six other scientists sent to members of the House and Senate.

In the letter, the scientists cited a letter sent by the Woods Hole Research Center, which exhorted Congress to act quickly to avoid a global disaster due to alleged global warming.

Singer said the Woods Hole group “put on a sort of scary exaggerated kind of letter to Congress ahead of the vote in the House in an obvious attempt to stampede them into voting for the Waxman-Markey [cap and trade environmental] bill.

Singer explained: “We thought it would be useful to write a letter that would provide a balance. The instigator of the letter was Harold Lewis, a retired professor of physics at the University of California in Santa Barbara.” Lewis, he said, “provided the initial draft, several of us made comments and seven of us signed our names to it."

Lewis sent the letter "to every member of Congress ... and it was also sent to a number of bloggers and others who are generally sympathetic" to the group’s point of view.

“The letter itself is self-explanatory,” Singer said, noting that it did not “give much detail."

“Two of us, Richard Lindzen and myself, are actively working on climate issues. The others are renowned physicists – people of some stature, members of the National Academy and others who have a good amount of scientific judgment but who have not directly published or been pre-eminent in climate research.”

Asked if it is not established that the earth is cooling, Singer explained that “The earth is either always warming or cooling; one cannot tell which it is unless one specifies the time interval.

“It's like the stock market: it is rising or falling. Both depend on whether it's a week or a month or a year. It's the same with the temperature – if we start during the last Ice Age 15,000 years ago, then the temperatures have warmed. If you start from the Little Ice Age, which ended 200 years ago, it certainly has warmed.

“If you start from 1998, however, then it has not warmed – it has cooled. So it depends on the time interval. People argue about this, and much of the difference between groups comes about when you don't specify the time interval. There's no question that the climate has not been warming in the last 10 years."

Reminded that there were members of Congress standing up in the debate and talking about the terrible things that are happening now as a result of global warming, Singer said: “That's all eye wash. That's not true. That's simply hype.”

He went on to explain that “Nothing untoward is happening. The ice is not melting any faster, the sea level is not rising any faster. Hurricanes are not increasing in intensity or frequency; there's been no impact. Those things are always hard to measure. It depends on statistics. The easiest thing is to specify temperature, because it's easily measured and there is relatively little disagreement on what temperature stands for.”

He then went on to challenge what he called former Vice President Al Gore’s “mantra” that he says Gore’s "been handing out for years now – that the science is settled. That is simply not true.

“When you have 31,000 scientists signing the Oregon petition saying they disagree with the current wisdom that humans are producing increased warming, it speaks for itself. It's true that the 31,000 are not all climate scientists. There are not that many in the world.

“However, it does show you that the science is not settled. Among climate scientists there is a split. There are those who believe in models, and those who believe in observations. And there are some who don't believe in both, and some who don't believe in any.

“The modelers believe that the models correctly describe what's going on in the atmosphere, and they trust their models to predict the future. And the models all predict increased global warming. Some more, some less. There are plenty models in the world, and they all get different results. We don't know which one of them is correct, if any, or even if any of them is correct.

Then there are those – sometimes called the skeptics, but we prefer to call them the realists – who believe in the observations, who believe that the atmosphere tells us what's going on. The models try to describe what's going on in the atmosphere, but they don't succeed. It's extremely difficult – the atmosphere is very complicated. For example, the models can't really describe clouds. Yet clouds are very, very important. So that's the basic split.

“When the observations show that the climate has not been warming in the last 10 years, which contradicts the models, who are you going to believe? The models or the observations. Obviously, we believe in the observations.

“When you ask the other side to debate on this issue they either won't debate; or if they do debate, they say, ‘Well there must be something wrong with the observations.'”

Singer agreed that it is a case of "do you believe what the models tell you, or do you believe in your lying eyes?"

Friday, July 3, 2009 10:17 PM
By: Phil Brennan - 2009 Newsmax

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Related Resources:

• Senator Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into ‘Suppressed’ Climate Change Report
• Video: Obama: My Cap-and-Trade Plan Will Make Electricity Rates 'Skyrocket' | The FOX Nation"’
• Energy Czar Has Not Read Climate Bill Either & Boehner Say Bill Is Pile of S__t!
• 8 GOP Votes Pave Way For Cap-and-Trade
• Pelosi Pushes Carbon Tax Vote Today
• The 8 Cap-and-Tax Republicans and 44 Dems Who Voted No
• House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill
• WSJ: Cap-And-Tax a great deal… if you don’t Measure the Costs
• Congressman Requests Moment of Silence for Jobs Lot From Cap…
• Stifling Science To ‘Fight Warming
• Green Hell
• Red Hot Lies

Top 10 Obama Apologies - Updated

Excerpted from article by Niles Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation.

1. Apology to Europe: Speech in Strasbourg, France, April 3. “In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe‘s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

2. Apology to the Muslim world: Interview with Al Arabiya, January 27. “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect.”

3. Apology to the Summit of the Americas: Address to the Summit of the Americas, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17. “While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms.”

4. Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders: News conference in London, April 2. “I just think in a world that is as complex as it is, that it is very important for us to be able to forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions.”

5. Apology for the War on Terror: Speech in Washington, D.C., May 21. “Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight, that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.”

6. Apology for Guantanamo in France: Speech in Strasbourg, France, April 3. “In dealing with terrorism, we can’t lose sight of our values and who we are. That’s why I closed Guantanamo. That’s why I made very clear that we will not engage in certain interrogation practices. I don’t believe that there is a contradiction between our security and our values. And when you start sacrificing your values, when you lose yourself, then over the long term that will make you less secure.”

7. Apology for America before the Turkish Parliament: Speech to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6. “The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.”

8. Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas: Editorial “Choosing a Better Future in the Americas,” April 16. “Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas.”

9. Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA: Remarks to CIA employees at Langley, Va., April 29. “Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes.”

10. Apology for Guantanamo: Speech in Washington, D.C., May 21. “There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world.”

by Human Events for NewsMax

President Barack Hussein Obama… stop apologizing for us… for America and start standing up for your Country!! We are not perfect, but we have more to be proud of than we have to apologize for. We are bracing ourselves as you leave for Russia for the next apology…

During Obama’s latest trip…

*In his speech in Russia Obama refused to say that the West, primarily Ronald Reagan, won the Cold War.

*And, he apologized for America and the developed world falling short of our responsibilities:

Developed countries like my own have a historic responsibility to take the lead, we have a much larger carbon footprint per capita, and I know that in the past (Bush again) the United States have fallen short of meeting it's responsibilities, so let me be clear, those days are over"

For more on his trip: Obama’s Week Abroad

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power – Updated – 07.11.09