Atlas Shrugs

NYC Mayor Bloomberg endorses President Barack Obama: Junk Science = Junk Politics

Would Noah have endorsed Obama? Such idiocy is without equal. I am ashamed for my city. Whether Doomberg means it or he is merely whoring out his endorsement for federal funds is irrelevant.

"New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has endorsed President Barack Obama, citing climate change concerns in the wake of Hurricane Sandy" Politico

One candidate, Bloomberg wrote in an op-ed published on his website and Bloomberg View, “sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.”

New York is so corrupt that no Republican ever has any shot -- so this impacts nothing except our standing in the eyes of patriotic Americans.

Real science: Ross McKitrick

UPDATE: November2, 2012, NY post editorial:

Don’t blame Sandy on Global Warming

In a one-hour special on Hurricane Sandy’s toll, NBC News anchor Brian Williams on Tuesday called the storm “the new norm.” That was a lead-in for Jim Cantore of The Weather Channel to launch the obligatory global-warming discussion as an explanation for the devastating storm.

Everyone from former Vice President Al Gore to Gov. Cuomo has chimed in to blame climate change for Sandy. But calling a single, rogue superstorm “the new norm” is misleading, if not downright naïve.

Extreme weather events have plagued mankind for all of recorded history. We have records of massive hurricanes striking what’s now New York as far back as the mid-13th century. The New England Hurricane of 1938 killed more than 700 people — 60 in New York alone. Hurricane Edna, in 1954, killed 29 and caused massive damage. Catastrophic hurricanes also hit in 1821 and 1894.

Yes, Sandy was the second tropical storm to impact New York in as many years, after Irene last August. But these storms don’t even start to compare with the frequency of tropical storms that threatened New York in the mid-1950s.

In 1955, two hurricanes — Connie and Diane — struck in the same month, causing significant flooding in the city. And the frequency of tropical storms to make landfall at or near NYC in the 2000s wasn’t as great as in the 1990s. New norm?

In New England, category five hurricanes — top of the line on the Saffir-Simpson scale — struck in 1938 (New England Hurricane) and 1960 (Donna). Category four storms struck in 1944 (Great Atlantic Hurricane), 1961 (Esther), 1985 (Gloria) and 1999 (Floyd). Category three storms struck in 1954 (Carol and Edna), 1955 (Diane), 1966 (Alma), 1976 (Belle), 1991 (Bob) and 1996 (Bertha).

On average, a major hurricane made landfall in New England every 3.5 years from 1938 to 1966. Since 1966, it’s been just every 9.2 years — with none since 1999. New norm?

That list spells out what Williams and Cantore conveniently ignored: Tropical storms were more frequent in the 1950s than at any previous point in the 20th century or at any point since. In fact, 10 major hurricanes struck the East Coast between North Carolina and New England from 1954 to 1960.

As hurricane expert Judith Curry of Georgia Tech points out on her Web site, and as meteorologist Joe Bastardi echoed in a Fox News interview, ocean temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are now in the same cycle as in the 1950s.

The Atlantic is going through its warm cycle while the Pacific is going through its cold cycle — a perfectly normal pattern in the oceans’ ebb and flow between warm and cool anomalies. The El Nino Southern Oscillation, a measure of warming and cooling in the tropical Pacific known as El Nino and La Nina, also matches the pattern in the ’50s.

As evidenced by the 1950s, this pattern tends to steer large tropical storms toward the eastern seaboard.

In other words, it has everything to do with a natural cycle of Mother Nature and nothing to do with global warming.

Seven years ago, we were told that Katrina’s devastatation of New Orleans was just the beginning. But Mother Nature didn’t play along; the Atlantic Basin experienced unusually quiet hurricane seasons for the better part of a decade.

Until earlier this week, when another devastating storm made it convenient to dust off the same lines used in Katrina’s aftermath.

It would be nice if both sides of the climate-change argument could sit down to a nonpartisan, common-sense debate on the subject. The earth is warmer than it once was; we know this. Are these changes permanent? Man-made? Or are they cyclical, with little to no influence from humans and our extravagant lifestyles?

Sadly, we’ll never have that conversation so long as global-warming alarmists rush to use such hyperbolic descriptors as “the new norm” every time extreme weather strikes.

 

Rush: Obama's Katrina

Yesterday at Atlas:

Obama: No New Oil Drilling

SWAT Teams Ordered to the Gulf

UPDATE: Click here to see the photos. The photos of the explosion -- mind blowing.

Obama surrenders gulf oil to Moscow

More treason from the America-hater in the White House. Oil is a strategic commodity, an element in our national security.

And you know damn well that those Russian drilling ships and oil platforms will be bristling with electronic listening antennas -- for spying on the U.S.

We have oil up to our eyeballs that we won't drill -- instead, we fund jihad and the barbaric ideology of madmen.

Obama surrenders gulf oil to Moscow

The Russians are coming - to drill in our own backyard

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES (hat tip Van)

 The Obama administration is poised to ban offshore oil drilling on the outer continental shelf until 2012 or beyond. Meanwhile, Russia is making a bold strategic leap to begin drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. While the United States attempts to shift gears to alternative fuels to battle the purported evils of carbon emissions, Russia will erect oil derricks off the Cuban coast.

 The Obama administration, however, views energy policy through green eyeshades. Every aspect of its approach to energy is subordinated to radical environmental concerns. This unprecedented lack of balance is placing offshore oil resources off-limits. The O Force would prefer the country shift its energy production to alternative sources, such as nuclear, solar and wind power. In theory, there's nothing wrong with that, in the long run, assuming technology can catch up to demand. But we have not yet reached the green utopia, we won't get there anytime soon, and America needs more oil now.

 Russia more sensibly views energy primarily as a strategic resource.

Massive Clean Energy Plant Explosion: 'Mass casualties'

Terrible explosion at a Kleen energy plant in Connecticut. Horrible. Hundreds injured, "bodies everywhere."

A gas line exploded. People in surrounding areas thought there had been an earthquake. One homeowner thought a car crashed into their home.

Kleen energy.

Will this do to clean energy what Three Mile Island did to nuclear energy? Not another nuclear plant was built after Three Mile Island, with none dead. Clean, cheap energy by the leftofascists and their cultural war on America.

Authorities said they do not know what caused it.

Mass casualties reported after explosion at Kleen Energy Systems power plant ...

Palin Slays Climate Fraud in Under 140 Characters ...tweetleydee

Sarah Palin has chalked up the just-concluded Copenhagen climate change summit to the "arrogance of man." In the early morning hours (Texas time) Saturday, the former governor tweeted:

Copenhgen=arrogance of man2think we can change nature's ways.MUST b good stewards of God's earth,but arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature

Earth saw clmate chnge4 [eons];will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng

Palin Tweets on Copenhagen

In a Facebook Notes op-ed posted December 3, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate had urged President Barack Obama to boycott the conference in Denmark. Her opinion piece published in the Washington Post December 9 warned Americans to "be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference":

"Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science."

You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still Obama. h/t: The Hill Blogs

Pamela Geller, Newsmax: Climate Fraud

Read the latest Geller article over at Newsmax:

Now that climategate has exposed global warming to be the greatest scientific and political fraud in history, the new demon is carbon dioxide: So every time you exhale, you’re now polluting the atmosphere.

Indeed, carbon dioxide threatens “the public health and welfare of the American people,” according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

President Obama is the chief culprit in this absurdity, but the Supreme Court bears some of the blame as well. It ruled back in 2007 that carbon dioxide could be classified as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. But it also said that, before the EPA could act to restrict this “pollutant,” it would have to show that it actually damaged the public health.

Climategate was already the biggest fraud in the history of science, and it is starting to have more twists and turns than an Agatha Christie novel. Each hoax is more preposterous and insane than the previous one.

Hoax and Change: Climategate Evidence ..... not Hacked, Inside Whistleblower

There is not, now, much value in arguing about the science of climate change. Even if it’s wrong, enough people now believe it that it may as well be right. (Quote of the week)

Climategate, the biggest fraud in science history, has more twists and turns than a Christie novel. Check out this latest stunning post which I found over at Watts Up With That -- the leading blog on the true science of climate change. It's a very thorough and technical analysis, which proves that the release of documents came from an inside whistleblower, instead of from some Russian hacker. His identity has not been released. This is important, because the climate changers have been using the hacking as an illegal act in an effort to mitigate the impact of the released messages that show Global Warming is a scam. The moochers and looters have attempted to disqualify the evidence as it was "illegally" obtained (the NY Times, of FISA and NSA leak fame, would not run the emails as they were private ...heh). Read the post. We have much more to fear:

THE SMOKING GUN AT DARWIN ZERO

People keep saying “Yes, the Climategate scientists behaved badly. But that doesn’t mean the data is bad. That doesn’t mean the earth is not warming.”

Darwin Airport - by Dominic Perrin via Panoramio

Let me start with the second objection first. The earth has generally been warming since the Little Ice Age, around 1650. There is general agreement that the earth has warmed since then. See e.g. Akasofu. Climategate doesn’t affect that.

The second question, the integrity of the data, is different. People say “Yes, they destroyed emails, and hid from Freedom of information Acts, and messed with proxies, and fought to keep other scientists’ papers out of the journals … but that doesn’t affect the data, the data is still good.” Which sounds reasonable.

There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups take raw data, and they “homogenize” it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location and there’s a 2C jump in the temperature. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data.

So I’m still on my multi-year quest to understand the climate data. You never know where this data chase will lead. This time, it has ended me up in Australia. I got to thinking about Professor Wibjorn Karlen’s statement about Australia that I quoted here:

Another example is Australia. NASA [GHCN] only presents 3 stations covering the period 1897-1992. What kind of data is the IPCC Australia diagram based on?

If any trend it is a slight cooling. However, if a shorter period (1949-2005) is used, the temperature has increased substantially. The Australians have many stations and have published more detailed maps of changes and trends.

The folks at CRU told Wibjorn that he was just plain wrong. Here’s what they said is right, the record that Wibjorn was talking about, Fig. 9.12 in the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, showing Northern Australia:

Figure 1. Temperature trends and model results in Northern Australia. Black line is observations (From Fig. 9.12 from the UN IPCC Fourth Annual Report). Covers the area from 110E to 155E, and from 30S to 11S. Based on the CRU land temperature.) Data from the CRU.

One of the things that was revealed in the released CRU emails is that the CRU basically uses the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) dataset for its raw data. So I looked at the GHCN dataset. There, I find three stations in North Australia as Wibjorn had said, and nine stations in all of Australia, that cover the period 1900-2000. Here is the average of the GHCN unadjusted data for those three Northern stations, from AIS:

Figure 2. GHCN Raw Data, All 100-yr stations in IPCC area above.

So once again Wibjorn is correct, this looks nothing like the corresponding IPCC temperature record for Australia. But it’s too soon to tell. Professor Karlen is only showing 3 stations. Three is not a lot of stations, but that’s all of the century-long Australian records we have in the IPCC specified region. OK, we’ve seen the longest stations record, so lets throw more records into the mix. Here’s every station in the UN IPCC specified region which contains temperature records that extend up to the year 2000 no matter when they started, which is 30 stations.

Figure 3. GHCN Raw Data, All stations extending to 2000 in IPCC area above.

Still no similarity with IPCC. So I looked at every station in the area. That’s 222 stations. Here’s that result:

Figure 4. GHCN Raw Data, All stations extending to 2000 in IPCC area above.

So you can see why Wibjorn was concerned. This looks nothing like the UN IPCC data, which came from the CRU, which was based on the GHCN data. Why the difference?

The answer is, these graphs all use the raw GHCN data. But the IPCC uses the “adjusted” data. GHCN adjusts the data to remove what it calls “inhomogeneities”. So on a whim I thought I’d take a look at the first station on the list, Darwin Airport, so I could see what an inhomogeneity might look like when it was at home. And I could find out how large the GHCN adjustment for Darwin inhomogeneities was.

First, what is an “inhomogeneity”? I can do no better than quote from GHCN:

Most long-term climate stations have undergone changes that make a time series of their observations inhomogeneous. There are many causes for the discontinuities, including changes in instruments, shelters, the environment around the shelter, the location of the station, the time of observation, and the method used to calculate mean temperature. Often several of these occur at the same time, as is often the case with the introduction of automatic weather stations that is occurring in many parts of the world. Before one can reliably use such climate data for analysis of longterm climate change, adjustments are needed to compensate for the nonclimatic discontinuities.

That makes sense. The raw data will have jumps from station moves and the like. We don’t want to think it’s warming just because the thermometer was moved to a warmer location. Unpleasant as it may seem, we have to adjust for those as best we can.

I always like to start with the rawest data, so I can understand the adjustments. At Darwin there are five separate individual station records that are combined to make up the final Darwin record. These are the individual records of stations in the area, which are numbered from zero to four:

DATA SOURCE: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=0&name=darwin

Figure 5. Five individual temperature records for Darwin, plus station count (green line). This raw data is downloaded from GISS, but GISS use the GHCN raw data as the starting point for their analysis.

Darwin does have a few advantages over other stations with multiple records. There is a continuous record from 1941 to the present (Station 1). There is also a continuous record covering a century. finally, the stations are in very close agreement over the entire period of the record. In fact, where there are multiple stations in operation they are so close that you can’t see the records behind Station Zero.

This is an ideal station, because it also illustrates many of the problems with the raw temperature station data.

• There is no one record that covers the whole period.

• The shortest record is only nine years long.

• There are gaps of a month and more in almost all of the records.

• It looks like there are problems with the data at around 1941.

• Most of the datasets are missing months.

• For most of the period there are few nearby stations.

• There is no one year covered by all five records.

• The temperature dropped over a six year period, from a high in 1936 to a low in 1941. The station did move in 1941 … but what happened in the previous six years?

In resolving station records, it’s a judgment call. First off, you have to decide if what you are looking at needs any changes at all. In Darwin’s case, it’s a close call. The record seems to be screwed up around 1941, but not in the year of the move.

Also, although the 1941 temperature shift seems large, I see a similar sized shift from 1992 to 1999. Looking at the whole picture, I think I’d vote to leave it as it is, that’s always the best option when you don’t have other evidence. First do no harm.

However, there’s a case to be made for adjusting it, particularly given the 1941 station move. If I decided to adjust Darwin, I’d do it like this:

Figure 6 A possible adjustment for Darwin. Black line shows the total amount of the adjustment, on the right scale, and shows the timing of the change.

I shifted the pre-1941 data down by about 0.6C. We end up with little change end to end in my “adjusted” data (shown in red), it’s neither warming nor cooling. However, it reduces the apparent cooling in the raw data. Post-1941, where the other records overlap, they are very close, so I wouldn’t adjust them in any way. Why should we adjust those, they all show exactly the same thing.

OK, so that’s how I’d homogenize the data if I had to, but I vote against adjusting it at all. It only changes one station record (Darwin Zero), and the rest are left untouched.

Then I went to look at what happens when the GHCN removes the “in-homogeneities” to “adjust” the data. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN discards two, likely because they are short and duplicate existing longer records. The three remaining records are first “homogenized” and then averaged to give the “GHCN Adjusted” temperature record for Darwin.

To my great surprise, here’s what I found. To explain the full effect, I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown).

Figure 7. GHCN homogeneity adjustments to Darwin Airport combined record

YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.

Of course, that led me to look at exactly how the GHCN “adjusts” the temperature data. Here’s what they say in An Overview of the GHCN Database:

GHCN temperature data include two different datasets: the original data and a homogeneity- adjusted dataset. All homogeneity testing was done on annual time series. The homogeneity- adjustment technique used two steps.

The first step was creating a homogeneous reference series for each station (Peterson and Easterling 1994). Building a completely homogeneous reference series using data with unknown inhomogeneities may be impossible, but we used several techniques to minimize any potential inhomogeneities in the reference series.

…

In creating each year’s first difference reference series, we used the five most highly correlated neighboring stations that had enough data to accurately model the candidate station.

…

The final technique we used to minimize inhomogeneities in the reference series used the mean of the central three values (of the five neighboring station values) to create the first difference reference series.

Fair enough, that all sounds good. They pick five neighboring stations, and average them. Then they compare the average to the station in question. If it looks wonky compared to the average of the reference five, they check any historical records for changes, and if necessary, they homogenize the poor data mercilessly. I have some problems with what they do to homogenize it, but that’s how they identify the inhomogeneous stations.

OK … but given the scarcity of stations in Australia, I wondered how they would find five “neighboring stations” in 1941 …

So I looked it up. The nearest station that covers the year 1941 is 500 km away from Darwin. Not only is it 500 km away, it is the only station within 750 km of Darwin that covers the 1941 time period. (It’s also a pub, Daly Waters Pub to be exact, but hey, it’s Australia, good on ya.) So there simply aren’t five stations to make a “reference series” out of to check the 1936-1941 drop at Darwin.

Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized Darwin records, I then went to see how they had homogenized each of the individual station records. What made up that strange average shown in Fig. 7? I started at zero with the earliest record. Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized versions.

Figure 8 Darwin Zero Homogeneity Adjustments. Black line shows amount and timing of adjustments.

Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?

Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero.

Palin's Political Climate

The woman is singular. She takes on all comers. Obama must want to go Chicago gangsta on her. He is planning something. Watch. She is sooooooooooooo on to him.

Check out her editorial in the Washington Post on Climategate and Obama's war on America. She has more testicular fortitude than all of the GOP. The left wets their pants at the mere mention of her name.

Copenhagen's political science

By Sarah Palin

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen -- which actually allow them to increase their emissions -- President Obama has proposed serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax proposals, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That's not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress's cap-and-tax plans, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.

In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia's Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.

Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in Greatest Fraud in Human History, "Climategate"

Does Obama deal with anyone clean? Has he ever interacted with anyone who was not radical, crooked, corrupt, racist, anti-American? Just asking.

And America has no mechanism to legally fight these usurpers? America has lost her way. So not what she was.

Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal Canada Free Press

Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as   “Climategate”.

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal.  In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

“The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball.  “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature.  It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.

“The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge.  Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”

cont on link

Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal

Founder Of The Weather Channel And 30,000 Other Scientists Wanting To Sue Al Gore For Global Warming Fraud

Do it already. Background on the biggest fraud in human history here.

Global Climate Change Hoax: The Greatest Fraud in Human History

“Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.”(here)

How hard will the corrupt activist media work to bury this explosive story? Many of us have exposed the hoax of climate change as revealed by legitimate, responsible scientists for years, but still the elites rob us blind and torment us with legislation, regulation on "the greatest threat facing humanity" (akbar!). The Goreacle stuffs his gourd with his "carbon footprint" ill gotten gains (110 million and counting).

TC sent this: "Unknown alleged Russian entity allegedly hacked into computers of a major center of 'global warming' hoax manufacturing (the Hadley Climate Research Unit of U. of East Anglia, England) obtained 1079 emails and 72 files containing nearly 4000 documents on 'global warming,' which if true - will prove that this is the greatest of all hoaxes ever posted and documentation on the internet. (Get this - the file name containing the allegedly hacked info was FOI2009 = ref to 'freedom of information' act ...) That site/webpage has been shut down, not to worry - here are three more sources for the entire 61 mb file (these may be shut down soon too).

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206

http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94

Caution: legal action is already being threatened by the "global warming" scammers against anyone who posts/reprints/distributes any of their allegedly hacked emails and or documentation (thereby confirming veracity and their guilt -- these guys are scientists?)"

Legal action is threatened for uncovering the biggest theft in human history. Got that?

"Attached file contains a few examples (screen shots) of the emails alleged to have been hacked from University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (a.k.a. Hadley CRU) computers. The hack originates from somewhere (still apparently unknown) in Russia. The hacker(s) have released 61 megabites of confidential files. You can see the hacker(s)' original internet notice to all interested ('This is a limited time offer, download now...'). That site (apparently originating in Tomsk, (Siberia) Russia, is now down/closed). Links to stories already in public view:"

"Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?" by James Delingpole

Scientific scandal appears to rock climate change promoters

There's big news for climate change students. A hacker has gotten into the computers at Hadley CRU, Britain's largest climate research institute and a proponent of global warming, and seems to have uncovered evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the "evidence" on global warming; the unlawful destruction of records to cover up this fraud ,conspiracy,and deceit in the entire operation.

While hacking into the institute's records is inappropriate if not illegal, the activities disclosed  appear  illegal and damaging to science and the economies of the world.

At first many of us were inclined to dismiss the posted emails from the Institute as fraud, but the head of the institute admits the records were hacked and the emails seem genuine.

Here is a sample of the purportedly hacked material (1079 emails and 72 documents) available online:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
>Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich
*******************************************


From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones" , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer


Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

>Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***

>The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

Thomas Lifson adds:

One interesting hacked email childishly insults American Thinker, by calling us "American Stinker."

Read the rest here.

Read what we said. Atlas flashback 2009: Over at Dr. Bostom:

And of course putting the Climate Scientology Horse (Hockey) well before the actual cart of the objective scientific reality of anthropogenic climate change, as the IBD notes,

Nor do they question their hunch — the idea doesn’t even rise to the level of theory — that CO2 emissions are causing climate change even as there are ample reasons to doubt it.

Anticipating such alarmist efforts, Dr. Ross McKitrick, the brilliant University of Guelph Economics Professor who helped debunk the Hockey Stick fraudulence of Mann et al, called their bluff in this June 12, 2007 Op-Ed. McKitrick’s full argumentation, including his mathematical modeling can be read here (McKitrick, Ross. “A Simple State-Contingent Pricing Rule for Complex Intertemporal Externalities,” July 1, 2008, at the Social Research Network site).

McKitrick’s premise is simple—and wait for this—evidence-based!

Why not tie carbon taxes to actual levels of warming? Both skeptics and alarmists should expect their wishes to be answered

Below are the salient points of McKitrick’s proposal. Again, the entire June 12, 2007 Op-Ed can be read here, and his full discussion of the proposal can be evaluated here..

The IPCC [Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change] predicts a warming rate in the tropical troposphere of about double that at the surface, implying about 0.2C to 1.2C per decade in the tropical troposphere under greenhouse-forcing scenarios. That implies the tax will climb by $4 to $24 per ton per decade, a much more aggressive schedule of emission fee increases than most current proposals. At the upper end of warming forecasts, the tax could reach $200 per ton of CO2 by 2100, forcing major carbon-emission reductions and a global shift to non-carbon energy sources.

Global-warming activists would like this. But so would skeptics, because they believe the models are exaggerating the warming forecasts. After all, the averaged UAH [University of Alabama-Huntsville] / RSS [Remote Sensing Systems] tropical troposphere series went up only about 0.08C over the past decade, and has been going down since 2002. Some solar scientists even expect pronounced cooling to begin in a decade. If they are right, the T3 tax will fall below zero within two decades, turning into a subsidy for carbon emissions.

At this point the global-warming alarmists would leap up to slam the proposal. But not so fast, Mr. Gore: The tax would only become a carbon subsidy if all the climate models are wrong, if greenhouse gases are not warming the atmosphere, and if the sun actually controls the climate. Alarmists sneeringly denounce such claims as “denialism,” so they can hardly reject the policy on the belief that they are true.

Under the T3 tax, the regulator gets to call everyone’s bluff at once, without gambling in advance on who is right. If the tax goes up, it ought to have. If it doesn’t go up, it shouldn’t have. Either way we get a sensible outcome.

But the benefits don’t stop there. The T3 tax will induce forward-looking behavior. Alarmists worry that conventional policy operates with too long a lag to prevent damaging climate change. Under the T3 tax, investors planning major industrial projects will need to forecast the tax rate many years ahead, thereby taking into account the most likely path of global warming a decade or more in advance.

And best of all, the T3 tax will encourage private-sector climate forecasting. Firms will need good estimates of future tax rates, which will force them to look deeply, and objectively, into the question of whether existing climate forecasts have an alarmist bias. The financial incentives will lead to independent reassessments of global climate modeling, without regard to what politicians, the IPCC or climatology professors want to hear...

UPDATE: Seefeutal comments:

I have just spent an hour going through Craig's List : employment: non profit for a dozen towns and cities in the US. In almost all cities there are ads for paid activists for greenpeace and the like to promote awareness of global warming, work for change, grassroots campaign and the like, if you have a close look at it you will see that father Christmas has come early for the "liberals". Someone somewhere is financing a massive campaign.

Methinks that someone is us.

Obama's Civilian Army Takes Mighty Scary Turn: Recruiting Military for "green" war

More disturbing developments in the creation of Obama's brown green shirts. The Apollo Alliance is recruiting for a "green" army:

You'll recall the Apollo Alliance claims to have written the Cap & Trade legislation as well as the Stimulus Bill; this according to Glenn Beck. The former "Green Jobs Czar" and self-professed Communist Van Jones sat on the Board of the AA. The New York State Apollo Alliance Director is Jeffery Jones, co-founder with William Ayers of the Weather Underground. Now these enemies-within-the-gates are recruiting our veterans. Part of Barry's enforcement crew? Retired military can be intimidating to civilians if they choose. (hat tip Deb)

Disturbing excerpts: ....

two green jobs programs—Veterans Green Jobs of Colorado and the Veterans Conservation Corps of Washington state—and the recently launched “Operation Free” campaign that has veterans touring the country to call for federal action on climate change. Veterans Green Jobs runs a 9-week “Home Energy Auditor Training” (HEAT) for veterans, using a rapid, hands-on “military” style of training ....

Deb notes, "Since our veterans are already trained, I'm assuming they will be training civilians to control belligerent citizens, etc".

“We think veterans are uniquely qualified to lead the environmental restoration here at home,” said Kirsten Maynard of Veterans Green Jobs. “Not only have they seen environmental destruction across the world; they also have technical skills and other kinds of work skills that allow them to do the really tough work that needs to be done - like go into homes and crawl in the attic and the basement. They’ve been trained by the military to do it, and they actually feel comfortable being in that kind of environment.” (Deb: Am I the only one wondering if homeowners' permission will be required for anyone, let alone retired military, to be crawling around their attics and basements? Where would YOU store the survival provisions and ammo? Just asking....)

The Veterans Conservation Corps has also inaugurated a new program, called Veterans Corps, which is modeled on the AmeriCorps program. (Deb: Lots of folks think Barry's civilian national security force will be recruited from AmericCorps.)

“It’s a revitalization of a mission they had in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Mark Fischer, who runs the Veterans Conservation Corps. “Once they left the military, that mission is gone, and it’s a big loss. When they lose that purpose it can be disheartening and disorienting. We try to create a meaningful job - for a purpose-driven life.”

(Deb: Note the quasi-religious tone here -- Minister Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Life.")

Palin Takes on Biden's Extreme Opposition to American Energy Independence

Talk about easy pickings. The brain takes on the bulb ... Sarah Palin on Biden's pathetic energy nonsense. Our national security, our economic health, and our independence is in the hands of dolts, marxists and leftocidals. Put that in your pipeline and smoke it.

Response to Vice President Biden's Comments Today About My Position On Energy Independence  Today at 1:42pm

As the vice president knows, I have always advocated an all-of-the-above approach to American energy independence. Among other things, my alternative energy goal for Alaska sits at 50 percent because Alaska reached more than 20 percent during my term in office. The Obama-Biden administration, on the other hand, recently announced a renewable goal of only 25 percent. However, domestic drilling should remain a top priority in order to meet America’s consumption and security needs.

The vice president’s extreme opposition to domestic energy development goes all the way back to 1973 when he opposed the Alaska pipeline bill. As Ann Coulter pointed out, “Biden cast one of only five votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation’s oil, created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation’s enemies by about the same amount.”

This nonsensical opposition to American domestic energy development continues to this day. Apparently the Obama-Biden administration only approves of offshore drilling in Brazil, where it will provide security and jobs for Brazilians. This election is about American security and American jobs.

There’s one way to tell Vice President Biden that we’re tired of folks in Washington distorting our message and hampering our nation’s progress: Hoffman, Baby, Hoffman!

- Sarah Palin

Obama's Abdication of American Sovereignty in the name of Climate Justice (!) Postponed in Copenhagen

President Give-it-Away, Give-it-Away, Give-it-Away now is not going to Copenhagen after all. He won't be giving away the store -- at least not this week. The plan was to cede sovereignty over to the UN destroyers.

But it seems the American people will have none of his sedition, and China and India, two key dancers in the global footprint dance, refuse to go. Heh.

Obama Likely to Skip Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen FOX

President Obama will probably not attend the U.N. conference on climate change in December because it is not a "head of state" event, but may use his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize as a platform to address climate change issues.

The current thinking in the administration is that since the conference is not a "head of state" event, Obama will not attend. Obama will be accepting the Nobel Prize in Oslo on the second day of the Copenhagen conference and may use that platform to address climate change issues.

On big reason the Copenhagen conference is not a "head of state" event is because of the slow progress of climate change legislation in the U.S. Senate. Absent Senate passage of a climate change bill mandating a cap-and-trade system, Obama will have nothing to bring to Copenhagen as part of a U.S.-led effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a factor likely to undermine global efforts to curb those emissions.

Negotiations with India and China on setting and enforcing carbon pollution limits have become bogged down, complicating global efforts to produce a successor treaty to the Kyoto Pact the U.S. never ratified.

Yikes. More asshattery from the asshat in chief.

ACTION ALERT: Obama to Cede US Sovereignty in December

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 to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate, 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 educate the public about the myth of global warming. 

Eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second - OBAMA POISED TO CEDE US SOVEREIGNTY, CLAIMS BRITISH LORD  (repub X)

The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.

A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.

Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

[laughter]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution, and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

------------------------------------- End of Speech -----------Some questions for Lord Monckton-----

Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:

Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.

Response: I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.

Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it’s signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I – I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.

I don’t believe it until I see it. … Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?

Response: I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate ratifies it – you’re bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this – and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that – and here you have a point – is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.

Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.

Verifying the treaty clauses Mockton made reference to:

Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

World Government (heading added)
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
© The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

I urge all Atlas readers immediately to contact your congressman NOW AND DEMAND that they do the job they were elected to do, keep America safe and protect her from her enemies, even if that enemy is in the White House.

Drill, Sarah, Drill!

Great piece from Sarah over at NRO. Palin's leadership, courage, wisdom, and goodness will become increasingly clear as America's descent into darkness becomes ever more dire.

"Alternative sources of energy are part of the answer, but only part. There’s no getting around the fact that we still need to “drill, baby, drill!” And if those in D.C. say otherwise, we need to tell them: “Yes, we can!”

You go,  girlfriend!

Drill by Sarah Palin, NRO

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. Ac­cord­ing to the Energy Information Ad­min­is­tra­tion, 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.

[...]

Building an energy-independent Amer­ica will mean a real economic stimulus. It will mean American jobs that can never be shipped overseas. Think about how much of our trade deficit is fueled by the oil we import — sometimes as much as half of the total. Through this massive transfer of wealth, we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could be invested in our economy. Instead it goes to foreign countries, including some repressive regimes that use it to fund activities that threaten our security.

Reliance on foreign sources of energy weakens America. When a riot breaks out in an OPEC nation, or a developing country talks about nationalizing its oil industry, or a petro-dictator threatens to cut off exports, the probability is great that the price of oil will shoot up. Even in friendly nations, business and financial decisions made for local reasons can de­stabilize Amer­i­ca’s energy market, since the price we pay for foreign oil is subject to rising and falling exchange rates. Decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy will reduce the impact of world events on our economy.

In the end, energy independence is not just about the environment or the economy. It’s about freedom and confidence. It’s about building a more secure and peaceful America, an America in which our energy needs will not be subject to the whims of nature, currency speculators, or madmen in possession of vast oil reserves.

Read it all.

How Convenient! Govt Destroys Global Warming Hoax Data "suspicious destruction"

This is rich, really rich. What a laugh, and the joke is on us. Big time.

Any Republican who signs off on the bankrupting of America vis a vis junk science climate change legislation is a traitor. Lindsey Graham is an asshat. ("Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., co-authored an op-ed with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in The New York Times calling for action on climate change legislation....Graham is breaking with other top Republicans, many of whom warn that the Kerry-Boxer bill amounts to a 'national energy tax.' The House passed its version months ago, but the Senate sat on language for the bill until two weeks ago." START WRITING or calling.

Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data:

CEI Petitions EPA to Reopen Global Warming Rulemaking CEI Hat tip Laura

Washington, D.C., October 6, 2009―In the wake of a revelation by a key research institution that it destroyed its original climate data, the Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned EPA to reopen a major global warming proceeding.

In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space.  The CRU data have been the basis for several of the major international studies that claim we face a global warming crisis.  CRU’s destruction of data, however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.

In a declaration filed with CEI’s petition, Cato Institute scholar and climate scientist Patrick Michaels calls CRU’s revelation “a totally new element” that “violates basic scientific principles, and “throws even more doubt” on the claims of global warming alarmists.

CEI’s petition, filed late Monday with EPA, argues that CRU’s disclosure casts a new cloud of doubt on the science behind EPA’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide.  EPA stopped accepting public comments in late June but has not yet issued its final decision.  As CEI’s petition argues, court rulings make it clear that agencies must consider new facts when those facts change the underlying issues.

The US has "more oil than all the Middle East put together"

3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate—

The government is, increasingly, the enemy. Imagine the jobs, the wealth, the independence, and cutting the jihad snake off at the head. There is no downside. We could easily extract that oil with minimum impact to the trees.

Why do you think they are brainwashing the children with all the "green" vomit? Going green, cleaning green, talking green, dressing green, shtupping green. Ayn Rand said back in 1970, "Ecologists predict universal doom and demand totalitarian power on the basis of arbitrary hypothesis, which sets back the possibility of such a science centuries. The ecology disgraces science. It is a political and publicity movement...........They have no right to impose their 'wisdom' by force on the rest of mankind. Those who agreed with them would be saved, those who didn't would perish. But this is an absolute: no discovery, no concept, no fact can give any individual or group the power to enforce their conclusion on others".

The green movement wants to "eliminate industry and labor-saving devices, and if the standard of living declines, that's too bad - we must preserve nature. Anyone who is against industry is against man, against life, against reason."

I don't vouch for these numbers. I don't know exactly how much we have  - I do know we need to drill baby drill.

I got this from Cathi via the Mission Viejo chapter of ACT! for America.

About 6 months ago I was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. This is out of context, but this is the actual question as asked. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer, how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground." Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota ; western South Dakota ; and extreme eastern Montana ..... check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.

'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea..' says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years' reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL! That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. 2. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO!

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World! Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States .

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

For decades, Democrats have blocked efforts to responsibly develop this nation's energy resources, transforming vast areas of opportunity into "The No Zone." (hat tip Jim)

Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum.
Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast.
Democrats have blocked building oil refineries.
Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production.
Democrats have blocked clean coal production.

But they're funding projects in Brazil. The Wall Street Journal:

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. announced that the Discoverer Clear Leader -- an ultra-deepwater drillship -- has begun work in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico, allowing Chevron to expand its search for new domestic sources of energy.
Chevron is forced to develop new technology to drill in the Gulf's deepwater since most of the US is off limits to oil companies -- thanks to Democrats.
(There's video at the link.)

Barack Obama's pal George Soros, "The Black Hand," is heavily vested in PBR, Brazilian Petroleum, which Obama loaned money to through the US Import/Export bank -drill offshore oil and development. Which they wouldn't do here in Alaska or Utah.

George Soros top five holdings here .

1.Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.Petrobras (PBR) - 9,818,323 shares, 15.42% of the total portfolio
2.Hess Corp. (HES) - 5,123,198 shares, 10.56% of the total portfolio
3.Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.Petrobras (PBR-A) - 5,884,700 shares, 7.53% of the total portfolio
4.Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. (POT) - 1,978,053 shares, 7.06% of the total portfolio
5.Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) - 6,526,400 shares, 6.84% of the total portfolio

Note that there are two Petrobas stock numbers (PBR and PBR-A, numbers 1
& 3 listed above).
The  absolute corruption of the absolute power of the Soros-Obama connections.