The theocracy of climate change ~ By Carl Jackson

Carl Jackson sees Obama 'forcing his redistributionist values on Americans'

Carl Jackson

When minor “setbacks” like the ISIS attack in Paris, France, or the Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino occur, he has no problem minimizing their relevancy. Not just because they don’t fit his political narrative, but because they don’t promulgate his moral one – that America is an immoral nation and the cause of much suffering worldwide.

In other words, in President Obama’s eyes, ISIS is a byproduct of American dominance around the world. It doesn’t matter to him whether or not “man-made” climate change is real; what matters to him is that it can be exploited to right his perceived wrong of America stealing the world’s resources. To Obama, addressing climate change is rectifying a greater evil – even greater than ISIS. That’s why it should come as no surprise to us that Obama spoke just a few miles from the site of the Nov. 13 terrorist attack in the French capital and called for urgent action against a challenge he suggested was greater even than the scourge of terrorism.

Don't worry. If you've had a thing for man-made global warming or climate change, we'll forgive you. It had to be difficult to resist the indoctrination you may have received since you were in preschool, courtesy of the leftists that took over all of the public institutions. Oh, and Hollywood? They made sure that most entertainment was produced with the narrative that man-cause climate change because of CO2 was a generally accepted fact.

But then, we had the politicians jumping into the game, which at one time seemed to span over the entire political spectrum. Well, that is until many on the Right were finally able to discern the fraud of global warming caused by man for what it was. Unfortunately, some who claimed to be Conservative gave themselves away, when they continued to be supportive of the big lie about human activity (in capitalist nations) leading to the ultimate destruction of this planet we call Earth.

When I checked out Carl Jackson's Facebook page, I found a link to a very interesting video that explains the truth about that "terrible threat" of "lethal" CO2 gas that is the basis of the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) delusional garbage... and which is actually essential for life on this planet to continue to exist.  See the video below:



There is one important point that needs your attention in Carl's column. It will really help you make sense out of the stupid things that Obama said in Paris, about terrorists being poor downtrodden victims (because of industrial CO2 emissions, of course) of the imperial capitalist West. I think he also injected that belief into his speech from the Oval Office Sunday night; he blamed that 2nd Amendment thing, rather than the radical Islamic terrorists and their goal of global supremacy. It's just his agenda. When you understand that, everything makes sense. Just sayin'...

*    *    *    *

The theocracy of climate change

Leftists count on man-made law to feel moral. Conservatives count on the God that created man to become moral. Webster's dictionary defines a theocracy as a government by officials regarded as divinely inspired. In a theocracy, the individual doesn't have a say in who will run his country or what laws shall be passed. In America…

New word for the N.Y. Times: 'Fasmunists' ~ By Lord Monckton

Exclusive: Lord Monckton reacts to 'climate scam' piece warning of 'next genocide'

The odious Snyder deserves the minting of a new word. For there are two species of totalitarian socialism on this planet, alas, and that shambling, bleating wretch is the very embodiment and quintessence of both. There is communist socialism, which believes that everything that moves should be nationalized and that everything that doesn't move should be arrested or left to rust, and down with the United States. And there is fascist socialism, which believes grinding the poor under its jack-booted heel and cozying up to big business and allowing it to be independent just so long as it toes the party line, and down with the United States.

The New York Times and its dismal professor of silly walks and cupcake-baking are communists and fascists rolled up into one. They are fasmunists. It's an ugly word for ugly people. Heil Snyder!

New word for the N.Y. Times: 'Fasmunists'

The Marxstream news media have always been champions of every passing totalitarian fad, however murderous. Hitler only got away with the slaughter of 6 million Jews because the Western news media fawned upon him and demanded appeasement almost until the first shots were fired in the Second World War. Likewise, the totalitarian press fawned upon Communism,…

VIDEO: Man-made climate change debunked in 3 minutes

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

VIDEO: John Coleman: No global warming, life is good.

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

VIDEO: The UN IPCC Climate Change Report Debunked?

When I wrote the description for the video, it was written with sarcasm in mind. The choice for me has never been to believe the so-called man-made climate change scientists, especially for the fact that the United Nations is behind it with their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Their credibility was destroyed with Climategate, relating to the falsification of research data by the East Anglia Climate Research Unit.

When it comes to catastrophic damage to Earth because of climate change (man-made or not), I'm not just skeptical;  I would be more likely to believe that Godzilla is going to come out of the Pacific Ocean near Fukishima, Japan before you are done watching the video below.  This segment only reinforces my climate change denial. Just sayin'...

RELATED LINKS:

• Heartland, NIPCC in Washington for Release of Latest Edition of 'Climate Change Reconsidered'

• Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

• Thatcher adviser: Copenhagen goal is 1-world government ~ Monday, October 19, 2009, and updated Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Please note:  To see the following video, you must be logged in to Facebook.

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!

Please note:  To see the johnny2k’s America videos on this blog, you must be logged in to Facebook.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

WIFLI Briefing for Sep 7, 2012 - What could possibly go wrong?

Really, what could possibly go wrong? Energy costs necessarily getting much higher? Food costs going through the roof? How about the cost of living getting out of reach for those of us that are underemployed, or have to work three part time jobs, and the nanny state wanting to take over the responsibility of educating our children, while indoctrinating them that families don't matter, and the government is there to take care of all your needs?

For those that vote for another four years for the President to accomplish all that he promised but couldn't do in just four years (thank God for the Tea Party), you will get what you deserve if Obama somehow wins.

In Obama's own words, "You now have a choice."

It is up to you to decide what to do with the information that I share with you here.  But I can assure you that there will be problems, as Chuck and Gena Norris explained to us, and you may just find out what could possibly go wrong with another four years for Obama.

*     *     *     *

Welcome to this edition of Time 2 Escape WIFLI Briefing!

What is WIFLI?
You may be wondering what the acronym "WIFLI" means. I started out by calling these issues the Time 2 Escape Daily, but that didn't work out very well. I quickly learned that putting these issues together on a daily basis was a task I was unable to accomplish. To replace "Daily" in the title, I borrowed the acronym WIFLI, which literally means "When I Feel Like It." Putting together a post on this blog WIFLI works much better for my schedule, and for the higher quality of each issue that is eventually published!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This edition of the Time 2 Escape WIFLI Briefing may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the U.S. Copyright Law.

*     *     *     *

Does a fundamental change mean bypassing our Constitutional rights to have a Democratic Republic where we are represented?  It's a choice between two futures.

President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order
From TheBlaze ~ By Becket Adams ~ on September 3, 2012 at 1:05pm

EXCERPT:

What could possibly go wrong?  [emphasis my own]

The order also “establishes a new national goal of 40 gigawatts of new combined heat and power capacity by 2020, a 50% increase from today,” according to a statement from the White House.

“Meeting this goal would save energy users $10 billion per year, result in $40 to $80 billion in new capital investment in manufacturing and other facilities that would create American jobs, and would reduce emissions equivalent to 25 million cars,” the statement adds.

Sure, it sounds nice and (like most things in this administration) it promises a great return on investment, but are there any possible downsides to this executive order?

“This is a fiat from on high for these utilities to change the way they process energy — an enormous capital expense and many of them are going to close down,” Levin argued. “And they only have eight years to do it as part of this ‘cap-and-trade,‘ ’green’ energy, ‘climate change’ bull crap.”

Video provided by DailyRushbo on Sep 3, 2012

~~~ READ MORE ~~~

White House Official Related Documents:

• President Obama Signs Executive Order Promoting Industrial Energy Efficiency

• Executive Order -- Accelerating Investment in Industrial Energy Efficiency

*    *    *    *

Phil Kerpen has it right: "... So we are beginning to look at a wonderfully complex world which has the potential for shutting down or slowing down virtually all industry and all economic activity and growth."

Repeal ObamaCar
From The Daily Caller OPINION ~ By Phil Kerpen ~ Published Aug 29, 2012, 12:55 PM

EXCERPT:

Obama’s astonishing takeover of the automobile industry, unlike his health care takeover, occurred without even a vote of Congress. Yesterday, to much fanfare, the administration announced its astonishing ratcheting up of vehicle fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. These regulations — I call them “ObamaCar” — were accomplished not through open debate in Congress, but through corrupt backroom deals in which our elected officials had no voice.

ObamaCar will, according to the administration’s own estimates, add over $2,900 to the price of a new car. This low-ball estimate was created by using a brand-new cost-estimating methodology that uses arbitrary factors to produce a cost estimate for a vehicle considerably lower than the total cost of its individual parts.

An analysis by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), which followed the government’s usual methodology, found the cost impact would be $4,800 per vehicle. But NADA also found that even the usual methodology has historically underestimated the actual cost impact by an enormous factor. NADA suggests a worst-case scenario of a $12,349-per-vehicle price jump.

~~~ READ MORE ~~~

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

A conspiracy of physics ~ By John Stossel

John Stossel discusses "green energy" with Robert Bryce for Stossel's show on Fox Business News. Bryce knows what he is talking about. Obviously, people like Al Gore do not. Al Gore would like us all to "stay in the dark" (pun intended). Just sayin'...

Maybe the electric car is the next big thing?

"Electric cars are the next big thing, and they always will be."

There have been impressive headlines about electric cars from my brilliant colleagues in the media. The Washington Post said, "Prices on electric cars will continue to drop until they're within reach of the average family."

That was in 1915.

By John Stossel

Posted: May 26, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

I ride my bike to work. It seems so pure.

We're constantly urged to "go green" – use less energy, shrink our carbon footprint, save the Earth. How? We should drive less, use ethanol, recycle plastic and buy things with the government's Energy Star label.

But what if much of going green is just bunk? Al Gore's group, Repower America, claims we can replace all our dirty energy with clean, carbon-free renewables. Gore says we can do it within 10 years.

"It's simply not possible," says Robert Bryce on my Fox Business Network show tomorrow night. "Nine out of 10 units of power that we consume are produced by hydrocarbons – coal, oil and natural gas. Any transition away from those sources is going to be a decades-long, maybe even a century-long process. ... The world consumes 200 million barrels of oil equivalent in hydrocarbons per day. We would have to find the energy equivalent of 23 Saudi Arabias."

Bryce is the author of "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy." He used to be a left-liberal, but then: "I educated myself about math and physics. I'm a liberal who was mugged by the laws of thermodynamics."

Bryce mocked the "green" value of my riding my bike to work:

"Let's assume you saved a gallon of oil in your commute (a generous assumption!). Global daily energy consumption is 9.5 billion gallons of oil equivalent. ... So by biking to work, you save the equivalent of one drop in 10 gasoline tanker trucks. Put another way, it's one pinch of salt in a 100-pound bag of potato chips."

How about wind power?

"Wind does not replace oil. This is one of the great fallacies, and it's one that the wind energy business continues to promote," Bryce said.

The problem is that windmills cannot provide a constant source of electricity. Wind turbines only achieve 10 percent to 20 percent of their maximum capacity because sometimes the wind doesn't blow.

"That means you have to keep conventional power plants up and running. You have to ramp them up to replace the power that disappears from wind turbines and ramp them down when power reappears."

Yet the media rave about Denmark, which gets some power from wind. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman says, "If only we could be as energy smart as Denmark."

"Friedman doesn't fundamentally understand what he's talking about," Bryce said.

Bryce's book shows that Denmark uses eight times more coal and 25 times more oil than wind.

If wind and solar power were practical, entrepreneurs would invest in it. There would be no need for government to take money from taxpayers and give it to people pushing green products.

Even with subsidies, "renewable" energy today barely makes a dent in our energy needs.

Bryce points out that energy production from every solar panel and windmill in America is less than the production from one coal mine and much less than natural gas production from Oklahoma alone.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Obama’s Faith-Based Programs Pushing Global Warming, Climate Change, Green Issues

I just started hearing about this in the last few days this week. It is very disturbing. Obama is now talking a lot about "environmental justice" to go along with "social justice," and he is attempting to expand this very secular religion by injecting it into churches. This article talks a little about that strategy, and how hypocritical the left is when it comes to the "faith based initiative."

So, Obama wants to use federal subsidies offered through he EPA and his faith-based outreach to get churches to promulgate the green faith.

Of course, it’s hard to see Obama’s use of faith-based initiatives to push his environmental message and spending millions of tax dollars to do so differs in any material way when measured by the left’s anti-Bush yard stick when they criticized his policies. The left universally cried that Bush was cynically using religion to further his political policies. No one can look at Obama’s current policies and see any reason to excuse him from being smeared with the same brush the left used to tar Bush.

By Warner Todd Huston

May 16, 2010

Widely reviled by the left, Bush’s faith-based initiatives were claimed to be evidence that Bush was a “religious zealot” trying to destroy America with evil Christianity. Now, two years into the Obama administration, we are seeing what Obama intends to do with his continuation of Bush’s faith-based offices: he wants to use them to push the religion of Greenicanism on America’s churches.

This month Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships issued its final report of recommendations and the result is nothing short of astonishing. (download .pdf file)

The question that immediately comes to mind, of course, is if the left will explode in excoriation of Obama’s faith-based policies as it did with Bush’s?

The left was out of its mind over Bush’s ideas. In 2004, for instance, the website TheocracyWatch.org hyperbolically said, “Under the Bush administration, our country is experiencing a major transformation from a secular to a religious government. The President’s faith-based initiative is central to this transformation and raises serious questions about church-state separation.” This was the left-wing talking points du jour on Bush’s faith-based programs.

It wasn’t just the left, but even from the libertarian side Bush’s ideas were attacked. Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute said that the faith-based initiative was a “direct violation” of the Constitution.

And the media universally hated the idea. Lew Daly of Boston Review magazine tried to color Bush’s program as a “seismic change in American politics,” and for The New York Times Ron Suskind breathlessly burbled that Bush had, “created the faith-based presidency.” And those were what passed for the civil proclamations, others were more nutty by claiming that Bush was a religious zealot that was destroying the country through that evil Christianity stuff.

Candidate Obama was widely expected to dispense with the faith-based office. But in 2008 when the AP reported that Obama intended to leave the Bush faith-based programs in place, the left was apoplectic. Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State criticized Obama over it. “I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration,” Lynn said. “It ought to be shut down, not continued.”

After the AP’s report candidate Obama himself spun reports as a distortion. In July of 2008, Obama addressed the issue in a speech in Zanesville, Ohio.

“Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.”

As with most things that Obama says, this claim that was then. While Obama is following the left-wing penchant to eschew actual religiosity, Obama has apparently decided that his own special brand of religion would be what is promulgated with his continuation of Bush’s faith-based policies. The money he’s spending to “proselytize” his green ideas apparently doesn’t strike him as a violation of his 2008 proclamations.

READ FULL STORY at Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Warmists overwhelmed by fear, panic and deranged hatred as their 'science' collapses

It's again time for another great James Delingpole column (or blog) to contribute to the anti-AGW material I've been checking out today. Delingpole never disappoints me.

Sorry chaps, it won’t wash. The debate has moved on. It’s not about “the science” any more. (Not that it ever was). It’s about economics. Politics. Money. The taxpayer versus Big Government.

By James Delingpole

Last updated: March 5th, 2010

A sharp-eyed viewer has noticed that when I was debating George Monbiot on TV yesterday and I mentioned that his cherished “peer-reviewed science” had been discredited by Climategate he bared his teeth like a cornered cur. Says my body language expert John Lish:

“It was a quite aggressive and defensive gesture which was noticeable when he was attempting to dismiss you (talking about peer review). A definite body-language sign of being rattled. He’s definitely uncomfortable about what’s occurring and others will have spotted that as well.”

Monbiot isn’t the only one. Consider the paranoid tone of this email from climate-fear-promoter Paul Ehrlich, during an exchange with fellow members at the National Academy of Scientists on how best to deal with the Denier threat: (Hat tip: Marc Morano)

“Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules.”

And consider this tragic response from the editor of the US magazine Skeptical Inquirer when faced with declining readership. Despite its name, the Skeptical Inquirer has tended to adopt a none-too-sceptical position on AGW. This has annoyed one or two readers who have been cancelling their subscriptions in disgust. The editor Kendrick Frazier seems to imagine that this is not a reflection on his editorial policy but on his readership’s ‘false consciousness’ – as he shows in this robust editorial. (hat tip: Philip Thomas)...

READ FULL STORY at Telegraph.co.uk

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Clash over 'global warming' ratcheted up another degree

"It's about economics. Politics. Money. The taxpayer versus Big Government," says U.K. writer James Delingpole of the Telegraph.  There was never anything more true. After you read this column, you will soon realize just how nervous the global warming scammers are getting that their religion of consensus science is continuing to fall apart. And when the press even covers the startling news of such things as ClimateGate, their desperation grows to all new levels...

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.


~ From the Petition Project, which now list tens of thousands of qualified scientists who endorse the above statement

Congressman wants funding stopped; scientists plan retaliation campaign

By Bob Unruh

Posted: March 05, 2010 ~ 9:50 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

The clash over "global warming" has been ratcheted up another degree this week, with one member of Congress demanding U.S. taxpayer funding for the research be halted and scientists who have been accused of slipshod and deceptive work planning a campaign of retaliation against their critics.

The controversy moved to the front burner late last year when a series of e-mails was hacked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain that indicate scientists were hiding and manipulating data and trying to marginalize critics.

The revelations were significant, because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency signed two findings Dec. 7 that concluded greenhouse gases in the atmosphere "threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations." The EPA's rulings could mean thousands of dollars in additional taxes for individual consumers.

Now, Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton, R-Texas, is citing the doubts about the integrity of "climate change" science in a letter asking for an accounting of U.S. taxpayer support for the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.

The U.S. since 1994 has given some $50 million to the panel, and contributions under Obama now have doubled.

Barton, writing to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asked the State Department to stop any contributions until an up-to-date audit is released.

"In recent months, the IPCC has come under significant criticism for the quality of its principal work product: the periodic assessments of the causes ofclimate change and related impacts from a changing climate," Barton wrote.

"Various reports have identified problems concerning quality-control procedures, peer review, and political influence on the assessment writeups, raising serious questions about the scientific integrity of the enterprise," he said.

The congressman asked Clinton to provide details of U.S. funding and state what controls – if any – have been placed on the funds.

Meanwhile, the Washington Times reports "global warming" scientists are preparing to strike back at their critics.

The report by Stephen Dinan said the newspaper had obtained private e-mails in which climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences said they were tired of "being treated like political pawns."

The e-mails revealed a strategy to form a nonprofit group that would challenge "global warming" critics in public newspaper ads. One suggested "an outlandlishly aggressively partisan approach" that would gut credibility of critics.

"Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails obtained by the newspaper.

Many of the scientists in the "climate change" advocacy camp have been "under siege," the newspaper reported, since the East Anglia e-mails revealed discussions about skewing data to push chosen results.

Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., has suggested the Justice Department investigate scientists for potentially falsifying data.

Judith Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said scientists should be shoring up their own research and eliminating mistakes.

"Hinging all of these policies on global climate change with its substantial element of uncertainty is unnecessary and is bad politics, not to mention having created a toxic environment for climate research," she told the newspaper.

In the Telegraph in the U.K., writer James Delingpole who has followed the "Climategate" scandal as the purloined e-mails have been dubbed, said the arguments are beginning to border on paranoia.

The issue, he said, no longer has anything to do with climate, global warming or even science.

"It's about economics. Politics. Money. The taxpayer versus Big Government," he wrote.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Fear-mongering demagogue Al Gore ~ By Joseph Farah

This column by Joseph Farah doesn't hold back on the criticism of Al Gore and the global warming hysteria based on a scam that not only enriches Gore, but also is being used to empower big government, and even global government.

Why do you suppose so many foster this paranoia?


The answer is simple: It empowers the powerful and dis-empowers the powerless. It promotes big government and globalism and moves us away from individual and state sovereignty accountable to the people and the rule of law.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: March 03, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Which are you going to believe: Al Gore or your own eyes?

Forget what we in the United States and many around the world have experienced this winter, he writes in a New York Times op-ed. It may seem colder, but this is exactly what should be expected in a global-warming scenario, he claims. Just as a snowless winter in Washington a few years ago was also exactly what we should expect.

If it's hot, blame global warming. If it's cold, blame climate change.

Al Gore is not a serious person. He's a get-rich-quick artist who is peddling the biggest con game in the history of man.

He once famously accused George W. Bush of "playing on our fears." But listen to Gore's voice of "reason" in his latest screed:

• We're facing "an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it."

• Our grandchildren will "one day look back on us as a criminal generation that … selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands." (And, by the way, he's not talking about the national debt his friends in power are placing on those grandchildren.)

• "The crisis is still growing because we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere – as if it were an open sewer."

• Scientists "probably underestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century, the speed with which the Arctic ice cap is disappearing and the speed with which some of the large glacial flows in Antarctica and Greenland are melting and racing to the sea."

• What's coming next? "The displacement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees, civil unrest, chaos and the collapse of governance in many developing countries, large-scale crop failures and the spread of deadly diseases."

I don't know about you, but I never heard Bush speak in such apocalyptic hyperbole.

Al Gore once claimed credit for inventing the Internet. That, of course, was not true. But, as I have said before, give credit where credit is due. Al Gore did invent global warming – and he has profited mightily from that invention ever since.

He's nothing but a two-bit charlatan, but he is treated by the press establishment like a prophet, a courageous leader, a selfless crusader, a man of vision and ideals.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Does Glenn Beck really believe in global warming?

I've been listening to or watching Glenn Beck for a long time, and I would really have to say I don't think that Glenn believes in global warming. Maybe Glenn will talk about it on his radio show this morning.

Blogosphere on fire: 'Is this satire? I really want to know!'

By Chelsea Schilling

Posted: February 26, 2010 ~ 12:40 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

"Is this satire? I really want to know!"

That's just one of many questions bloggers and Glenn Beck fans are asking about a Feb. 21 interview story in a leading national Sunday-newspaper magazine that claims the newest superstar among conservatives "believes in global warming."

"You'd be an idiot not to notice the temperature change," Beck said, according to USA Weekend.

Writer Dennis McCafferty reported Beck also thinks global warming could be caused partly by man's activity. At home, he's going green by using energy-saving products, according to the report.

On his top-rated nationally syndicated morning radio show and Fox News Channel television program Beck has been a frequent critic of scientists and advocates such as Al Gore who contend man is causing catastrophic changes in the Earth's climate. Many Beck supporters say his record of opposition to global warming alarmism should speak for itself.

In response to some suggestions that a layer of pollution be released into the atmosphere to cool the earth and counteract global warming, Beck said in a 2007 segment on his show, "Welcome to Crazy Town, USA."

"I believe something is happening. I'm not sticking my head in the sand here. Global warming probably is having ... global climate change is real. It probably is natural," Beck said. He railed against Al Gore's proposed solutions to offset the purported effects global warming.

"A lot of people say the planet is doomed, and global warming is here to stay," Beck said. "I don't know. There's bound to be a solution to this. I think we just need to start looking outside the box."

In yet another 2007 segment, Beck gave a preview of his book, "An Inconvenient Book." He specifically referenced Chapter 1, titled, "Global Warming: Storming and Conforming."

"I wrote this chapter basically as kryptonite for you to use against your Gore-worshipping psycho friends," he said.

Just two days after the USA Weekend story ran, Beck equated proponents of global warming with conspiracy theorists who intentionally deceive Americans.

"We know they're capable of continuing the charade on global warming even though the consensus is currently imploding, there is no consensus," he said. The scientists themselves are saying that. The science is bogus. It is falling apart. … We're still having our politicians tell us, 'We're not going to be able to leave a planet for our kids if we don't act now on cap and trade."

He continued, "They're willing to bankrupt the entire world for a lie."

The following is a video of the segment (global-warming comments at 3:30 mark):

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Our climate czar's faith in fraud ~ By Walter E. Williams

The religion of consensus science continues to unravel for the global warming fraud. Professor Williams correctly points out that the EPA and the global warming czar, Carol Browner shouldn't continue to be "spending billions of dollars and enacting economically crippling regulations in the name of fighting global warming."

Given all the false claims and evidence pointing to scientific fraud, I don't think it wise to continue spending billions of dollars and enacting economically crippling regulations in the name of fighting global warming. At the minimum, we should stop the Environmental Protection Agency from going on with their plans to regulate carbon emissions.

By Walter E. Williams

Posted: February 24, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Private industry and governments around the world have spent trillions of dollars in the name of saving our planet from manmade global warming. Academic institutions, think tanks and schools have altered their curricula and agenda to accommodate what was seen as the global warming "consensus."

Mounting evidence suggests that claims of manmade global warming might turn out to be the greatest hoax in mankind's history. Immune and hostile to the evidence, President Barack Obama's administration and most of the U.S. Congress sides with Climate Czar Carol Browner, who says, "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."

The scientists whom Browner references are associated with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. Let's look some of what they told us. The 2007 IPCC report, which won them a Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high" as a result of manmade global warming. Recently, IPCC was forced to retract their glacier-disappearance claim, which was made on the basis of a non-scientific magazine article. When critics initially questioned the prediction, Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC's chairman, dismissed them as "voodoo scientists."

The IPCC also had to retract its claim that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests were at risk from global warming and would likely be replaced by "tropical savannas" if temperatures continued to rise. The IPCC claim was based on a paper co-authored by the World Wildlife Fund and the International Union for Conservation of Nature, two environmental activist groups.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Darwin is freezing over ~ By Ellis Washington

In a great column by Ellis Washington, he shows us how Darwinism and Anthropogenic (man-caused) Global Warming are such similar scams.  They are both "humanist religions," but there is one big, big difference. That is the money element.  In AGW, there are billions and trillions of dollars to be made. I'll just let Ellis fill in the details, as he does so well here.

By Ellis Washington

Posted: February 20, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.


~ Sir John Houghton, founder of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

… I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science. ... It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts.


~ Charles Darwin, letter to Asa Gray

As this man-caused global warming (now climate change) fraud comes crashing down upon the heads of all the state-controlled scientists, U.N. bureaucrats, Al Gore, political hacks on both sides of the aisle and humanist academics, I am reminded of an aphorism I wrote in an earlier article: "Show me a monopoly and I'll show you a tyranny."

I cannot help to see this manmade climate change scam being our modern-day equivalent to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution 150 years ago, which I consider scientific mythology or fairy tales for adults.

In a fine article published in the U.K. Daily Mail by Jonathan Petre of professor Phil Jones' BBC interview, the title said it all: "Climategate U-turn as scientist at center of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995."

One hundred fifty years ago, Charles Darwin, an unremarkable British naturalist, was able to beguile the entire education, political, scientific and intellectual world with his sophistic and unscientific theories of the origin of man as chronicled in his two famous books: "The Origin of Species" (1859) and "The Descent of Man" (1871). As it was then so it is now; Darwin and his zealous legions of followers had not one shred of verifiable evidence for their theory. Truth and logic are not required to join the cult of Darwin or global warming; complete religious devotion is.

But for some Chinese hackers publishing private e-mails between professor Jones and his colleagues at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and Pennsylvania State University, the public may have never known that all of their data on climate change was counterfeit and contrived; but more importantly, that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a willful scientific fraud from its beginning.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

The Chain of Command ~ By John Kubicek

From Breakdown of America (BOA)

By John Kubicek

February 16, 2010

(And the Subtitle could be: Why many politicians are at the bottom of the food chain!)

Today, I’m going to get into some rich food for thought. This could only happen due to the major sleep deprivation that I’ve recently experienced. I believe that this morning, I had a revelation. (And don’t forget my first name is John.) I came up with a theoretical formula that obliterates the liberal/progressive/Socialist propaganda of man-caused global warming or climate change. If you remember any of the math classes you took, going back to middle-school, you will understand what this logical expression comes down to.

The “Chain of Command” Theorem:

God > Nature > Man > animals > plants > bacteria > politicians, where politicians = viruses

Unfortunately, America is infected… with politicians. Like viruses, they go on the constant offense to make you feel miserable. They make sure that they position themselves to feel superior to you. And in the mean time, they want you to feel like YOU are at the bottom of the food chain. They are high and mighty, and you are a lowly serf.

And yet, decades ago, they decided that they want to give you the credit for being able to control the climate. Yep. You have the power to utilize your vehicle to transport yourself from point A to point B. And that ability consumes the kind of energy that not only depletes our natural resources on this rock, but also has the ability to alter Nature.

It was the perfect fraud, they thought. The politicians actually believed that they could t0taly turn the Chain of Command completely upside down. To do so, they had to convince you that they should be God, and you were lower than the bacteria. Think about it. First, they exalt bacteria by saying how various bacterial diseases or viruses could take your life. The horror!

And then, they exalt the plant life by going around hugging trees and telling us that we should communicate with plant life, and they gave us the movie, “Avatar.”

But wait, suddenly your dogs and cats should have at least the rights that even the terrorists (also animals) have! Am I kidding you? Animal rights? Yeah, right…. Unbelievable… That is until you see what people that go along with PETA may have done to attack various shelters and labs…

Last but not least, was to tell Man that we had control over Nature. That alone is the standard indoctrination that there IS no God. They’re saying that we – the people – are in control of what Nature does. That’s funny, because I would think that many of the residents of the 49 states of the United States that saw snow this year never really wanted to see the evil white flakes… So, uh, why can’t somebody finally come up with a way to prevent cold and snow? Hmmm?

READ FULL STORY >

RELATED VIDEO:

February 15, 2010 - East Anglia CRU climate scientist Phil Jones now says there's been no warming in last 15 years!

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Give Al Gore his due ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: February 03, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 I never thought Al Gore was very bright, but you've got to give the guy his due. He's got the whole world trading carbon credits and measuring carbon footprints. He has turned the economic order of the world upside-down. He's whipped up more apocalyptic hysteria than the Mayan calendar. Al Gore did all that with his invention of manmade, catastrophic global warming. And, make no mistake about it, unlike his claim to birthing the Internet, Al Gore really did invent climate change out of nothing more than computer models, a fertile imagination and political necessity. People like Al Gore actually don't like America. They want to change it in fundamental ways to make it more to their liking and so that America serves their interests rather than the interests of the American people. Think back 20 years if you are old enough. Do you remember what people like Al Gore were pushing back then – before he invented "global warming"? For one thing, they were telling us we had to produce smaller cars and drive them. Before carbon dioxide was the menace that was going to destroy the planet, it was other auto emissions. Back then it was poisonous, toxic emissions that were the problem. And Al Gore used the coercive power of the state to force automakers to reduce those emissions. When no one could rationally argue that those emissions still posed a threat to the quality of life, a new argument to change lifestyles was needed. Leave it to Al Gore to come up with the notion that carbon dioxide and water vapor emissions now threatened to destroy the world. You see, it was never about cleaner air with Al Gore in the first place. It was never about health or the environment. It was always about attacking American industry, prosperity and the free-enterprise system. So he came up with a threat that could never be solved – a phony threat that could never even be measured. READ FULL STORY >

Why climate-change alarmists can't tell the truth ~ By Walter E. Williams

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Walter E. Williams Posted: February 03, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, in an hour-long television documentary titled "Global Warming: The Other Side," presents evidence that our National Climatic Data Center has been manipulating weather data just as the now disgraced and under investigation British University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The NCDC is a division of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Its manipulated climate data is used by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, which is a division of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration. John Coleman's blockbuster five-part series can be seen online. The Coleman documentary presents research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo. During the 1960s and into the 1980s, the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. By 1990, the number of stations dropped rapidly to about 1,500. Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth. Not adjusting for their loss made temperatures appear to be higher than was in fact the case. According to Science & Environmental Policy Project, Russia reported that CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. That means data loss was not simply the result of station closings but deliberate decisions by CRU to ignore them in order to hype their global-warming claims. D'Aleo and Smith report that our NCDC engaged in similar deceptive activity where they have dropped stations, particularly in colder climates, higher elevations or closer to the polar regions. Temperatures are now simply projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates. Mounting evidence of scientific fraud might make little difference in terms of the response to manmade global-warming hysteria. Why? Vested economic and political interests have emerged where trillions of dollars and social control are at stake. Therefore, many people who recognize the scientific fraud underlying global warming claims are likely to defend it anyway. Automobile companies have invested billions in research and investment in producing "green cars." General Electric and Phillips have spent millions lobbying Congress to outlaw incandescent bulbs so that they can force us to buy costly compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). Farmers and ethanol manufacturers have gotten Congress to enact laws mandating greater use of their product, not to mention massive subsidies. Thousands of major corporations around the world have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions, including giants like IBM, Nike, Coca-Cola and BP, the oil giant. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Dell have vowed to become "carbon neutral." Mounting evidence of scientific fraud might make little difference in terms of the response to manmade global-warming hysteria. Why? Vested economic and political interests have emerged where trillions of dollars and social control are at stake. Therefore, many people who recognize the scientific fraud underlying global warming claims are likely to defend it anyway. Automobile companies have invested billions in research and investment in producing "green cars." General Electric and Phillips have spent millions lobbying Congress to outlaw incandescent bulbs so that they can force us to buy costly compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). Farmers and ethanol manufacturers have gotten Congress to enact laws mandating greater use of their product, not to mention massive subsidies. Thousands of major corporations around the world have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions, including giants like IBM, Nike, Coca-Cola and BP, the oil giant. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Dell have vowed to become "carbon neutral." READ FULL STORY >