As candidate and president, on eight separate occasions Barack Obama instructed Americans to “think about what’s happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany” if they wanted to know what successful “green jobs” policies look like, and if they wanted to know what we should expect here in the U.S. from his agenda.

Some European economists took a look. In March, a research team from Madrid’s King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: “Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.” The paper concluded that Spain’s “green jobs” program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs.

The president of Spain’s renewable energy association — along with a Communist Party affiliated trade federation — decried the paper’s lead author as being unpatriotic.

The former wrote in Spain’s leading paper, El Mundo, slamming the research paper. However, he did not critique the paper itself — he agreed with its conclusion. He was furious only that the study was publicized. By revealing the truth about Spain’s increasingly mythologized “green jobs” and renewable energy experience, the revealed study threatened the prospects for Spain’s companies to be bailed out by the U.S. repeating these mistakes.

Incidentally, this became a common refrain. After the Spanish study embarrassed the White House, prompting substantial media attention and even questioning at a press conference, Obama swapped out Denmark for Spain for later references to an enacted “green jobs” program.

Soon, Denmark produced a study (“Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark“) through the think-tank CEPOS. This paper also revealed tremendous costs, and that Obama’s claim about Denmark’s “renewables” experience was also steeped in mythology.

The response from windmill advocates in Denmark was similar: such studies threaten Danish industry by reducing the chances that the U.S. will serve as the hoped-for massive new market to make inefficient energy sources profitable for their foreign manufacturers (Danish Radio TV News, Thursday, February 25, 2010).

Back in the U.S., the American Wind Energy Association — the lobby for “Big Wind” in Washington, D.C., which includes a few Spanish wind giants — also attacked the publication of the Spanish paper.

Soon, the Obama administration published a five-page talking points memo assailing the economic assessment — written by two young, non-economist, pro-wind activists from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Boulder, Colorado.

There is much, much more to this Horner’s article.  Read the whole thing here.

According to the Times Online, the British Government is writing fantasy to motivate people into believing that climate change will cause an apocalyptic change by 2035.

One incredible scenario, outlined in a report entitled Land Use Futures: Making the Most of Land in the 21st Century, John Beddington, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, who directed the research, is:

Heathrow would be converted into a giant reservoir by 2035, there could be severe restrictions on flying and driving and farmers would be forced to sell their land to giant agricultural businesses. Greenhouse gas emissions would be controlled by carbon rationing for individuals, which would lead to “significant shifts in lifestyle as everyone tries to stay within budget”.

The Government would ease pressure on the South East by planning to “disperse citizens to three new towns in Dumfries and Galloway, Northumberland and Powys”.

Evidently they felt one fantasy wasn’t enough to scare everyone so they came up with two more of them.

The second one is:

In the most extreme scenario, world leaders hold an emergency summit in 2014 when it becomes clear that the impacts of climate change are going to be far worse and happen much sooner than previously envisaged.

The Government responds by taking control of vast tracts of land and using it to grow wood and crops for biomass power stations. An agricultural productivity Bill requires farmers to increase yields per hectare but most have to sell up because they lack the resources to comply. “The average farm size in the UK increases from 57 hectares to 500 hectares; farms in the East and South East of England increase to 5,000 hectares.”

If that one isn’t bad enough for you…

In another scenario, the Government redefines land as a national resource and the rights of landowners are balanced with “society’s rights to public benefits from the services produced by it”.

They must have a lot of money to spend on this foo-foo because they had over 300 scientists, economists and planners working on this for who knows how long.

It really sounds to me like perhaps someone is planning on step two after carbon trading screws them out of billions.  The next logical thing would be to screw them out of their land and give it to their buddies in big agriculture.

What better way than to have a climate emergency?

This is an excerpt of a letter written by Nigel Farage a UK politician about it, explaining how this came about.

Corus’ steelworks at Redcar, near Middlesbrough, “Teesside Cast Products”, is to be closed (”mothballed” is the euphemism). It is Britain’s last great steelworks and an essential national resource. Without it, we are at the world’s mercy.

Corus is owned by Tata Steel of India. Recently, Tata received “EU-carbon-credits” worth up to £1bn, ostensibly so that steel-production at Redcar would not be crippled by the EU’s “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”. By closing the plant at Redcar – and not making any “carbon-emissions” – Tata walks off with £1bn of taxpayers’ money, which it will invest in its steel-factories in India, where there is no “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”.

Source: telegraph.co.uk

If you don’t get the picture I’ll explain it.

A UK steel plant closes and the workers lose their jobs. The company receives a billion pounds and the same factory is built in India producing the same CO2.

Whoever worked that out is insane.

Let me produce another quote from Sunita Narain, Director of the Centre for Science and Environment and the Society for Environmental Communications in India that’s relevant

Greenhouse gas emissions in many industrialized countries are decreasing due to a global economic crisis. India is among the few countries that are still growing and polluting more–and rightfully so, says Indian environmentalist Sunita Narain.

The most difficult aspect of climate change is that it is about sharing wealth.

Source: knowledge.allianz.com

If there’s any logic to us paying other people to take over our industry, and still produce CO2, I can’t work it out.

Will they ever give up trying to fix a non-existent problem?  I think not. They’re planning not only one, but now three conferences to try and figure out a new way to say the sky is falling. What will it be?  Methane Gas?  Ocean Acidification?  Little Green Men from Mars?  A Meteor? Cow Farts? Too much hot air from AGW believers?

The United Nations says formal negotiations on an international treaty to control global warming will resume in Bonn in April, four months after the failed climate change summit in Copenhagen.

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer said Tuesday the negotiating schedule is being intensified in order to secure a global climate deal at the end of the year. After the Bonn meeting April 9-11, more talks are scheduled there for May 31-June 11.

The next world climate summit is to take place in Cancun, Mexico, from Nov. 29 to Dec. 10.

De Boer, who will resign July 1, said that since Copenhagen, one hundred countries have submitted individual emission cut targets. He said he saw commitment by governments “to move negotiations forward toward success in Cancun.”

I wonder if Las Vegas will start taking bets on this?

Source: Examiner.com

In recent years, however, on the initiative of Lord Kinnock when he was its chairman, the British Council has been hijacked to promote the need for action on climate change. In answer to a Freedom of Information request, we can now see some of the curious ways in which the British Council has been spending our money.

More than £3.5 million has gone on recruiting a worldwide network of young “climate activists” in over 70 countries to engage in climate change propaganda – what Marxists used to call agitprop – and to pressure their politicians to join the worldwide struggle. Under a programme called Challenge Europe, £1.1 million has been paid out to fund young “climate advocates” in 17 countries across Europe, including Britain itself. But £2.5 million has been spent on a more ambitious project to recruit a global network of 100,000 activists in 60 countries across the world, led by 1,300 young “International Climate Champions”, to participate in “international peer networks, both in person and online, to share ideas, projects and experiences”.

Of this sum, £303,093.24 went to China; £71,262.91 to Brazil; £53,006.25 to Japan; £70,132.88 to India (including £11,000 to Dr Pachauri’s Teri institute); £77,507.89 to oil-rich Qatar; and £50,000 to the US. There was £120,000 for a dozen different countries in Africa, including £14,000 to fund climate champions in starving Zimbabwe.

As we said, WTF?

Best Superbowl commercial today! Unfortunately, most viewers have no idea how dangerously close we are to this.

In the wake of week after week of political reversals, fears are growing among climate sceptics that the current cybersecurity bill in the U.S. moves ever closer towards becoming law. In the Fall of 2009 the Electric Frontier Foundation (EFF) raised serious concerns about the Cybersecurity Bill proposed by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), that sought to give the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet. For months, the bill has been redrafted behind closed doors and has recently been circulated, but by all accounts, the changes are cosmetic and it’s sadly more of the same.

This proposed Act is the biggest threat to the momentum now building behind climate skeptics after a rush of bad news for President Obama’s faltering cap and trade bill. Fears are now growing among bloggers that the Rockefeller Cybersecurity bill would give the President emergency authority to halt all “inconvenient” web traffic and access private data.

Essentially, Rockefeller’s Act would federalize critical infrastructure security. Since many of our critical infrastructure systems (banks, telecommunications, energy) are in the hands of the private sector, the bill would create a major shift of power away from users and companies to the federal government. This is a potentially dangerous approach that favors the dramatic over the sober response and is rattling civil libertarians.

The EFF say that the new bill states:

The President [...] in the event of an immediate threat [...] may declare a cybersecurity emergency; and may, if the President finds it necessary for the national defense and security, and in coordination with relevant industry sectors, direct the national response to the cyber threat and the timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network.

In other words, they appear to have packaged Presidential authority to shut down the Internet and other private networks behind a ribbon of red tape, and the words “national response.” The bill does not define what it means by “cybersecurity emergency.” That definition would be left to the president.

Senior counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), Greg Nojeim says, “It’s an incredibly broad authority.” Nojeim pointed out that existing privacy laws “could fall to this authority.”

Having read the proposed new law it will be clear to any advocate of civil liberties that the broad scope of this provision could eviscerate all statutory protections for private information, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Privacy Protection Act, or financial privacy regulations. Since the 1980’s Americans have been protected by these privacy laws that require law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping in to data transmissions between computers.

Followers of the criminal investigation into Climategate will note that governments and the mainstream media consistently refer to this scandal as having been precipiated by the alleged “hacking” of 1,000+ plus emails among 62MB of data from the servers of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. There is never any pause to admit to the alternative hypothesis that a whistleblower leaked the data even though prsonal email and phone contact data was rigorously redacted and files were listed in a directory named “FOIA” (Freedom of Information Act).

Even more distressing, as we reported on January 9, 2010, a private British police group, the National Domestic Extremism Team, is in charge of the Climategate investigations with no accountability under existing freedom of information laws.

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says, “Who’s interested in this [bill]? Law enforcement and people in the security industry who want to ensure more government dollars go to them.”

Just like with the climate, in order to “protect” our infrastructure, the government must assume control over it. Obama is taking the work of George W. Bush to the next level of censorship building on the strangulation of civil liberties enshrined in the Patriot Act , and dare we say it? Perhaps we are seeing what is meant by “true socialism.” As with fascism, or any other statist doctrine of dystopia, it is all anti-liberty because it requires the use of force to be established and maintained. No matter which plutocracy you subscribe to, it all gives more power to the state.

We will be watching this Rockefeller’s bill carefully to ensure that it doesn’t pass in its present form (Shocking that a Rockefeller would promote authoritarianism–not!).

In addition to keeping watch on this bill, we’ll also be keeping a keen eye on the National Domestic Extremism Team to see if, and how, they botch the Climategate criminal investigation. For months, the bill has been redrafted behind closed doors and has recently been circulated, but by all accounts, the changes are cosmetic and it’s sadly more of the same.

It’s always a treat to listen to Climate Depot’s Marc Morano, but it is especially interesting when he’s speaking with Alex Jones. They point out that, while we are winning the battle against the global warming hoax, there is still too much inertia in international, national and state programs that are attempting to govern our lives through environmental excuses.

Part 2

Al, could you set up a meeting with Michael Mann for me?

The big news in America is that we now have, in Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA), the 41st vote against the massive healthcare bill that would (further) bankrupt the country, and set us on the road to providing mediocre care to all. But an even more devastating agenda of the Democrat leaders is to pass the cap-and-trade bill, and to cooperate with other suicidal UN member nations to pass global governance through a similar, international scheme which taxes the producers of the world. What does Scott Brown bring to the table in regards to using the global warming hoax as an excuse to tax the hell out of us, or to allow the UN to exert any power over U.S. citizens?

On December 17 of last year, while campaigning for the Massachusetts Senate seat, the Boston Globe published his answer to the question, “Do you think that whole global warming thing is a big fraud?’’

“It’s interesting. I think the globe is always heating and cooling,’’ he said. “It’s a natural way of ebb and flow. The thing that concerns me lately is some of the information I’ve heard about potential tampering with some of the information.’’

Brown continued, saying: “I just want to make sure if in fact . . . the earth is heating up, that we have accurate information, and it’s unbiased by scientists with no agenda. Once that’s done, then I think we can really move forward with a good plan.’’

Al Gore, Michael Mann, et al, meet Scott Brown.