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.

You heard him. He said we can’t control nature. And climate is nature, right? So, he’s essentially admitted that we cannot control the climate.

So, why all the focus on climate change legislation? Simple, because world leaders can control people. And it’s so pretty to color it green.

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.

Hip Hip Hooray! We know the Washington Times is a conservative newspaper, but we still applaud them for taking a stand on their editorial page against Anthropogenic Global Warming.

It begins beautifully…

In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama said there was “overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.” In his most recent message to the world, Osama bin Laden said that climate change “is not an intellectual luxury but an actual fact.” It’s nice to see these two leaders can agree on something.

The hitch is that the man-caused catastrophic global warming theory is dead, and it needs to be buried. Evidence had been mounting for years that there were problems with the global warming model; most telling was that the globe refused to warm up. Carbon emissions continued apace, but the world began cooling. This is why true believers abandoned the “global warming” brand name and tried to shift the debate to the more ambiguous label “climate change,” which is something the rest of us like to refer to as “weather.”

…and ends beautifully:

Climate scientists have to come to grips with some highly inconvenient truths. World temperatures continue to decline as carbon emissions increase. Chilly Scotland is facing its coldest winter in a century. Arctic sea ice is not vanishing. Polar bears are experiencing a baby boom. Water vapor appears to play as important a role in the climate as carbon emissions. Sunspot activity may be more important than both combined. Meanwhile, climate change fanatics seek to blame capitalism and productivity for global warming, global cooling, too much snow, not enough snow, hurricanes, tornadoes and even the Haiti earthquake.

The simplistic and increasingly discredited theory of carbon-based, man-caused global warming needs to be discarded, and the scientists who sought to squelch skeptics and artificially inflate their own reputations must be disciplined. Alas, Mr. Obama and Mr. bin Laden need to update their talking points.

Go read the whole thing: Washington Post. And while you are there, drop them an email and tell them they did the right thing.

It was difficult, but as good citizens of the United States of America, we had to watch Dear Leader give his State of the Union Address. There was so much bullshit thrown about I’m surprised there were not more laughter-filled moments by the Republicans like this reaction to his statement, “I know there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.” But if we’re only allowed one moment like this, we’re glad it was on climate change.

But where’s Joe Wilson when you really need him? We were hoping he would make an encore last night.

The Obama stimulus money reminds us of a bad rap music video. The government is standing over a dance floor — throwing money over the crowd (“making it rain,” as the rappers say) — and people are jumping up in the air trying to snatch all they can. The only problem with this rap video is the club only let in Michael Mann and others who promote the greens’ agenda.

In this video, Fox Business News’ Stuart Varney interviews Tom Borelli, Ph.D., of the National Center for Public Policy Research to discuss stimulus funds, Michael Mann, and cap-and-trade. Our favorite part is Varney’s shock when he learns that Mann created the “hockey stick.”

We apologize for the obvious omission of Barack Obama as the money-spreading pimp in our analogy. But we figured he’d be doing plenty of his own gratuitous pimping on tonight’s State of the Union address.

We just got an email from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) suggesting we watch this video, The Facts of Cap and Trade, to get us pumped up about Barack Obama’s big night of bullshit tomorrow night. It’s best to know what the enemy is up to in their plans to destroy the developed world’s economy with cap-and-trade, so, if you can take it, have a listen. Here’s how the EDF introduced it:

President Obama is set to give his State of the Union address tomorrow night, kicking off the legislative agenda for the year.

We need your help to make sure fighting global warming is at the top of the agenda.

That’s why we’re making tomorrow a day of climate action. We will send you an email tomorrow morning with various ways you can take action on- and off-line, from writing letters and calling your Senators to Tweeting and posting status updates on Facebook.

In the meantime, to help set the stage, here is a new video on how a strong national cap on global warming pollution will work to dramatically cut emissions and put Americans to work unleashing clean energy innovation.

We sure hope the EDF never figures out which is our email address in their mailing list, because we really enjoy getting them. Like the last one, entitled “We’re Not Licked!” (on their climate change scheming) — obviously, they feel they are licked.

Economic Stimulus Funds Went to Climategate Scientist

Funds Should be Returned to U.S. Treasury, Says National Center for Public Policy Research

Washington, DC – In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.

“It’s outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he’s under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal. Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project.

Professor Mann is currently under investigation by Penn State University because of activities related to a closed circle of climate scientists who appear to have been engaged in agenda-driven science. Emails and documents mysteriously released from the previously-prestigious Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom revealed discussions of manipulation and destruction of research data, as well as efforts to interfere with the peer review process to stifle opposing views. The motivation underlying these efforts appears to be a coordinated strategy to support the belief that mankind’s activities are causing global warming.

“It’s no wonder that Obama’s stimulus plan is failing to produce jobs. Taxpayer dollars aren’t being used in the ways most likely to spur job creation. The stimulus was not sold to the public as a way to reward a loyalist in the climate change debate. Nor was the stimulus sold as a way to promote the Obama Administration’s position on the global warming theory. This misuse of stimulus money illustrates why tax cuts are a better way to stimulate the economy than letting the government decide where to spend taxpayer dollars. As is often the case, political considerations corrupt the distribution of government funds,” said Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network.

“Mann’s credentials as a climate change alarmist seems to fit the political criteria for stimulus funds sometimes known as ‘Obama money’,” added Deneen Borelli.

Mann is a central and controversial figure in climate change research. Mann’s so-called “hockey stick” graph depicting temperature changes over a 1000 year period was used as evidence in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 report to demonstrate that carbon dioxide from industrial activity is causing global warming. Mimicking the shape of a hockey stick, the graph showed a long time period of stable temperatures (the shaft) followed by a rapid rise in temperatures (the blade) during the last hundred years.

Critics of the hockey stick claim Mann manipulated data to eliminate periods of time such as the medieval warming period and the little ice age to eradicate the visual impact of natural global temperature variation. The emails from Climategate reveal that the inner circle of climate scientists were troubled by the methods Mann used to produce the graph.

“It’s shocking that taxpayer money is being used to support a researcher who seemingly showed little regard to the basic tenes of science – a dispassionate search for the truth,” said Tom Borelli.

The $541,184 grant is for three years and was initiated in June 2009.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a conservative, free-market think-tank established in 1982. It receives less than 1% of its revenue from corporations.

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth.

Our American dope was duped again. Obama is right about one thing: world leaders do love him, but only because he’s so easy to push around.

Full story: guardian.co.uk | Discuss: here

The increasingly unpopular President Obama does not get away scot-free. At 100′s into his presidency, 61 percent approved of the way he was dealing with the issue. Approval slumped to 54 percent in June and to 45 percent now. A big contributing factor has been a steep decline among political independents, who went from 62 percent positive in April to 36 percent now.

And it seems that the false science of climate change is pushing scientists closer and closer to the ranks of lawyers and used car salesmen. One in four now have no trust in what scientists say about the environment; once again, this is lead by Republicans and independents, in addition to seniors, where the number of doubters doubled since April 2007. As for the democrats’ numbers: these free-thinkers’ minds have changed only marginally.

We’ll never win over those in the Religion of Settled Science; they are too far gone into the cult to deprogram. But the rest of the world, who by the way are freezing their asses off, are starting to see through this, the biggest scam in the history of the world.

Source: Washington Post | Discuss: here