Who Killed the Electric Car?

Who Killed the Electric Car? is a 2006 documentary film that explores the birth, limited commercialization, and subsequent death of the battery electric vehicle in the United States, specifically the General Motors EV1 of the 1990s. The film explores the roles of automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, the US government, batteries, hydrogen vehicles, and consumers in limiting the development and adoption of this technology.
It was released on DVD to the home video market on November 14, 2006 by Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.
During an interview with CBS News, director Chris Paine announced that he would be making a sequel called Who Saved the Electric Car? This idea was later scrapped as there were not enough topics to discuss.[1]

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

A murder mystery, a call to arms and an effective inducement to rage, Who Killed the Electric Car? is the latest and one of the more successful additions to the growing ranks of issue-oriented documentaries.- The New York Times

A potent hybrid of passion and politics fuel this energetic and highly compelling documentary.- Michael Rachtshaffen, Hollywood Reporter

If $3-a-gallon gasoline doesn't make you hate the big oil companies, the shocking revelations in Chris Paine's thought-provoking documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? will.- V. A. Musetto, New York Post
From: http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/

Elecric Cars and much more at: http://www.ev1.org/

More Sites: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Who+killed+the+electric+car&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=11&ct=title

The City of Dothan Begins Stage 2 Water Conservation

Updated:
March 26, 2008 07:29 PM EDT
The city of Dothan gets a head start conserving water.

Beginning April 1st customers of the water department are being asked to comply with what is called a "stage 2" conservation plan.

Residents with even-numbered street numbers should water their lawns on Sunday, Wednesday and Friday.

Residents with odd addresses should water their lawns on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
Nobody waters on Monday.

Dothan - which gets its water from deep-water wells, has suffered through some serious water shortages in recent years.

Article from: http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=8075024&nav=menu33_2

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change

Sponsored by The Heartland Institute
March 2 - March 4, 2008Marriott New York Marquis Times Square Hotel1535 BroadwayNew York City, NY U।S.A.

Joseph L. BastConference HostPresident, The Heartland Institute

Opening Remarks delivered Sunday, March 2, 2008

Welcome to the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change।

This is a truly historic event, the first international conference devoted to answering questions overlooked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change। We’re asking questions such as:

how reliable are the data used to document the recent warming trend?
how much of the modern warming is natural, and how much is likely the result of human activities?
how reliable are the computer models used to forecast future climate conditions? and
is reducing emissions the best or only response to possible climate change?

Obviously, these are important questions। Yet the IPCC pays little attention to them or hides the large amount of doubt and uncertainty surrounding them।

Are the scientists and economists who ask these questions just a fringe group, outside the scientific mainstream? Not at all। A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found

82 percent said global warming is happening, but only
56 percent said it’s mostly the result of human causes, and only
35 percent said models can accurately predict future climate conditions.

Only 27 percent believed “the current state of scientific knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climate variability on time scales of 100 years।”

That’s a long ways from “consensus।” It’s actually pretty close to what the American public told pollsters for the Pew Trust in 2006:

70 percent thought global warming is happening,
only 41 percent thought it was due to human causes,
and only 19 percent thought it was a high-priority issue.

The alarmists think it’s a “paradox” that the more people learn about climate change, the less likely they are to consider it a serious problem। But as John Tierney with The New York Times points out in a blog posted just a day ago, maybe, just maybe, it’s because people are smart rather than stupid।

And incidentally, 70 percent of the public oppose raising gasoline prices by $1 to fight global warming, and 80 percent oppose a $2/gallon tax increase, according to a 2007 poll by The New York Times and CBS News।
I’ve got news for them: Reducing emissions by 60 to 80 percent, which is what the alarmists claim is necessary to “stop global warming,” would cost a lot more than $1 a gallon.

Al Gore, the United Nations, environmental groups, and too often the reporters who cover the climate change debate are the ones who are out of step with the real “consensus।” They claim to be certain that global warming is occurring, convinced it is due to human causes, and 100 percent confident we can predict future climates।

Who’s on the fringe of scientific consensus? The alarmists, or the skeptics?

These questions go to the heart of the issue: Is global warming a crisis, as we are so often told by media, politicians, and environmental activists? Or is it moderate, mostly natural, and unstoppable, as we are told by many distinguished scientists?

Former Vice President Al Gore has said repeatedly that there is a “consensus” in favor of his alarmist views on global warming। And of course, he’s not alone।

Two weeks ago, Jim Martin, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, when told of our conference, said, “You could have a convention of all the scientists who dispute climate change in a relatively small phone booth.” (Denver Post, February 12, 2008).

RealClimate।org predicted that no real scientists would show up at this conference।

Well ...

We have with us, tonight and tomorrow, more than 200 scientists and other experts on climate change, from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States।

They come from the University of Alabama, Arizona State, Carleton, Central Queensland, Delaware, Durham, and Florida State University।

From George Mason, Harvard, The Institute Pasteur in Paris, James Cook, John Moores, Johns Hopkins, and the London School of Economics।

From The University of Mississippi, Monash, Nottingham, Ohio State, Oregon State, Oslo, Ottawa, Rochester, Rockefeller, and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm।

And from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Suffolk University, the University of Virginia, Westminster School of Business (in London), and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
And I apologize if I left anyone out।

These scientists and economists have been published thousands of times in the world’s leading scientific journals and have written hundreds of books। If you call this the fringe, where’s the center?

Hey Jim Martin, does this look like a phone booth to you?

Hey RealClimate, can you hear us now?

These scientists and economists deserve to be heard। They have stood up to political correctness and defended the scientific method at a time when doing so threatens their research grants, tenure, and ability to get published. Some of them have even faced death threats for daring to speak out against what can only be called the mass delusion of our time.

And they must be heard, because the stakes are enormous।

George Will, in an October Newsweek column commenting on Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, wrote that if nations impose the reductions in energy use that Al Gore and the folks at RealClimate call for, they will cause “more preventable death and suffering than was caused in the last century by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined।”

It takes more than four Norwegian socialists to win a Pulitzer Prize, so I’ll put George Will’s Pulitzer Prize and his recent Bradley Prize up against Gore’s Nobel any day।

You’ve probably read some of the attacks that have appeared in the blogosphere and in print directed against this conference, and against The Heartland Institute। Let me repeat for the record here tonight what appears prominently on our Web site:

No corporate dollars were used to help finance this conference.
The Heartland Institute has 2,700 donors, and gets about 16 percent of its income from corporations.
Heartland gets less than 5 percent of its income from all energy-producing companies combined. We are 95 percent carbon free.

And let me further add to the record:
The honoraria paid to all of the speakers appearing at this conference add up to less than the honorarium Al Gore gets paid for making a single speech, and less than what his company makes selling fake carbon “off-sets” in a week.

इis no crime for a think tank or advocacy group to accept corporate funding। In fact, corporations that fail to step forward and assure that sensible voices are heard in this debate are doing their shareholders, and their countries, a grave disservice।

We’re not doing this for the money, obviously। The Heartland Institute is in the “skeptics” camp because we know alarmism is a tool that has been used by opponents of individual freedom and free enterprise since as early as 1798, when Thomas Malthus predicted that food supply would fail to keep up with population growth.

We opposed global warming alarmism before we received any contributions from energy corporations and we’ll continue to address it after many of them have found ways to make a fast buck off the public hysteria।

We know which organizations are raking in millions of dollars a year in government and foundation grants to spread fear and false information about climate change। It’s not The Heartland Institute, and it’s not any of the 50-plus cosponsoring organizations that helped make this conference possible.

The alarmists in the global warming debate have had their say--over and over again, in every newspaper in the country practically every day and in countless news reports and documentary films। They have dominated the media’s coverage of this issue. They have swayed the views of many people. Some of them have even grown very rich in the process, and others still hope to.

But they have lost the debate।

Winners don’t exaggerate। Winners don’t lie. Winners don’t appeal to fear or resort to ad hominem attacks.

As George Will also wrote, “people only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues।”

We invited Al Gore to speak to us tonight, and even agreed to pay his $200,000 honorarium। He refused. We invited some of the well-known scientists associated with the alarmist camp, and they refused.

All we got are a few professional hecklers registered from Lyndon LaRouche, DeSmogBlog, and some other left-wing conspiracy groups। If you run into them over the course of the next two days, please be kind to them ... and call security if they aren’t kind to you.

Skeptics are the winners of EVERY scientific debate, always, everywhere। Because skepticism, as T.H. Huxley said, is the highest calling of a true scientist.

No scientific theory is true because a majority of scientists say it to be true। Scientific theories are only provisionally true until they are falsified by data that can be better explained by a different theory. And it is by falsifying current theories that scientific knowledge advances, not by consensus.

The claim that global warming is a “crisis” is itself a theory। It can be falsified by scientific fact, just as the claim that there is a “consensus” that global warming is man-made and will be a catastrophe has been dis-proven by the fact that this conference is taking place.

Which reminds me ... the true believers at RealClimate are now praising an article posted on salon।com by Joseph Romm--a guy who sells solar panels for a living, by the way--saying “‘consensus’? We never claimed there was a ‘consensus’!”

And notorious alarmist John Holdren a couple weeks ago said “‘global warming’? We never meant ‘global warming।’ We meant “‘global climate disruption’!”

I’d say this was a sign of victory, but that would suggest their words and opinions matter। It’s too late to move the goal posts, guys. You’ve already lost.

It is my hope, and the reason The Heartland Institute organized this conference, that public policies that impose enormous costs on millions of people, in the U।S. and also around the world, will not be passed into law before the fake “consensus” on global warming collapses.

Once passed, taxes and regulations are often hard to repeal। Once lost, freedoms are often very difficult to retrieve।
From: http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

Chemtrails

By Ken Adachi <Editor> http://educate-yourself.org/ct/index.shtml
Copyright 1998-2008 Ken Adachi and Educate-Yourself.org All Rights Reserved

IntroductionIf you are unfamiliar with the subject of chemtrails, you should first read this general overview of the chemtrail spraying operations which began in earnest in late 1997. Without first reading the introductory overview, it's difficult to understand the later informaiton that is being presented here. There are several key points to understand about the chemtrail spraying program.

Most people discover the reality of chemtrails by initially reading about it on the Internet and then going outside and looking up into the sky. They are shocked to realize that what they had been reading about (and studying photographs of) is also taking place right over their heads. What some people had dismissed as mere "jet plane exhaust" (because there are now scores of internet propaganda web sites trying to convince you that 'everything is well' and 'there's nothing to be alarmed about' and that unaccountable 'jet plane exhaust' plumes are magically being converted into horizon-to-horizon overcasts of "cirrus clouds" !) are dismayed to realize that chemtrails are indeed the toxin-laden aerosols that have been described here and at other web sites since 1998 and they are not being sprayed for any benign or national security reason as the disinformation peddlers would have you believe.

Nothing brings home the comprehension of the New World Order depopulation agenda than the realization that you and your family are also on the "useless eaters" (Henry Kissinger) elimination list.

I experienced that wake-up call in February of 1998. I had taken my 35 mm camera with me to the monthly meeting of the Orange County Chapter of the American Society of Dowsers and after the meeting, I had stopped off at a supermarket. After getting out of the car, I photographed for the very first time, the strange looking "contrails" that William Thomas had been describing on the Art Bell radio program a couple of weeks earlier. Thomas had dubbed them "chemtrails" on the Bell show to distinguish them from genuine (and rarely seen) short-lived ice crystal trailings properly identified as contrails. "Holy Cow", I thought to myself, ."We're being sprayed right here in southern California!" (Thomas lived near Vancouver, British Columbia). Although I had a number of articles about the NWO and their dark Machiavellian agendas posted at my web site, I was now witnessing (and breathing in) the stark reality of those depopulation plans. The NWO was no longer just words on the printed page.

Chemtrail spraying seems to be heaviest and most constant over North America and most countries of western Europe. Some countries in Asia are being sprayed (Japan and Korea), but the greatest exception to any chemtrail activity whatsover is China. The Chinese are being spared completely because China is being groomed by the NWO to replace the United States as the leading nation of the world, both economically and militarily.

On the brighter side, you should know that methods have been discovered to help neutralize chemtrails and return the sky to a normal blue with real clouds taking the place of the chemtrail soup and overcast which a host of disinformation peddlers are trying to convince you are just ordinary, "cirrus" clouds that "are formed from persistent contrails" (current disinformation spiel from government climatological web sites).

This "rescue" effort of neutralizing and transmuting the toxic elements in chemtrails was initiated in early 2002 with the introduction of a device called the "chembuster" which will transmute the atmospheric orgone energy envelope from one polarity ('DOR') which allow chemtrails to persist, to another orgone polarity ('OR') which will cause chemtrails to disperse. The proliferation of chembusters around the country led to another dramatic development in early 2004: legions of huge air elemental beings called "Sylphs" by ancient Greeks made their presence known by assuming cloud shapes that often look like wispy winged angels or animal forms (there are dozens of photos of Sylphs posted on the Sylph /Chemtrail page) who set about "cleaning up" the skies of chemtrail toxins by engulfing and transmuting chemtrail toxins into non-toxic substances.

If you're just finding out about chemtrails, you should read the earlier articles to understand the full extent and gravity of the chemtrail undertaking, but bear in mind that we have turned a corner on combating chemtrails and have now thrown a huge spanner wrench into the Dark Side's finely oiled genocide machine. If you want to hasten the demise of the chemtrail spraying program, please take the time to read about orgone generators, chembusters, and the use of your mind-with focused intent- to rid the sky of these poisons.

New or Recent Info:

Important Breakthroughs in eliminating Chemtrails! Please Read:

April 2005: The massive appearance of Sylphs in 2004 (see next paragraph below- August 2004) and their neutralization/transmutation of chemtrails into non-toxic elements was a huge leap forward in neutralizing the diabolical chemtrail genocide aerosol spraying operation, but apparently we have progressed to yet another level. People are now reporting the ability to clear the skies of chemtrails by use of the mind alone to obtain assistance from unseen helpers (Sylphs and others) and do the job for you based on your focused intention. It's really amazing to see this development. I first posted an article in 2002 by Rich Work about using the mind and the the power of prayer to disperse chemtrails, and now we see this ability coming into reality with many people. You can read more at these links:

Mind Over Chemtrails-Is It Possible?

The Art of Mental Chembusting & Other Strategies of Etheric Resistance (June 19, 2007) http://educate-yourself.org/lte/mentalchembusting19jun07.shtml

Sylphs & Chemtrails, Kim Hits a Home run! (Apr.16, 2005) http://educate-yourself.org/lte/kimshomerun15apr05.shtml

Can Humans Influence the Dispersion of Chemtrails? (Apr. 16, 2005) http://educate-yourself.org/lte/humansinfluencectdispersion16apr05.shtml

August 2004: The very latest reports and photos are now posted on a new index page, Sylphs & Chemtrails (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/sylphandchemtrailindex.shtml), which seems to confirm that Sylphs are neutralizing, converting, and eliminating chemtrails from the atmosphere in any local geographical area where a sufficient number of orgone generators have been deployed to convert the dominant DOR orgone atmospheric conditions into an OR dominated atmosphere. Read these articles to understand what Sylphs are, what orgone generators are, and the difference between a DOR atmosphere and an OR atmosphere. We are talking about nothing less than the demise of the chemtrail spraying operations! Chemtrails cannot exist in the presence of these giant air elementals and are they being destroyed as rapidly as they are being sprayed out of spew planes. You must read these articles and see the photographic evidence for yourself. All of the information posted below is interesting and informative, but it is now HISTORY. We are winning the battle against chemtrails and defeating the satanic traitors at their own game. Spread the word: DEPLOY ORGONE GENERATORS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD and you too will be free of chemtrail laden skies!

June 25, 2004 We have good news: The not-so-secret chemtrail spraying program, intended to keep us from attaining higher spiritual awareness/consciousness, to reduce ethnically targeted populations worldwide, and to induce bioengineered disease organisms in order to reap staggering profits for the pharmaceutical cartels is apparently failing- and failing badly. I have seen the evidence here in southern California and have read of similar reports from different regions of America. Read the articles below for an historical overview of chemtrails and the reasons for their deployment, but don't dwell on the negative aspects of this story because things are beginning to look up and we have good reason for optimism! Get involved with making or obtaining orgone generators in your immediate environment and be part of the 'hit team' bringing down this Luciferian inspired genocide operation.

Jan. 26, 2002. If you are just beginning to learn about Chemtrails, the introductory article below will give you an overview of how this spraying program began in late 1997 and how the situation stood up to early 2000. The overhead spraying of chemtrails has continued unabated for over five years now. Thankfully, the Goodbye Chemtrails, Hello Blue Skies! article describes a simple orgone transmutation tool called the "Chembuster" which will physically disperse chemtrails and possibly mitigate some of their noxious energies and immune crippling pathogens.You can also obtain a ready made Chembuster along with other types of orgone generators from this web site.

The essay below by Montalk was posted to the Internet in September of 2000, but rings as true today as it did two years ago. Montalk's analysis of the purpose behind chemtrails strikes me as intelligent. He's seems closer to the mark than most writers on the topic. The fourth article describes a metaphysical method to destroy chemtrails that could work better than the physical method if employed by enough people and practiced correctly. Print out these articles and pass them around. The fifth article is a brief description of Dr. Len Horowitz's latest book (Death in the Air) on the chemtrail spraying program describing its sinister goals, It's a valuable resource to have in your library. Lydia Mancini put together a good web site devoted to articles about Chemtrails and Radar Matrix offers some of the most amazing radar graphics of the unprecedented EMF/microwave assault that the military and government are bombarding their own citizens with...

Read More at:http://educate-yourself.org/ct/

Water shortages looming? Get ready now

By Ken SheinkopfHome Energy
Article Launched: 03/23/2008 12:12:22 AM PDT

Q: I just heard a radio program about future energy problems, and one of the speakers said she thought water shortages would be more a problem in the coming years than energy shortages. If this happens, what can we do now to prevent this?

A: I tend to agree with what you heard, especially since some parts of the world are experiencing this situation already. And many homeowners right here in the United States are paying water bills that are pretty close to or sometimes even higher than their energy ones.

The good news is that there are a number of things homeowners can do today to make dramatic cuts in their water usage and costs. Making water-efficient improvements can lower your water usage by 50 percent or even more. By reducing hot water usage, you'll further save on the costs of heating water you won't need. And putting water-efficient appliances and products into a new home during construction might let your builder downsize the plumbing system, resulting in enough water savings to pay for the cost of the efficient fixtures.
Plumbing fixtures sold in the United States today have to meet standards set in the early 1990s that require shower heads and faucets to have maximum flow rates of 2½ gallons per minute and toilets to have a maximum of 1.6 gallons of water per flush. If you have an older home and haven't upgraded these fixtures, you know the place to start making improvements. Note that there are many good products on the market today that use even less water than these maximum standards require, saving even more.

Major home water users such as dishwashers and clothes washers are required to meet federal energy standards, and newer models of these appliances are considerably more water-efficient than older ones. When it's time to replace your home's water-using appliances, you'll find that current models save a great deal of water over what you were using before.

An easy way to get started saving water is to install low-flow shower heads and faucets. Even cheap water flow restrictors can dramatically cut down on water use while still giving a strong stream of water for your shower or other uses. Finally, if you notice any water leaks in the faucets or toilet, get them fixed now, even if they are very slow leaks. You're wasting a huge amount of water and adding to your water bills by letting even tiny drips go unfixed.

If you want to find out how much water you're using in your home now, check out a Water Use Calculator I found on the Internet at www.waterbudgets.com/ConserVision/CUWCC/Datainput.htm.

Inputting information on the water-using fixtures in your home, along with how much you spent on water bills during the past year, will point out how much you can save. It's a great tool for driving home the point on how much water people use and how much of that is really being wasted.

Ken Sheinkopf is a communications specialist with the American Solar Energy Society (www.ases.org). Send your energy questions to askken@ases.org.
HOME ENERGY

Article from Mercury News at: http://www.mercurynews.com/realestatenews/ci_8667475?nclick_check=1

Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming

To Listen At Democracy Now Go To: http://media.switchpod.com/users/democracynow/ftp/dn2008-0321-1.mp3

Transcript:

Dr. James Hansen is widely regarded as the leading climate change scientist in the country. For the past twenty-five years, he has headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Just over a year ago, Dr. Hansen went public with a charge that made headlines around the world—that the Bush administration had been trying to silence his warnings about the urgent need to address climate change. Dr. Hansen joins us in our firehouse studio. His story is detailed in a new book by author Mark Bowen titled Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming. Mark Bowen joins us from Massachusetts.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Dr. James Hansen is widely regarded as the leading climate change scientist in the country. It was his testimony to a Senate committee in 1988 that first brought the threat of global warming to the world’s attention. For the past quarter of a century he has headed the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA’s premiere climate research center.
Just over a year ago, Dr. Hansen went public with a charge that made headlines around the world, that the Bush administration had been trying to silence his warnings about the urgent need to address climate change.

AMY GOODMAN: You may have heard Dr. James Hansen mentioned before on Democracy Now! His name has been cited by many guests on the show.

JOHN PASSACANTANDO: This government, at the behest of its oil company contributors, has been told not to put out information about global warming, not to allow the scientists to talk about their expertise with the press, about the connection between global warming and hurricanes. That happened at NOAA. There’s been pressure on Dr. James Hansen at NASA.

PAUL EHRLICH: I think it’s true that attitudes have changed slightly in the White House, because they now see a political issue, but they have worked very, very hard to suppress the science on global warming. For instance, they sent some junior jerk to try and keep Jim Hansen, who’s one of our very top climate scientists, from saying what he thought.

CHRIS MOONEY: Apparently, a NASA aide was instructed to interfere with Hansen’s ability to do press interviews. Actually, this completely backfired, because Hansen is not someone to be told to be quiet. And so, he just went to the media anyway, and it ended up exploding.

TIM FLANNERY: Can you imagine what it would be like for one of the world’s leading scientists, who is revered by everyone, to have this pipsqueak who lied about his credentials controlling what he tells the public? Just appalling. And, you know, the countries around the world would—I don’t know what they’d pay to have the advice of a Jim Hansen. It’s the sort of stuff we all desperately need. And here, in a country that actually pays him a salary and allows him to do his work, he is silenced. I mean, I honestly cannot see the sense of that. I can’t see who benefits.

AMY GOODMAN: That last speaker was acclaimed Australian scientist and writer Tim Flannery. Well, today, Dr. James Hansen himself joins us in our firehouse studio. His story of how the Bush administration tried to silence his warnings on climate change is detailed in a new book. It’s called Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming. It’s written by author Mark Bowen. He joins us from a studio in Watertown, Massachusetts.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Dr. Hansen, 1988, talk about the significance of that time.

DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, I think it had become clear that the climate was changing and that human-made greenhouse gases were a reason for the long-term trend in the climate. And I just wanted to draw that to the attention of the public, because we really need to do something before the climate change becomes large, just because of the inertia of the system. If we wait until the climate change is large, then it’s too late to stop it from happening.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what did you do twenty years ago?

DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, I just reported that the world at that time was getting warmer, and I expected 1988 to be the warmest year in the period of instrumental record, which it did turn out to be, and that humans were primarily the reason for this long-term warming trend.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And, of course, that was twenty years ago, and while the Bush administration has gotten a lot of attention for its failure to heed any kinds of warnings, there was another administration before that, the Clinton administration, as well. And I think Bowen talks in the book about some problems that you had with Al Gore and—could you talk about how the Clinton administration reacted to some of the warnings you raised?

DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, my concern is general with both Republican and Democratic administrations. They both feel that they can control what scientists say to the public. So their offices of public affairs in the science agencies are headed, in general, by political appointees, and they review the press releases before they go out. So, it doesn’t really make sense in a democracy. The public should be honestly informed. And then, of course, the publications are allowed to make the decisions, and they don’t have to follow exactly what the science says. There are other considerations that they have. But they shouldn’t influence what is presented, the scientific evidence. And I object to that, regardless of which administration is in power.

AMY GOODMAN: So, before we go on to the Bush administration, where you did have the most trouble, can you talk about what happened during the Clinton years and how you were able to express or not your research?

DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, the one particular event that stands out in my mind is when I wrote a paper called “Global Warming in the 21st Century: An Alternative Scenario,” in which I emphasized that it’s not only carbon dioxide, but other climate forcings—methane and black soot—and we need to address those also. And for some reason, the people in the White House didn’t like emphasis on the non-CO2 parts of the story, and I just—the press release just kept coming back, and I would try to change it, they would change it, and finally I gave up. I just couldn’t get a press release through the way I wanted it.

JUAN GONZALEZ: So, in essence, in these kinds of press releases, there’s a back-and-forth, as the White House or the environmental people at the White House—

DR. JAMES HANSEN: Yeah.

JUAN GONZALEZ: —edit your press releases?

DR. JAMES HANSEN: Yeah. And that’s another strange thing, because they don’t even admit that it’s going to the White House. You know, it goes to NASA headquarters, and then it sort of disappears for a couple weeks. And where is it? Well, it’s very often at the White House, and I mentioned that. And now, they tried not to make that known, you know? And that’s, again, something that’s very inappropriate, in my opinion. And again, it’s happened in both administrations.

AMY GOODMAN: So let’s talk about what happened when the Bush administration came in. You were continuing to do your research. First of all, explain your place of work and the significance of NASA Goddard.

DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, NASA is important, I think, because of the global observations that we make from satellites. We see what’s happening, for example, on Greenland and then West Antarctica. My laboratory is also involved in the global models that try to interpret what’s happening. And we’re also located at Columbia University, where we have the opportunity to work with people who have the data from the history of the earth over thousands and millions of years. You put together these different things—the satellite information, the information on how the earth responded in the past when greenhouse gases changed and other things changed, and the models—and then you get a picture of how the system works.
And that’s what really concerns me, because it’s the inertia of the system which tells us we’re already pushing it, so that it’s going to respond more over the next several decades. There’s a lot more climate response which is already in the pipeline, that we haven’t seen it yet, and that’s why we have to have an understanding of what’s happening, so we can take the actions now before it’s too late.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Of course, the speech of yours that got even more attention was then in December of ’97—was it?—when you also then raised again the sense that you were—not only that the planet was reaching the tipping level in terms of the dangers of greenhouse emissions, but also, shortly afterwards, you started getting the articles appearing in the New York Times and other places about the direct attempts by the government to silence you.

DR. JAMES HANSEN: 1997—I think you mean—

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’m sorry, 2007.

DR. JAMES HANSEN: Yeah, 2006, I believe. I gave a speech in December of 2005 at the American Geophysical Union meeting, in which I tried to connect the dots. And the dots extend all the way to the role of special interests in confusing the public, you know, in not allowing straight scientific discussion of what’s happening and what’s causing it.
And, of course, the main problem is fossil fuel use. And the truth is, we cannot put all of the fossil fuel—the carbon dioxide from all the fossil fuels back into the atmosphere without creating a completely different planet. The last time that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere, there was no ice on the planet. It was a completely different planet. And we have to realize we either are going to have to leave a lot of the fossil fuels in the ground, or else we’re going to have to capture the carbon dioxide when the fossil fuels are burned. And that just is not well understood, and the fossil fuel companies would rather that you didn’t understand that.

AMY GOODMAN: Who are those special interests, those fossil fuel companies that you’re talking about?

DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, it’s—

AMY GOODMAN: How do they stop the conversation?

DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, it’s the coal industry, and it’s also the oil industry. And they—you know, they put out disinformation, they fund a small number of scientists, and they expect the media to give you a balanced story. And by “balanced,” they mean that the scientists are saying that something’s happening, it would have to balanced by someone saying, “Oh, this is just natural.” You know, and even though the story has become very clear—you know, it’s 99.99 percent certain that humans are influencing the climate—but still, they make the story appear much less certain than it is, and therefore, why should we take actions as long as it’s uncertain?

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Dr. James Hansen, who is heading up the NASA’s Goddard Institute. He has for twenty-five years. And when we come back, we will also be joined by Mark Bowen, who has written a book about James Hansen called Censoring Science. Stay with us.

James Hansen and Mark Bowen on Censored Science

James Hansen has been widely described as NASA's leading climate scientist; he's been studying the topic for more than three decades, and he began speaking publicly about the threat of global warming almost 20 years ago.
Just over a year ago, he went public with a charge that made headlines around the world: The Bush administration, Hansen said, had been trying to silence his warnings about the urgency of the need to address climate change.
Now, writer and scientist Mark Bowen has written a book on the affair. It's called Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming.

From NPR at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17926941&ft=1&f=13

Big Farms to Get Free Pass in Reporting Air Pollution from Animal Waste

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Dec. 28, 2007, proposal in a second attempt to exempt farms from reporting air pollution caused by animal waste and to reduce information available about toxins at the local level.

In response to entreaties by the National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, and U.S. Poultry and Egg Association in 2005, EPA initially attempted to exempt only ammonia emissions from poultry farms. The new rule proposal extends the reporting loophole to all farms with any hazardous substance resulting from any animal waste released into the air. Farms must still report other water and land waste.

Congress enacted the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) in 1986 in response to concerns about human and environmental health from toxic spills and pollution. National, state, and local emergency response teams were organized to ensure the immediate and well-planned reaction to any chemically dangerous situation. EPCRA details public notification as crucial for those emergency plans. In addition to requiring companies to report spills and pollution levels to the federal government, the law also also tasks companies with divulging specifics to emergency response teams, the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), and the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC). These entities are responsible for participating in response planning and providing information to the public to allow citizens to make their own risk evaluations.

The EPA explained that in developing this exemption proposal, it had reasoned that since the air releases are unlikely to trigger an EPA emergency response — having never done so before — mandatory reporting is an unnecessary administrative burden on both industry and government. However, EPA failed to consider the importance of publicly available information about local pollutants and exceedances of reportable quantities (RQs) — above which EPA considers there to be the "possibility" of harm. Currently, farms only have to report when pollution levels rise above a chemical's RQ, and farms routinely release hazardous substances above their RQs. The lack of consistent compliance suggests that no longer requiring information disclosure is an effort to sweep a messy problem under the rug. The intent of EPCRA was to act as preventative legislation, ensuring that sufficient information is disclosed and well-formed plans are created to prevent and properly respond to emergencies.

Government research has shown that animal waste causes significant environmental problems. The role of such waste in climate change and water pollution has also been well documented. The public health impacts from air pollution are also significant: multiple studies in North Carolina and Iowa have found respiratory and mental health problems in residents close to animal factories.

EPA has also recognized that current air monitoring practices, which limit investigations about the correlation between animal waste air pollution and human health, are inadequate. In attempts to determine farms' compliance with regulations, EPA initiated a two-year air emissions monitoring study in large animal farms in June 2007. Although some environmentalists believed the study to be little more than a stalling tactic, acknowledgement of the lack of basic air pollution data actually bolsters the argument that more information is needed rather than less. Instead, the proposed rule would weaken regulatory oversight and public accountability and ignores the central principal of EPCRA — that potential health concerns should be known publicly so that people can participate in protecting themselves.

From OMB Watch at: http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/4132/1/1?TopicID=1

EPA Bucks White House and Plans for Registry on Greenhouse Gases

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has started work on a draft rule creating mandatory greenhouse gas reporting requirements, even though President Bush's proposed FY 2009 budget does not provide funding for the rulemaking.

Last year's omnibus spending bill for FY 2008 (H.R. 2764), passed at the tail end of 2007, included a provision to create a greenhouse gas registry. The provision required a draft rule within nine months and a final regulation within 18 months of the bill's enactment. Despite signing the omnibus spending bill that contained the greenhouse gas registry provision for FY 2008, President Bush's recently proposed budget for FY 2009, released on Feb. 4, failed to continue funding for the rulemaking or implementation of the registry. While EPA can move forward with the rulemaking using the money allocated in the FY 2008 omnibus bill, without additional funds in FY 2009, the program would come to a halt. Perhaps that is the point of the president's proposal to zero out spending for the registry.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) sponsored the measure, seeing reliable and accurate baseline greenhouse gas emissions data as the first step to any policies aimed at their reduction, particularly for cap-and-trade legislation. The provision specifically directed $3.5 million to EPA for establishing an emissions registry but provided little implementation direction beyond having the registry cover all sectors. Therefore, EPA has wide discretion in establishing the registry and determining reporting threshold levels.

Sarah Dunham, director of EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality's Transportation and Climate Division, reported that EPA would be moving forward on a greenhouse gas registry. Dunham also explained that avoiding overlapping reporting requirements is a priority, using carbon dioxide emissions by cars and light trucks under corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards as an example.

Creating a national greenhouse gas registry has been the focus of other legislation. Rep. Eliot Engel☼ (D-NY) introduced the Greenhouse Gas Accountability Act of 2007 (H.R. 2651), requiring all publicly traded companies to report their emissions to both EPA and in financial reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) sponsored the National Greenhouse Gas Registry Act of 2007 (S. 1387), which adds greenhouse gases to the list of chemicals tracked by the Toxics Release Inventory. Neither the House nor the Senate were able to move these bills during the 2007 session and instead opted for the omnibus provision.

As Congress reacts to the president's budget request, it is unclear whether it will insert dedicated funding for the greenhouse gas registry program during the FY 09 appropriations process to build on the $3.5 million allocated in the FY 08 omnibus bill. If Bush's proposed elimination of funding for the emissions registry remains, a greenhouse gas registry may require Congress to take action on one of the greenhouse gas bills introduced last year. Until told otherwise, however, EPA appears to be trying to stay on target.

Article from OBM Watch at: http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/4173/1/531

Ralph Nader- Nader on the Record

Nader on the Record
An interview with Ralph Nader about his presidential platform on energy and the environment

This is part of a series of interviews with presidential candidates.

By Amanda Griscom Little
19 Mar 2008

Ralph Nader.
Photo: Sage RossHe brought you the seat belt. He launched a consumer advocacy empire. He got 2,883,105 votes in the 2000 presidential election. Ralph Nader has earned fame -- and infamy -- for many doings over his 40-plus years as a firebrand activist. Perhaps less well-known is his contribution to environmental protection in the U.S. Nader, who entered the 2008 presidential race in late February, was on the frontlines of environmental advocacy in the 1970s. He went to bat for the first auto fuel-economy regulations and was a major voice against nuclear-power development. He fought for the passage of cornerstone environmental laws including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. In the years since, he's pressed on with green advocacy, publishing numerous studies, essays, and editorials decrying coal and nuke power and advocating ultra-efficient cars and a solar-powered economy.But for all his work in these areas, Nader has done little so far to flesh out an environmental and energy platform for his presidential campaign. The only specifics on his campaign website are that he supports solar energy and a "carbon pollution tax" and opposes nuclear power. To rustle up some particulars, I called Nader on his cell phone as he journeyed from one campaign stop to the next.For more info on his environmental stances and record, check out Grist's Nader fact sheet.

Q. Why should voters consider you the strongest environmental candidate?


A. I was a big advocate of renewable energy back in the '70s -- all forms, from wind power to photovoltaic to solar thermal to passive solar architecture. I was a very early opponent of nuclear power. As a lobbyist, I was instrumental in the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, along with legislation to control air pollution and other toxic substances. I was also involved in the passage of the first motor-vehicle efficiency laws back in the '70s. So my words on this issue as a candidate reflect what I've done, rather than what I hope to do.



Q. Going forward, what sets your environmental platform apart from the other candidates'?


A. I'm basically promoting a massive conversion from a hydrocarbon-based economy to a carbohydrate-based economy. I'm not talking about corn ethanol, which has a very poor net energy- and water-usage characteristic. I'm talking about industrial hemp. I'm talking about plant life that can be efficiently converted to fuel -- like sugar cane, agricultural waste, cellulosic grasses, and certain kinds of biomass that can be grown with a spectacular ratio of energy inputs to outputs. I'm talking about a very fundamental remodeling of our economy -- a conversion from industrial-age, 19th-century technologies like the internal combustion engine to renewable, sustainable technologies of efficiency and production. We should have vehicles that get well over 100 miles per gallon. As Amory Lovins and Paul Hawken have shown, we can create far greater efficiencies in the use of our natural resources, whether it's copper, iron, oil, gas, timber, you name it.



Q. Let's get more specific about how you would implement this massive shift. You propose a carbon pollution tax, for instance. How would that work?


A. You tax inefficient technology and you tax pollution. The carbon tax would not be a credit exchange [as in a cap-and-trade program], which can be easily manipulated. It would be a straight-out tax on hydrocarbon production at the production source -- where it's far, far removed from consumers and forces better choices of technology from the get-go.


Q. Would energy producers then pass an increase in prices along to consumers in the form of higher gasoline and electricity prices?


A. Not necessarily, because it will provide a competitive opportunity for companies to say, "Hey, it's now more expensive to produce polluting technology than it is to produce non-polluting technology." And they will begin to break ranks from one another in an effort to innovate, and the magnet will be toward the more efficient option.
To protect consumers, you could have an excess profits tax on companies such as Exxon, and rebate it back to the customer. Or we could use the proceeds from the pollution tax to build more alternative public transit -- that would relieve the burden on consumers.


Q. Some people argue that a carbon tax is political suicide because you can't make taxes appeal to voters, period.


A. Look, this is not a gasoline tax. This is not a final product tax that directly hits consumers. It's a tax at the coal mine, a tax at the oil well.



Q. Your website says, "No to nuclear power, solar energy first." How do you plan to phase out nuclear and phase in renewables?


A. Oh, this is easy. The first thing you gotta do to stop nuclear power is prevent government guarantees of Wall Street loans to nuclear power companies to build plants. They will not get private-sector financing without a 100 percent Uncle Sam guarantee. You appeal to conservatives and liberals who don't like corporate welfare and say, "Let's stop rigging the playing field and cut off loan guarantees to nuclear power."



As far as the renewables are concerned, you can do it in two ways: You can basically eliminate all direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear and say, "Let's have a level playing field." Or you could actively increase tax credits and subsidies to solar power because it has superior environmental and geopolitical benefits. Furthermore, the government's a big customer -- it can take its entire procurement power and direct it toward solar energy and sustainable technology.
Keep in mind that we're currently paying six, seven dollars a gallon for gasoline if you include all the military expenditures to safeguard the global oil pipeline. That's something that taxpayers are paying for, even if it doesn't show at the pump.



Q. Nuclear makes up 20 percent of America's electricity supply. Coal makes up more than half. Would you phase out coal as well, or do you believe in the promise of advanced coal technology?


A. There's no such thing as clean coal. Anybody who's been down in a coal mine knows that. You've got to phase out all fossil fuels: first coal and oil, then natural gas.


Q. How quickly would you phase out fossil fuels?


A. If we had the will, we could convert most of [the infrastructure] in 20 to 25 years, and that includes a significant portion of the housing and building stock, which you'll replace with different types of structures and solar architecture, and retrofit existing buildings for solar water heating and photovoltaic.
I think solar energy is on the verge of exploding in this country. California is adding jobs by the day. The beauty of solar energy is, the jobs it adds are very decentralized, right down to "fix it yourself" firms in little towns. It's wonderful for climate, it doesn't promote wars abroad, and we've got a 4-billion-year supply. And Exxon cannot eclipse the sun in order to produce a shortage.


Q. Do you see renewable energy costing consumers more than conventional electricity?



A. If you include the costly military and environmental externalities of fossil fuels and nuclear, solar has been cost-competitive for years. If you exclude the externalities of finite fuels, wind power is already competitive, passive solar architecture is competitive. Meanwhile, the price of photovoltaics and other forms of solar-generated electricity are coming down very fast every year, and are on an upward curve of innovation -- with new technology, refined ways of producing the film, etc. They will be uniformly competitive within the next 10 years.
Remember that consumers are paying [for today's energy system] in many other indirect ways: strip mines, acid runoff into lakes and streams, pollution in their lungs, medical costs. Sixty-five thousand people a year die from air pollution, half of them from coal-burning utility plants. Those are just a few of the external costs operating here.



Q. Would you use revenues from your carbon tax to provide incentives and tax breaks for renewable innovation?


A. Industry argues for public subsidy, but I think renewable energy technologies are moving very, very fast toward a competitive posture with fossil fuels. It's happening on its own. That's even without accounting for the horrendous external cost, military cost, pollution, health cost, and damage to land and water. Once you've incorporated all of those burdens, the cost comparison is not even close. If the geopolitical and environmental costs are so compelling, government tax credits can reverse the uneven playing field that has existed for decades to the advantage of fossil fuels and nuclear, and direct them toward solar consumers and the fledgling solar industry.


Q. Companies from Wal-Mart to GE have been launching green initiatives and building clean energy solutions. What do you think of these efforts? Do you see corporate America today as a breeding ground for transformative change?


A. Oh yeah. Why not? I mean, when they start competing over light bulbs and things like that, that's a sign the solar age has come of age. After General Electric monopolized and stagnated the electric light bulb for decades, costing billions of dollars and many, many megawatts of waste, it's nice they've finally recognized that consumers want efficient lighting systems.


Q. Many argue that the U.S. shouldn't commit to a global greenhouse-gas reduction target that doesn't involve China and India. Do you agree with this? How would you bring them to the table?


A. You bring them to the table by restricting imports of badly emitting greenhouse-gas technologies. Then you devise an international treaty where you analyze very carefully which countries really need aid in this area, which countries don't need aid, and you proceed accordingly. You have a deliberative process under an international body with a global goal of restricting greenhouse gases and acid rain and other things.



Q. What do you think is the most important environmental issue we face after climate and energy?


A. It's all about solar, in all its manifestations -- from passive solar to active, including photovoltaics, solar thermal, and efficient biomass [plant life fed by sunlight]. Wind is also a form of solar energy, because the sun creates the earth's climate, including the winds within it. Solar is the greatest universal solvent for environmental hazards.


Q. What do you think of Al Gore's climate activism? Has he been an effective agent of change?


A. At last. Where was he when he was vice president? We couldn't get him to make a speech on solar energy. But now, like Martin Luther King Jr. said, he's "free at last, free at last," and he's made a major contribution.


Q. Many have called George W. Bush America's worst environmental president, and some critics have said that if you hadn't entered the 2000 race, Gore would have been president, and therefore Bush's irreversible environmental damage never would have happened.


A. Well, tell those critics to take a course in elementary statistics and engage all variables, each one of which would have put Gore in the White House. Gore won, but the Republicans stole his victory in Florida. The Electoral College stole his victory nationally after he won the popular vote. The Supreme Court stole his victory. And 250,000 Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. We've got to stop playing the spoiler game and treating third-party candidates as second-class citizens.



If you're going to blame me for Gore's loss -- and Gore doesn't blame me, by the way -- then you've got to credit me for Gore's Nobel Prize for his alerting the world to global climate change, for all of his successes with books, and for his millions of dollars of appreciating Google stock.


Q. Maybe you should get an honorary percentage. On to another topic: Who is your environmental hero?


A. There are several. One is David Brower. Another is Barry Commoner, who wrote Making Peace With the Planet, among other great books on the environment. The third one is Amory Lovins.


Q. What was your most memorable wilderness or outdoor adventure?


A. Camping in Yosemite National Park when I was as a student at Princeton. I thought it was the most beautiful place on earth, in spite of the haze from 25,000 vehicles in the valley below.


Q. If you could spend a week in one natural area of the U.S. now, where would it be?


A. The Green Mountains of Vermont.


Q. What do you do personally to lighten your environmental footprint?


A. I consume very little except newspapers, and I recycle them. I don't have a car. I'm the antithesis of the over-consumer.
Q. How are you getting around for your campaign?


A. We use planes and cars and trains. When we get there, we spend very few resources in getting our message across.


Q. Are you going to offset your footprint from the planes and cars?


A. I think that's an indulgence. I don't trust these offsets. We can do a lot more than that.


Q. If George Bush were a plant or an animal, what kind of plant or animal would he be?


A. Poison ivy. As for an animal, I wouldn't demean any animal species that way. It's easy to say coyote, but that's a stereotype of animals. What carnivore has ever, as a species, done what Bush has done to the Iraqis?



This is from: http://www.grist.org/feature/2008/03/19/nader/

Has Climate Already Passed Dangerous Point?

Has Climate Already Passed Dangerous Point?
To Save the Planet, Roll Back Emissions to 1988 Levels

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/james-hansen-47031902

James Hansen, long an outspoken scientist warning of the dangers of doing nothing to stop global warming, has articulated a new position at odds with the scientific consensus stated by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Rather than seeking to avoid a doubling of carbon in the atmosphere (compared to pre-industrial times) in order to avoid the worst consequences of global warming, Hansen suggests that the world has already passed this point. He says we've bought an ice-free world on carbon credit, and the climate will alter life as we know it unless we act to reduce the overall concentration of carbon in the atmosphere well below today's level.
"Paleoclimate evidence and ongoing global changes imply that today’s CO2, about 385 ppm, is already too high to maintain the climate to which humanity, wildlife, and the rest of the biosphere are adapted," he writes, with eight co-authors, in a draft paper that has not been accepted for publication. Policy makers had aimed to slow carbon emissions so that the concentration does not reach 450 parts per million, or ppm, double the pre-industrial concentration.
"Realization that we must reduce the current CO2 amount has a bright side: effects that had begun to seem inevitable, including impacts of ocean acidification, loss of fresh water supplies, and shifting of climatic zones, may be averted by the necessity of finding an energy course beyond fossil fuels sooner than would otherwise have occurred," Hansen writes. "We suggest an initial objective of reducing atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm, with the target to be adjusted as scientific understanding and empirical evidence of climate effects accumulate."
As Andrew Revkin, the New York Times writer, points out in his Dot Earth blog, reducing emissions to the level Hansen suggests would be like rolling back the clock to 1988.
Accomplishing that would take tacking on a new tax or other cost for carbon, phasing out the use of coal, unless carbon emissions can be captured and stored (deep underground, most likely), and doing away with "unconventional" fossil fuels.
"The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO2, is herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II," Hansen writes. "The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable."
Find this article at: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/james-hansen-47031902

CRISIS, REACTION, SOLUTION!!!

CRISIS, REACTION, SOLUTION!!!
Questioned to ask are: Is the crisis real? Are our reactions logical? Is the solution in our best interest??? In the case of 911 it was: Attack, Fear, Loss of Constitutional Rights ("Patriot Act")!!! What of "Global Warming".

There is an old adage from the "Watergate" era: FOLLOW THE MONEY"!!! Who stands to profit from "Global Warming"?

"Global Warming" is a multifaceted issue and must be viewed from all sides, even from the viewpoints that are not popular!

Global-Warming Payola?
March 6, 2008, 10:35 am
By John Tierney

All right, let’s talk about the money.

After I asked readers to focus on the substance of the skeptics’ arguments at this week’s conference on global warming, readers insisted that I should have focused on the financing of the sponsor, the Heartland Institute. Others objected to my (and my colleague Andy Revkin) even writing about a conference sponsored by this group. I’m used to this sort of criticism, but I still find it baffling. Do the critics really think there’s more money and glory to be won by doubting global warming than by going along with the majority?
I ask this question not because I doubt the integrity or competence of the researchers and environmental groups who are getting billions of dollars from government agencies, corporations, foundations and private donors concerned about climate change. If I write about prominent climate scientists like James Hansen of NASA, I don’t feel obliged to note how much research money they get — or how much extra money is going to their field because of the concerns they’ve raised about climate change. I don’t dismiss Al Gore’s warnings just because his campaign against global warming has been so good for his career. I don’t obsess about how much he gets per lecture or what he does with the money. I’ve criticized some of his scarier predictions (like the shutdown of the Gulf Stream) on scientific grounds, but I’ve never suggested he’s venal... http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/global-warming-payola/index.html?hp

CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
A very informative documentary about the real cause of global warming. It clearly discuss about the fact that CO2 is not cause of global warming. Take a look also at the Great Global Warming Swindle and Green House Conspiracy in google video. This documentary discusses many topics that are not covered in the Swindle such as the hockey stick graph, from the viewpoint of Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010

Green_House_Conspiracy.wmv
This documentary is a good companion to the latest documentary,"The Great Global Warming Swindle" recently shown on CH 4 UK and is available on Google video. The hoax of Global Warming / Green House was exposed 17 years ago by CH 4 UK in this documentary entitled Green House Conspiracy. Those who subscribe to the rubbish trotted out by Al Gore and his mindless followers are not new they were the same arse clowns who were telling us we were all going to freeze to death 30 years ago.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010

The Science of Air Pharmacology or Chemtrails The Science of "Air Pharmacology" or "Chemtrails"
By: Jim Phelps Copyright 2005

This page is written by the person that invented the DOE's biggest project on re-mediation for the ozone hole. Jim Phelps invented the DOE's "Global Shield" Weather Control Projects in the mid-1980s to compensate for man's damage to the ozone layer leading to global warming. Jim Phelps spotted the predominate mechanisms for global warming and found ways to lessen the damage using commercial aircraft to make cloud systems to cool the Earth... http://members.aol.com/doestar/chemtrails.html

GlobalWarming Awareness2007
...Claims of significant anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 emissions are either overblown or completely unfounded. The greatest scientific fraud in the history of mankind is this “Global Warming / Climate Change” tandem. Any doomsday scenarios concocted on these theories are a scientific embarrassment that have as much credibility as Creationism, Refrigerator Gnomes, or the Late Iraqi Information Minister...

...The Global Warming scam was designed to1. Scare people into giving time, money and power to charlatan scientists and sham politicians2. Dramatically increase the size and scope of government and proliferate a worldwide socialist agenda3. Oppress developing Nations
Sadly, the scam is working.
This fraud was dreamed up by intellectually dishonest scientific professionals coveting government grant money: Was latched on to by politicians and political groups that seek to expand their own influence as well as the size and scope of government and is perpetuated by the ignorant masses who do not have the capacity to refute what Hitler coined the “The Big Lie.”

Billions of dollars in taxes, private donations and political contributions are raised every year to fight the global warming boogieman. This sham has taken many otherwise intelligent and good intentioned people and turned them into quasi-religious zealots on a crusade for a bigger, more intrusive, more powerful world government... http://seoblackhat.com/2007/01/18/globalwarming-awareness2007/

Why Global Warming is Good for Business

Why global warming is good for business
Climate change isn't all bad news. In fact, there may well be money in it...

...Fully 85% of Americans believe global warming is happening now, according to a recent Time/ABC/Stanford poll. We know we're in the midst of some serious climate change, and don't need pictures of polar bears stuck on fragmenting ice caps to drive the point home...
http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/13/technology/business2_futureboy0413/index.htm

"Global Warming Fraud" and "The Carbon Tax Fraud"???

I thought that I would start off this discussion with some controversy and see if we can start people to thinking and not reacting.

We find ourselves in a very tumultuous situation in the world today with the war, the economy, crime and immigration etc. This blogger believes that it is wise to gather the facts from all sides rather than to fall prey to emotional reaction.

Lets take a look at a couple of interesting exposes on the subject of "The Carbon Tax" that is being presented woldwide. One is an article:

Media Promote Global Warming Fraud
By Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
Wednesday, February 7, 2007

When it comes to Iraq, our media have been preoccupied with the issue of whether there was adequate intelligence to justify the invasion and if policy-makers made up evidence before the war. But on the matter of global intervention to stop global warming, there seems to be no need for scientific evidence to justify what is shaping up as a global carbon tax of 35 cents a gallon of gas on the American people.

It's difficult to figure out which is the bigger fraud-the U.N. or our media… http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/kincaid020707.htm

The other a Viseo: Carbon Tax Fraud from the Video "End Game" by Alex Jones. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVmk3lUYdPA