You can see the whole Earth from the Moon!

Obama fear mongering about Climate Change an excuse for a massive new tax


__2 GREEN links below


____GREEN link below



Senator Inhofe Calls

For Inquiry Into


Climate Change


By Judson Berger –

contributions by

Major Garrett


June 29th, 2009


A top Republican senator

has ordered an investigation

into the Environmental

Protection Agency’s alleged

suppression of a report that

questioned the science

behind global warming.




The 98-page report,

co-authored by EPA

analyst Alan Carlin,

pushed back on the prospect

of regulating gases like carbon

dioxide as a way to reduce

global warming.


Carlin’s report argued that

the information the EPA was

using was out of date,

and that even as atmospheric

carbon dioxide levels have


global temperatures

have declined.




“He came out

with the truth.

They don’t want

the truth at the EPA,”

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla,

a global warming skeptic,

told FOX News,

saying he’s ordered

an investigation.

“We’re going to expose it.”



The controversy comes after

the House of Representatives

passed a landmark bill to regulate

greenhouse gas emissions,

one that Inhofe said will be

“dead on arrival”

in the Senate despite

President Obama’s energy

adviser voicing confidence

in the measure.


According to internal e-mails

that have been made public by the

Competitive Enterprise Institute,

Carlin’s boss told him in March

that his material would not be

incorporated into a broader

EPA finding and ordered Carlin

to stop working on the

climate change issue.


The draft EPA finding released in

April lists six greenhouse gases,

including carbon dioxide,

that the EPA says threaten

public health and welfare.


An EPA official told

FOXNews.com on Monday

that Carlin,

who is an economist —

not a scientist —

included “no original research”

in his report.


The official said that Carlin

“has not been muzzled

in the agency at all,”

but stressed that his report

was entirely “unsolicited.”


“It was something

that he did on his own,”

the official said.

“Though he was not qualified,

his manager indulged him

and allowed him on agency

time to draft up …

a set of comments.”



Despite the EPA official’s remarks,

Carlin told FOXNews.com on

Monday that his boss,

National Center for Environmental

Economics Director Al McGartland,

appeared to be pressured into

reassigning him.


Carlin said he doesn’t know

whether the White House

intervened to suppress his

report but claimed it’s clear

“they would not be happy

about it if they knew about it,”

and that McGartland seemed

to be feeling pressure from

somewhere up the chain

of command.


Carlin said McGartland told

him he had to pull him off

the climate change issue.


“It was reassigning you

or losing my job,

and I didn’t want

to lose my job,”

Carlin said,

paraphrasing what he claimed

were McGartland’s comments

to him.


“My inference (was) that he

was receiving some sort of

higher-level pressure.”

__Obama's Police State Tactics by maksim maksimovich.

Carlin said he personally does

not think there is a need to

regulate carbon dioxide,


“global temperatures

are going down.”


He said his report expressed

a “good bit of doubt” on the

connection between the two.



the report noted that

global temperatures were

on a downward trend over

the past 11 years,

that scientists do not

necessarily believe that

storms will become more

frequent or more intense

due to global warming,

and that the theory that

temperatures will cause

Greenland ice to rapidly

melt has been

“greatly diminished.”


Carlin, in a March 16 e-mail,

argued that his comments are

“valid, significant”

and would be critical

to the EPA finding.


McGartland, though,

wrote back the next day saying

he had decided not to forward

his comments.


“The administrator and the

administration has decided to

move forward on endangerment,

and your comments do not help

the legal or policy case for

this decision,”

he wrote,

according to the e-mails

released by CEI.

“I can only see one impact

of your comments given where

we are in the process,

and that would be a very

negative impact on our office.”


He later wrote an e-mail

urging Carlin to “move on

to other issues and subjects.”


“I don’t want you to spend

any additional EPA time on

climate change.

No papers,

no research, etc.,

at least until we see what EPA

is going to do with climate,”

McGartland wrote.


The EPA said in a written

statement that Carlin’s opinions

were in fact considered,

and that he was not even part of

the working group dealing with

climate change in the first place.


“Claims that this individual’s

opinions were not considered

or studied are entirely false.

This administration and this

EPA administrator are fully

committed to openness,

transparency and science-based

decision making,”

the statement said.


“The individual in question is

not a scientist and was not part

of the working group dealing

with this issue.

Nevertheless the document he

submitted was reviewed by his

peers and agency scientists,

and information from that

report was submitted by his

manager to those responsible

for developing the proposed

endangerment finding.


In fact,

some ideas from that document

are included and addressed in

the endangerment finding.”


The e-mail exchanges and

suggestions of political

interference sparked a backlash

from Republicans in Congress.


Reps. James Sensenbrenner,

R-Wis., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif.,

also wrote a letter last week to

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson

urging the agency to reopen

its comment period

on the finding.


The EPA has since

denied the request.


Citing the internal e-mails,

the Republican congressmen

wrote that the EPA was exhibiting

an “agency culture set in

a predetermined course.”


“It documents at least one

instance in which the public

was denied access to significant

scientific literature and raises

substantial questions about

what additional evidence may

have been suppressed,”

they wrote.


In a written statement,

Issa said the administration is

“actively seeking to withhold

new data in order to justify

a political conclusion.”


“I’m sure it was very

inconvenient for the EPA

to consider a study that

contradicted the findings

it wanted to reach,”

Sensenbrenner said

in a statement,

adding that the

“repression” of Carlin’s

report casts doubt on

the entire finding.


Carlin said he’s concerned

that he’s seeing “science

being decided at

the presidential level.”


“Now Mr. Obama is in effect

directly or indirectly saying that

CO2 causes global temperatures

to rise and that we have to do

something about it.


… That’s normally a scientific

judgment and he’s in effect

judging what the science says,”

he said.

“We need to look at it harder.”

__2 GREEN links below




_.Copenhagen links in GREEN


___35 Inconvenient Truths:

________The Errors In
_______Al Gore’s Movie
______by Lord Monckton
Link to it below(link in GREEN)
___and tons of other stuff
____on this amazing site!



_Fascist Zealots ClimateGate Links


__ClimateGate links in GREEN


Washington Times.








The Cooling World  
 April 28th, 1975 


There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. 

The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. 

The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support 

of these predictions has now 

begun to accumulate so massively

that meteorologists are 

hard-pressed to keep up with it. 

In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. 

During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree 

– a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. 

Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. 

The central fact is that after 

three quarters of a century 

of extraordinarily 

mild conditions, 

the earth’s climate 

seems to be cooling down. 

Meteorologists disagree about 

the cause and extent of 

the cooling trend, 

as well as over its specific 

impact on local weather 


But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. 

If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. 

“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” 

warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, 

“because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals 

a drop of half a degree in 

average ground temperatures 

in the Northern Hemisphere 

between 1945 and 1968. 


According to George Kukla 

of Columbia University, 

satellite photos indicated 

a sudden, large increase 

in Northern Hemisphere snow 

cover in the winter of 1971-72. 

And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. 

Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – 

and that the present decline 

has taken the planet about a 

sixth of the way toward 

the Ice Age average. 

Others regard the cooling 

as a reversion to the 

“little ice age” conditions 

that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – 

years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. 

“Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” 

concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. 

“Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, 

but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. 

They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. 

These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. 

The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” 

Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. 

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, 

such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, 

might create problems far greater than those they solve. 

But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. 

The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.




Another Ice Age?


Time Magazine



June 24th, 1974



In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims.

During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. 

In Canada’s wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. 

Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. 

A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone’s recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. 

However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. 

The trend shows no indication of reversing. 

Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —

from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.

Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. 

Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. 

When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, 

they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. 

Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found 

other indications of global cooling. 

For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —

the so-called circumpolar vortex—

that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa’s drought. 

By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, 

as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, 

the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. 

Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. 

As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. 

Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. 

The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—

the Midwest’s recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

Sunspot Cycle. 

The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth’s surface receives from the sun. 

Changes in the earth’s tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth’s climate. 

Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.

Man, too, 

may be somewhat responsible 

for the cooling trend. 

The University of Wisconsin’s Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

Climatic Balance. 

Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service’s long-range-prediction group, 

think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. 

But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth’s climate. 

Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, 

are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. 

The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP 

(for Global Atmospheric Research Program).

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, 

its effects could be extremely serious, 

if not catastrophic. 

Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climatic balance, 

and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

The earth’s current climate is something of an anomaly; 

in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. 

Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. 

But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. 

Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. 

University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. 

Warns Hare: 

“I don’t believe that the world’s present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row.



Earth On The

Brink Of An

Ice Age


by Gregory F. Fegel

December 1st, 2008





The earth is now on 

the brink of entering 

another Ice Age, 

according to a large 

and compelling 

body of evidence from 

within the field of 

climate science. 


Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, 

twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, 

and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, 

the geologic record, 

and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, 

separated by intervening warm interglacials, 

each lasting about 12,000 years.

Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. 

The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; 

the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; 

and the Precession of the Equinoxes, 

also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. 

According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, 

each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, 

act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, 

it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, 

and the theory was established in its present form by the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. 

In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, 

James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled 

“Variations in the Earth’s orbit: 

Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” 

which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. 

Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, 

and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages.



In their 1976 paper Imbrie, Hays, and Shackleton wrote that their own climate forecasts, 

which were based on sea-sediment cores and the Milankovich cycles, “…

 must be qualified in two ways. 

First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – 

and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. 

Second, they describe only the long-term trends, 

because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. 

Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted… 

the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate.”

The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film 

“An Inconvenient Truth.”

 The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. 

However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. 

It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.

The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, 

while ignoring the evidence from the past million years — evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. 

The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, 

based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.

In 1999 the British journal “Nature” published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia’s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. 

The Vostok ice core data includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, 

atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases,

 and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time.



The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclicpattern, 

the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. 

The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. 

What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. 

In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; 

instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. 

That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. 

We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. 

The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, 

and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature, 

we should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial warm period. 

We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world’s oceans.

The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. 

Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, 

followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.

Today we are again at the peak, 

and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, 

and the earth is now 

due to enter the next Ice Age. 


If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. 

The Ice Age will return, as it always has, 

in its regular and natural cycle, 

with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.

The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. 

The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, 

sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, 

indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, 

and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. 

While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, 

the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, 

which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, 

is being foolishly ignored.



No Responses to “Obama fear mongering about Climate Change an excuse for a massive new tax”

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: