Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Monday, March 31, 2014

Sharia Law: Muslim Rule Book for “Acceptable” Torture

March 28, 2014 by Susan Horton

All over Britain Burka draped women are carrying signs saying: Democracy is falling Sharia is returning, Sharia the future of the United Kingdom or Sharia will Dominate the World. Have you ever seen the terror-stricken face of the Muslim women buried up to her breast with her arms tied behind her back as she is now an easy target for stoning to death? I’m sure her thinking is how grateful she is that righteous Sharia has made a come-back.

According to al-Tabari, (volume- 9) “If any man’s wife commits any open indecency then Allah permits him to shut her in a separate room and to beat her but not severely. Beaten black and blue with broken ribs and nose is OK if the man interprets severely to mean something else. If the woman abstains from evil she has a right to her food and clothing in accordance with the custom. Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves.” Women are chattel, you can beat, starve and mistreat because they are simply trained animals......To Read More.....

The Internet Ain't Broke: Don't Fix It!

By Rich Kozlovich

Currently we have amazing access to information that is unprecedented in human history. I can look up anything I wish without leaving my desk. However, I still refer back to books. The internet as great, but it has limitations and doesn't compare with reading and owning books. But the internet speeds things way up. A few years ago I was working on an article and was spending time at the local library. They had a viewer that allowed me to scan documents from books and magazines by the dozen. I did in two hours that would probably have taken me two weeks to do ordinarily. I thought - wow, does it get any better than this?

Then the internet struck, and the answer was, yes it does get better! But now that's all in jeopardy! And has been in the works since 1997.

In December of 2010 it was “reported the U.N. is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to "harmonize" global efforts by policymakers to regulate the Internet.” Harmonize the internet? What exactly does that mean?

The U.N. claims it should have the authority to “regulate the Internet under a U.N. Economic and Social Council but the real reason they want to "harmonize global efforts" is to make sure what appears on the internet "harmonizes" with leftist narratives and thuggery by stopping the free flow of information. Secondly they will charge for the right to publish anything, or e-mail anything via licensure, and no one will have the right to stop or control them. That would put the world right back were it was when the left wing media controlled all the information we recieved.

In July of 2010 the U.N. passed a resolution to have U.N. secretary-general to begin discussions on coordinating government efforts to regulate the Internet on a global basis.” Now it appears the administration is going along with this.

"On Friday, that agency quietly announced that it wants ICANN to come up with a new governing structure -- one that would be "global" and involve multiple "stakeholders." "This is all about ... separating the Internet from government control," said Cameron Kerry, former general counsel with the Commerce Department. "And the United States is in the strongest position to argue against government control of the Internet if it relinquishes that last little bit of control that it has."

The United States created the internet and has allowed and encouraged its unprecedented growth. Does anyone really think that could have, or would have happened if the U.N. and their thug members had control of it? They didn't create it and wouldn't have created it because they hate it, so why in the name of all that's sane would we want to turn it over to them? 
It ain't broke and there's no need to fix it, so what is the administration's real motive?  To "fundamentally change the way this nation works!"  And that doesn't include capitalism or freedom of speech.  Or for that matter any of the other Constitutional guarantees. 

The New York Times—still shilling for communists

By: Humberto Fontova 3/31/2014

 “Everyone knows that the Cubans control (Venezuela’s) military intelligence and police intelligence. They control the coordination of the armed forces. Such convictions are held by critics in both countries (Venezuela and Cuba) although they offer little hard evidence to back their suspicions.” (Victoria Burnett and William Neuman, the New York Times, March, 2014.)

“Fidel Castro has strong ideas of liberty, democracy, social justice, the need to restore the Constitution….but it amounts to a new deal for Cuba, radical, democratic, and therefore anti-ommunist.” (Herbert Matthews, the New York Times, February 1957.)

“This is not a Communist Revolution in any sense of the term. Fidel Castro is not only not a Communist, he is decidedly anti-Communist.” (Herbert Matthews, the New York Times, July 1959.)

So according to the New York Times, the only Cubans in Venezuela today function as Marcus Welbys and Florence Nightingales. And the only communists in Cuba in 1959 were kept far from positions of influence by those stalwart defenders of liberty: the Castro Brothers and Che Guevera.  Same as in 1959, many well-informed people much closer to the issue differ with the New York Times.......To Read More......

Famous Republicans targeted for dumpster

A conservative giant in Washington, D.C., has written a brand-new book…known as the “funding father of conservatism,” Richard Viguerie’s Takeover: The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Finally Win It” takes sides in what he describes as a century-old war for the soul of the Republican Party….. “Every day you read another story about [how] a candidate for the tea party has embraced becoming the target of the entrenched Republican Party leadership and mindset, and I believe my book offers a practical outline for how principled conservatives can make the stand to finally win this fight,”…….Target No. 1 is Karl Rove  -  “His record of 22 losses to 9 wins in 2012 shows the folly of the Republican establishment in following Rove’s advice.” Other(s) include RNC Chairman Priebus, Chris Christie, Rep. Paul Ryan and a man,…who “seems to relish in antagonizing conservatives,” Sen. John McCain…McCain readily trains his guns on his fellow Republicans while giving the Democrats a pass…….“Despite all this, he continues to be a favorite of the Republican establishment"......

One hundred and two years ago Teddy Roosevelt split the Republican Party to advance his progressive agenda. Progressivism, or Big Government Republicanism, became the philosophy of the Republican Party’s establishment elite. Fifty years ago conservatives began a battle for control of the party. Viguerie believes now is the time for conservatives to finish the job and take back the party…..To Read More……

Bat soup blamed as deadly Ebola virus spreads

By Marc Lallanilla March 27, 2014

An outbreak of the Ebola virus has claimed at least 63 lives in the African nation of Guinea.  To combat the spread of this deadly disease, Guinean officials have taken the unusual step of banning the consumption of bat soup, grilled bat and other local delicacies.  "We discovered the vector [infectious] agent of the Ebola virus is the bat,"…."We sent messages everywhere to announce the ban. People must even avoid consumption of rats and monkeys. They are very dangerous animals." [5 Things You Should Know About Ebola]

Ebola is a hemorrhagic virus that spreads through bodily fluids and can cause high fever, diarrhea, vomiting and internal and external bleeding. There is no vaccine or cure, and Ebola is fatal up to 90 percent of the time, according to the National Institutes of Health…….. Though many animals can spread disease, bats have come under increased scientific scrutiny in recent years for their uncanny ability to host "zoonotic" viruses, that is, viruses that readily make the jump from one species to another……. The flying mammals are reservoirs for more than 60 viruses that can infect humans, and host more viruses per species than even rodents........In addition to the Ebola virus, rabies, histoplasmosis, SARS, Nipah (which causes deadly brain fevers), Hendra (a lethal respiratory disease), Marburg, Lyssaviruses and other diseases can be spread by bats, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)......To Read More....

More Fraudulent Science From EPA

By Paul Driessen Mar 29, 2014

This appeared here and I wish to thank Paul for allowing me to publish his work.  Some highlighted emphasis was added by me.  RK

The Obama Environmental Protection Agency recently slashed the maximum allowable sulfur content in gasoline from 30 parts per million to 10 ppm. The agency claims its new “Tier 3” rule will bring $7 billion to $19 billion in annual health benefits by 2030. “These standards are a win for public health, a win for our environment and a win for our pocketbooks,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy insists.

It’s all hokum. Like almost everything else emanating from EPA these days, the gasoline regulations are a case study in how America’s economy, jobs, living standards, health and welfare are being pummeled by secretive, deceptive, and indeed fraudulent and corrupt government practices.

Since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, America’s cars have eliminated some 99% of pollutants that once came out of tailpipes, notes air quality expert Joel Schwartz. Since 2004, under Tier 2 rules, refiners have reduced sulfur in gasoline from an average of 300 ppm to 30 ppm – a 90% drop, on top of pre-2004 reductions. In addition, because newer cars start out cleaner and stay cleaner throughout their lives, fleet turnover is reducing emissions by 8 to10 percent per year, steadily improving air quality.

The net result, says a 2012 Environ International study, is that ground-level ozone concentrations will fall even more dramatically by 2022. Volatile organic pollutants will plummet by 62%, carbon monoxide by 51% and nitrous oxides by 80% – beyond reductions already achieved between 1970 and 2004.

EPA (which once promised to be ultra-transparent) claims its rules will add less than a penny per gallon to gasoline prices; but it won’t say how it arrived at that estimate. Industry sources say the Tier 3 rules will require $10 billion in upfront capital expenditures, an additional $2.4 billion in annual compliance expenses, significant increases in refinery energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, an extra 5-9 cents per gallon in manufacturing costs, which will certainly hit consumers at the pump.

But regardless of their ultimate cost, the rules will reduce monthly ozone levels by just 1.2 parts per billion during rush hour, says Environ. That’s equivalent to 12 cents out of $100 million or 1.2 seconds out of 32,000 years. These minuscule improvements could not even have been measured by equipment existing a couple decades ago. Their contribution to improved human health will be essentially zero.

Not so, say the EPA, Sierra Club and American Lung Association (ALA). The rules will reduce asthma in “the children,” they insist. However, asthma incidences have been increasing, while air pollution has declined – demonstrating that the pollution-asthma connection is a red herring. The disease is caused by allergies, a failure to expose young children to sufficient allergens to cause their immune systems to build resistance to airborne allergens, and lack of sufficient exercise to keep lungs robust. Not surprisingly, a Southern California study found no association between asthma hospitalizations and air pollution levels.

Moreover, EPA paid the ALA $20 million between 2001 and 2010. No wonder it echoes agency claims about air quality and lung problems. The payments continue today, while EPA also funnels millions to various environmentalist pressure groups – and even to “independent” EPA scientific review panels – that likewise rubber stamp too many EPA pollution claims, studies and regulatory actions.

As Ron Arnold recently reported in The Washington Examiner, 15 of EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members have received $180.8 million in EPA grants since 2000. One CASAC panelist (Ed Avol of USC) received $51.7 million! The seven CASAC executive committee members pocketed $80.2 million. Imagine Big Oil paying that kind of cash to an advisory group, and calling it “independent.” The news media, government and environmentalists would have a field day with that one.

The Clean Air Act, Information Quality Act, Executive Order 12866 and other laws require that agencies assess both the costs and benefits of proposed regulations, adopt them only if their benefits justify their costs, and even determine whether a regulation is worth implementing at all. However, EPA and other agencies systematically violate these rules, routinely inflate the alleged benefits of their rules, and habitually minimize or even ignore their energy, economic, health and social costs.

Reporting on a hearing held by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Arnold noted that CASAC members say they weren’t even aware that they are obligated to advise EPA on both benefits and costs. Former EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Jeff Holmstead testified, “As far as I know, CASAC never fulfilled this requirement as it relates to the ozone standard or any other” rule.

Former CASAC chairman Dr. Roger McClellan told Rep. Smith he did not think the panel “ever advised EPA to take account of the role of socioeconomic factors, unemployment or other risk factors” adversely affecting people’s health. Another former CASAC member testified that the advisory committee was not even “allowed to discuss any of the adverse consequences” associated with new rulemakings.

EPA regulations impose countless billions of dollars in annual impacts on the US economy, according to studies by the Heritage Foundation, Competitive Enterprise Institute and Government Accountability Office. Estimates of total compliance costs for all federal regulations range to nearly $2 trillion per year. Some may bring benefits, but many or most also inflict significant harm on human health.

They mean millions of layoffs, far fewer jobs created, and steadily declining quality of life for millions of Americans, who cannot heat and cool their homes properly, pay the rent and mortgage, or save for retirement. They mean increased commuting to multiple jobs, poor nutrition, sleep deprivation, higher incidences of depression and alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse, and lower life expectancies.

In another example, EPA justifies its onerous carbon dioxide regulations by asserting that Earth’s climate is highly sensitive to C02, hypothesizing every conceivable carbon cost, and imputing huge monetized damages from hydrocarbon use and CO2 emissions ($36/ton of CO2 emitted). It completely ignores even the most obvious and enormous job, health and welfare benefits of using fossil fuels; even the benefits of higher carbon dioxide levels for food crops, forests and grasslands; and even the harmful effects that these regulations are having on energy prices and reliability, and thus people’s jobs, health and welfare.

The EPA, ALA and CASAC likewise insist that new Mercury and Air Toxic Standards for coal-fired power plants will bring huge health benefits. However, the mercury risks were hugely overblown, the proclaimed dangers from fine particulates were contradicted by EPA’s own illegal experiments on human subjects – and the agency never assessed the health and welfare damage that the MATS rules will impose by causing the loss of 200,000 jobs and 23,000 megawatts of reliable, affordable electricity by 2015.

Similarly, EPA and CASAC blithely failed to consider the human carnage that will result from their new 54.5 mpg vehicle mileage standards, as people are forced into smaller, lighter, less safe cars. Having based numerous regulations on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that have been roundly criticized as erroneous and even fraudulent, EPA now refuses to reconsider any of its rules, even though there has been no warming for 17 years and the IPCC itself is back-peddling on previous claims.

Ignoring all these facts, the nation’s automakers nevertheless supported EPA’s Tier 3 sulfur rules. They prefer to have a single national standard, instead of one for California and one for the other 49 states. But to “Californiacate” America’s regulatory system is exactly the wrong direction to go. The once-Golden State has among the most perverse taxes and regulations – and thus some of the highest unemployment rates, especially for blacks, Hispanics and inland communities. Instead of emulating its strangulation by regulation proclivities, we should be forcing it to adopt more commonsense, scientifically sound rules.

Congress, state legislatures, attorneys general, people and courts need to exert much greater control over now unaccountable government agencies. At the very least, we need to ensure that legal and scientific standards are followed, and the harmful effects of regulations are fully and honestly analyzed, accounted for and debated, for all pending and recently promulgated regulations, at every level of government.

Feds Push Anti-Oil Environmentalist Agenda Over Prairie Chicken

30 Mar 2014

Taking aim at Texas’ oil and gas production, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced its intent to place the lesser prairie chicken on the list of “threatened species” in May. The threatened species list is one step below the endangered species list.  Fox News reported the move could affect agriculture, oil/gas drilling, wind farms and other activities in four states to include Texas. U.S. Fish and Wildlife director Dan Ashe said he was following the best science available. The prairie chicken, a type of grouse known for its colorful neck plume and stout build, has lost more than 80 percent of its traditional habitat, mostly because of human activity such as oil and gas drilling, ranching and construction of power lines and wind turbines, Ashe said.   Texas Railroad Commissioner, David Porter, responded in a press release obtained by Breitbart Texas......To Read More......

My Take - The Endangered Species Act is referred to by environmentalists as "old reliable" because if they can't stop progress in any other way, they get it done with ESA. Along with the help of a corrupt bureaucracy that plays the "sue and settle" game to get them power and control that the Congress never intended, a corrupt federal judiciary that have lost sight of their Constitutional limitations, a corrupt media that plays an emotional violin, and stupid legislators. ESA is a scam and a racket used by the environmental movement to overturn every Constitutional protection, especially those involving private property. It's time to abolish it, the EPA and the Wildlife Service and turn their responsibilities over to the states, and pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on federal judges, who are to a very large degree political hacks anyway.

Canada shows you can cut government spending

By Michael Barone | MARCH 25, 2014

What's the proper size of government? Here's an article from American Enterprise Institute's The American website citing a study by Canadian economist Livio De Matteo of the free-market Fraser Institute. The bottom line: The optimal government size of maximizing economic growth is 26 percent of gross domestic product. Below that, you miss out on useful services; above that, you start to plunder the private sector economy. The bad news: The current share in the United States, counting state and local as well as federal spending, is 40 percent. The good news: You can ratchet back spending quite sharply, as Canada did in the mid-1990s……To Read More......  

It's not about race --- it's about how liberalism doesn't solve poverty

By Star Parker | MARCH 28, 2014 Opinion,Star Parker,Columnists,Paul Ryan,Detroit,Race and Diversity,Poverty

When Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., went off on Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., for his remarks that, “We have got a tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work,” the wrong part of what she had to say got all the attention.   The big buzz that Congressional Black Caucus member Lee generated was her accusation that Ryan's remarks were a “thinly veiled racial attack.”  But the part of her remarks I found most interesting was: “… Mr. Ryan should step up and produce some legitimate proposals on how to tackle poverty and racial discrimination in America.”  Ryan has been one of the most creative and courageous policy-thinkers in Washington in recent years.

Ryan sat down with me for an interview shortly before he ran for vice president in 2012. His thoughtfulness and compassion came through loud and clear and he zeroed in on the core of a problem I have been talking and writing about for more than 20 years - government programs that not only do not solve problems but make problems worse........To Read More.....

Lois Lerner could go to jail in contempt clash

Lois Lerner could go to jail in contempt clash

By Washington Examiner | MARCH 27, 2014

This may come as a shock to Lois Lerner, but the House of Representatives has the authority to jail her unless she changes her mind about refusing to answer questions about her role in the IRS scandal. Essentially, what is required for that to happen is for a House majority to vote for a motion holding her in contempt and House Speaker John Boehner to then direct the House sergeant at arms to arrest and confine her. Under the Constitution, the House can do that under its “inherent contempt” authority, which was initially exercised in 1795 during the First Congress and on multiple occasions thereafter. Lerner could be held until January 2015 when a new Congress is seated, which could issue another subpoena and throw her in the clink again if she still balks at testifying.

According to a 2012 Congressional Research Service report, inherent contempt has the unique advantage that it doesn’t require “the cooperation or assistance of either the executive or judicial branches. The House or Senate can, on its own, conduct summary proceedings and cite the offender for contempt.” The prospect of an eight or nine month stretch in the congressional slammer might have a sobering effect on Lerner. On the other hand, neither the House nor the Senate has used this authority since 1935, according to the CRS report, because the process can be “unseemly” and time-consuming……..T0 Read More……

Dems' Obamacare 'fixes' are just Washington wink-winks

By Washington Examiner MARCH 31, 2014

Quick, did you see that? Senate Democrats just pulled another Washington wink-wink on Obamacare. For those who might need a refresher, the WWW is the old standby of professional Washington politicians from both parties when they need to look like they are doing something concrete when in fact they're just blowing smoke. In the present case, Senators Mark Warner of Virginia, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia are offering a package of Obamacare “fixes.” Maine's independent Sen. Angus King, who caucuses with the Democrats, is also a co-sponsor……But it’s smoke and mirrors. Even if all of the proposed fixes were to become law, they only address the outer edges of the stinking mess that is Obamacare, including skyrocketing premiums, administrative chaos, unworkable state exchanges and soaring taxes required to pay for it. Worst of all, the fixes can’t reverse the damage done by the president's three big Obamacare lies: you can keep your present health insurance plan if you like, you can keep your doctor, and your premiums will be cheaper. None of that will be made right by adopting “mend it, don’t end it” fixes......To Read More…


James Lovelock: environmentalism has become a religion

Scientist behind the Gaia hypothesis says environment movement does not pay enough attention to facts and he was too certain in the past about rising temperatures

Adam Vaughan Sunday 30 March 2014

Environmentalism has "become a religion" and does not pay enough attention to facts, according to James Lovelock.  The 94 year-old scientist, famous for his Gaia hypothesis that Earth is a self-regulating, single organism, also said that he had been too certain about the rate of global warming in his past book, that "it’s just as silly to be a [climate] denier as it is to be a believer” and that fracking and nuclear power should power the UK, not renewable sources such as windfarms.  Speaking to the Guardian for an interview ahead of a landmark UN climate science report on Monday on the impacts of climate change, Lovelock said of the warnings of climate catastrophe in his 2006 book, Revenge of Gaia: "I was a little too certain in that book. You just can’t tell what’s going to happen."....To Read More....
My Take - I'm impressed he came out as he has done, but we must recognize he was one of the driving forces for this 'religion', called environmentalim.  Nature worship is now as real as it was during ancient times when pagans willingly sacrificed human beings to appease the 'gods' of nature, just as these neo-pagans are more than happy to do.  The first thing I thought of when I read this was a mad scientist finally comes to grips with his own foolish monster of a creation - when it's too late - as it is now out of control.  What a legacy to go to one's grave with.  

You may wish to view, The Dark Side of Deep Ecology, bu James A. Marusek.   

Why and How I’m Celebrating Human Achievement Hour

By Marlo Lewis on March 29, 2014

“Better to light one incandescent bulb than curse the darkness”  Tonight is Human Achievement Hour, a time to celebrate human progress and the market institutions that facilitate and protect it. It’s also a time to laugh at the regressive ideology that implores us to turn out the lights to honor the Earth. Hence the wonderful acronym for our cheerful occasion: HAH!  Our friends at CFACT nail the contrast between our event and the other team’s when they proclaim: “It’s always Earth Hour in North Korea.”

HAH is an alternative and antidote to Earth Hour, the premise of which that carbon-based energy is bad for people and the planet. That’s about as wrong-headed about the big picture as one can get.....To Read More.....
My Take - Somehow I missed this whole  Earth Day thing on Saturday. Normally I turn on every light inside and outside of the house, and leave them on all evening.   

'God's Not Dead': He's brilliant box office

Exclusive: Lord Monckton urges Americans to go see 'intelligent, inspiring movie'

 Now for some good news. “God’s Not Dead,” the latest in a long and honorable tradition of inspirational faith movies, has been a stunning hit at the box office in its first week.  Though it opened on March 21 in only 780 theaters, it was the fifth-highest grosser of the week, beaten only by four movies that opened in at least 3,000 theaters each.

If you haven’t seen “God’s Not Dead” yet, then hunt down one of the few theaters open-minded enough to screen it and bring the family. It’s rated as suitable for everyone 12 years old and up.  If your local theater is not yet screening “God’s Not Dead,” ask the management to get with the picture. Though the Hollywood chattering classes and the news media are all too often not just un-Christian but actively anti-Christian, they all like to make money. Tell them God is brilliant box office……Three decades ago, Allan Bloom, in his seminal book, “The Closing of the American Mind,” pointed out that “political correctness” was a euphemism for the stupidest form of stubborn, organized intolerance of dissent.Here is a moving comment from one of the commenters at WND:

“I went to a liberal college in Oregon. I had several professors that had made claims similar to the one that was made in this movie. These professors refused to allow us to challenge them in class and threatened to remove us from the class if we offered any dissent.”.......“It is unfortunate that most professors are only accepted into these universities as long as they have the same views as those peers whom they seek to impress. This type of stonewalling is typical of most colleges and universities in the U.S.”

To

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Harry Reid v. FEC Update: More Campaign Payments to Granddaughter Revealed, Total Rises to $31,000

BY: Andrew Stiles

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) reacted swiftly to revelations that his campaign had purchased $16,786 worth of “holiday gifts” (for donors) from his own granddaughter, announcing that he would personally reimburse his campaign for the cost of the trinkets…..Reid looks awfully silly now that previous campaign documents have turned up almost $31,000 in payments to Ryan Elizabeth Reid for “gifts for supporters.”   Shockingly, this isn’t Reid’s first run-in with the FEC. Meanwhile, Reid’s campaign to demonize the Koch brothers—for allegedly gaming the campaign finance system to enrich themselves and those around them—proceeds apace. What a guy....To Read More...

A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax

By Alan Caruba

This appeared here and I wish to thank Alan for allowing me to publish his work. RK

“It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage has yet to be exposed and measured,” says Dr. Tim Ball in his new book, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”.

Dr. Ball has been a climatologist for more than forty years and was one of the earliest critics of the global warming hoax that was initiated by the United Nations environmental program that was established in 1972 and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988.

Several UN conferences set in motion the hoax that is based on the assertion that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing a dramatic surge in heating the Earth. IPCC reports have continued to spread this lie through their summaries for policy makers that influenced policies that have caused nations worldwide to spend billions to reduce and restrict CO2 emissions. Manmade climate change—called anthropogenic global warming—continues to be the message though mankind plays no role whatever.

There is no scientific support for the UN theory.

 CO2, despite being a minor element of the Earth’s atmosphere, is essential for all life on Earth because it is the food that nourishes all vegetation. The Earth has passed through many periods of high levels of CO2 and many cycles of warming and cooling that are part of the life of the planet.
“Science works by creating theories based on assumptions,” Dr. Ball notes, “then other scientists—performing their skeptical role—test them. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction of this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it.”

“The atmosphere,” Dr. Ball notes, “is three-dimensional and dynamic, so building a computer model that even approximates reality requires far more data than exists and much greater understanding of an extremely turbulent and complex system.” No computer model put forth by the IPCC in support of global warming has been accurate, nor ever could be.

Most of the reports were created by a small group of men working within the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and all were members of the IPCC. The result was “a totally false picture supposedly based on science.”

The revelations of emails between the members of the CRU were made available in 2009 by an unknown source. Dr. Ball quotes Phil Jones, the Director of the CRU at the time of the leaks, and Tom Wigley, a former director addressing other CRU members admitting that “Many of the uncertainties surrounding the cause of climate change will never be resolved because the necessary data are lacking.”

The IPCC depended upon the public’s lack of knowledge regarding the science involved and the global warming hoax was greatly aided because the “mainstream media bought into and promoted the unproven theory. Scientists who challenged were denied funding and marginalized. National environmental policies were introduced based on the misleading information” of the IPCC summaries of their reports.

“By the time of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, the politics and hysteria about climate change had risen to a level that demanded clear evidence of a human signal,” notes Dr. Ball. “An entire industry had developed around massive funding from government. A large number of academic, political, and bureaucratic careers had evolved and depended on expansion of the evidence. Environmentalists were increasing pressure on the public and thereby politicians.”

The growing problem for the CRU and the entire global warming hoax was that no clear evidence existed to blame mankind for changes in the climate and still largely unknown to the public was the fact that the Earth has passed through many natural cycles of warmth and cooling. If humans were responsible, how could the CRU explain a succession of ice ages over millions of years?

The CRU emails revealed their growing concerns regarding a cooling cycle that had begun in the late 1990s and now, some seventeen years later, the Earth is in a widely recognized cooling cycle.

Moreover, the hoax was aimed at vast reductions in the use of coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as nuclear power to produce the electricity on which all modern life depends. There was advocacy of solar and wind power to replace them and nations undertook costly programs to bring about the reduction of the CO2 “fossil fuels” produced and spent billions on the “green” energy. That program is being abandoned.

At the heart of the hoax is a contempt for mankind and a belief that population worldwide should be reduced. The science advisor to President Obama, John Holdren, has advocated forced abortions, sterilization by introducing infertility drugs into the nation’s drinking water and food, and other totalitarian measures. “Overpopulation is still central to the use of climate change as a political vehicle,” warns Dr. Ball.

Given that the environmental movement has been around since the 1960s, it has taken decades for the public to grasp its intent and the torrents of lies that have been used to advance it. “More people,” notes Dr. Ball, “are starting to understand that what they’re told about climate change by academia, the mass media, and the government is wrong, especially the propaganda coming from the UN and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

“Ridiculous claims—like the science is settled or the debate is over—triggered a growing realization that something was wrong.” When the global warming advocates began to tell people that cooling is caused by warming, the public has realized how absurd the entire UN climate change argument has been.

Worse, however, has been “the deliberate deceptions, misinformation, manipulation of records and misapplying scientific method and research” to pursue a political objective. Much of this is clearly unlawful, but it is unlikely that any of those who perpetrated the hoax will ever be punished and, in the case of Al Gore and the IPCC, they shared a Nobel Peace Prize.
We are all in debt to Dr. Ball and a score of his fellow scientists who exposed the lies and debunked the hoax; their numbers are growing with thousands of scientists signing petitions and participating in international conferences to expose this massive global deception.

© Alan Caruba, 2014


Punching Above Our Weight

Mises Daily: Friday, March 28, 2014 by Jeff Deist

 Last week the Mises Institute hosted another outstanding Austrian Economics Research Conference at our campus in Auburn. Attendees enjoyed three days of cross-disciplinary presentations by more than 50 academics, PhD candidates, and economics/finance professionals, all working in the most provocative traditions of Austrian and libertarian thought. We also celebrated the 40th anniversary of the South Royalton conference, the first academic conference devoted to Austrian economics in the US and a watershed event in the modern Austrian movement.

AERC concluded Saturday evening under spectacular southern spring skies, with a reception on our patio……. Judge Napolitano, in a fascinating talk entitledThe Pope, the Constitution, and Economics 101,” revisited the sadly foregone Lochner era. Natural rights theory, economic liberty, and private contract rights once informed American jurisprudence, Napolitano explained, and we are all poorer for their absence in today’s common law. Some areas of human conduct simply should be immune from government interference, no matter the purported state interest.....To Read More.....

Eminent domain often leaves broken communities behind

Tim Carney

Weeds and rubble cover 90 acres along Long Island Sound. A room with cinder-block walls sits locked in an empty in Brooklyn basement. And a gleaming industrial palace has failed to bring jobs to the banks of Ohio's Mahoning River.

These are monuments to failed central planning. Eminent domain, state and local subsides, and federal-corporate partnerships have yielded these lifeless fruits, failing to deliver the rebirth, community benefits and jobs they promise — but succeeding in delivering profits to the companies that lobby for them.

The economic philosophy at work here isn't capitalism or socialism. It's corporatism: the belief that government and business should work together. You could describe corporatism as the view that profits provided by the market aren't sufficient motivation for business, so government must put some icing on top. From another perspective, corporatism is government's attempt to harness the profit motive for the goals of policymakers: let industry row the ship while politicians steer.

Often, the corporatist ship founders on the rocks of false promises.....To Read More...

Press Release 27/03/14, From Benny Peiser's GWPF

New Paper: Decarbonisation Policy Ignores Engineering Reality
Test Gap between rhetoric and reality dangerously wide
A paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation and written by Professor Michael Kelly (University of Cambridge) shows that most of the ambitions to decarbonise the UK and global economy have not been put through an engineering reality test.
The paper reveals that the scale, scope, feasibility, cost, resources and other requirements of the decarbonisation agenda have never been tested against other calls on human and physical resources of the planet.

The fact that carbon emissions are going up inexorably in spite of many projects across the globe already raises a simple question ‘What are we getting for our money?’
Professor Kelly’s paper discusses the role of technology changes in helping meet the global decarbonisation agenda: success in the UK and failure elsewhere still represents failure.

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows that some of the more calamitous projects are rather less likely, raising the question of how much of this agenda is really necessary in short order.

The new paper is intended to bring out some key lessons from the realities of successful technology changes in the recent past as they bear on the global challenge of climate change.
It finds that the gap between rhetoric and reality is dangerously wide, on the basis of some of the simplest premises of engineering and technology.
Michael J Kelly FRS FREng is Prince Philip Professor of Technology, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge.

Full paper

Professor Michael Kelly
University of Cambridge
Department of Engineering

Dr Benny Peiser
Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
t: 020 7006 5827
m: 07553 361717


From Benny Peiser's Climate Change Policy Foundation

UN Author Says New Draft Climate Report Alarmist
How Government Officials Are Re-Writing IPCC Draft

One of the 70 authors of a draft U.N. report on climate change said he had pulled out of the writing team because it was "alarmist" about the threat. Richard Tol told Reuters he disagreed with some findings of the summary to be issued in Japan on March 31. "The drafts became too alarmist," the Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England said by telephone from Yokohama, Japan, where governments and scientists are meeting to edit and approve the report. --Alister Doyle, Reuters, 27 March 2014

Unfortunately, those expecting the IPCC's Working Group II's report to effect a new note of realism in global economic policy on climate change may be disappointed. That's because the Summary for Policymakers (the only part of the IPCC's reports that policymakers tend to read) will - as usual - strike a much more alarmist tone than the contents of the more detailed report actually justify. "Basically, it has been Pachaurisised," says Benny Peiser of the independent think tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation. --James Delingpole, Breitbart London, 26 March 2014

The draft of the all-important Summary for Policymakers finalized last October by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [is] far from official. That’s because the IPCC isn’t a place in which scientists have the last word. Everyone involved understands that the summary of the Working Group 2 section of its new report is going to be re-written. This will happen during four days of a meeting now getting underway in Yokohama, Japan. Journalists are barred from attending this four-day meeting. Since the IPCC insists it is a transparent organization, this is outrageous. If nothing improper will be going on, why will the doors be locked? If the science is so cut-and-dried, so clear and unequivocal, why all the secrecy? In turns out that last October’s Final Draft won’t actually get discussed in Yokohama. Instead, it has already been extensively manipulated. --Donna Laframboise, No Frakking Consensus, 25 March 2014

Britain and other governments have been severely critical of a finding from Richard Tol, a Dutch economics professor at Sussex University, according to documents made available to the Guardian. The summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on the impact of global warming cites research by Tol on global economic losses due to climate change, which he put at between 0.2% and 2% of income. That is far lower than estimates of the costs of climate change by the economist Nicholas Stern. Britain and other governments rejected the finding as an underestimate when the draft was first circulated to officials last December. --Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, 28 March 2014

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will shortly publish the second part of its latest report, on the likely impact of climate change. Government representatives are meeting with scientists in Japan to sex up—sorry, rewrite—a summary of the scientists’ accounts of storms, droughts and diseases to come. But the actual report, known as AR5-WGII, is less frightening than its predecessor seven years ago. --Matt Ridley, The Wall Street Journal, 28 March 2014

IPCC Working Group 2, “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” is currently meeting to finalise its Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which will be published in a few days time. The draft SPM was leaked last November. Now there is a new leaked version, which is the November version plus some edits marked in blue. The edits are interesting, showing a ramping up of alarm and a down-playing of adaptation in favour of mitigation. --Paul Matthews, The IPCC Report, 25 March 2014

Professor Tol said he was unconcerned about the criticism. “The UK government is just worried about embarrassment,” he said. “They perhaps feel now a little embarrassed that the official estimate of the UK government conflicts with the official estimate that may come out of the United Nations.” However, he acknowledged that his finding may not make it through the review process.--Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, 28 March 2014

Almost every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated including the population “bomb,” pesticides, acid rain, the ozone hole, falling sperm counts, genetically engineered crops and killer bees. In every case, institutional scientists gained a lot of funding from the scare and then quietly converged on the view that the problem was much more moderate than the extreme voices had argued. Global warming is no different. --Matt Ridley, The Wall Street Journal, 28 March 2014

David Cameron: Fracking Is Europe’s Top Agenda After Crimea ‘Wake-Up Call’ UK
Prime Minister: Fracking Must Start By End Of Year
Energy independence and the adoption of technologies like shale gas fracking should top Europe’s political agenda, British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Tuesday, calling the Crimea crisis a “wake-up call” for states reliant on Russian gas. --William James, Reuters, 26 March 2014

Britain has a “duty” to embrace fracking in the wake of the Ukraine crisis, David Cameron has said, as he accused opponents of shale gas exploration of not“understanding” the issue properly. The Prime Minister said that Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea should be a “wake up call” and that European countries must become less reliant on Russian gas. --Peter Dominiczak, The Daily Telegraph, 26 March 2014

For decades, the West in general, and the U.S. in particular, has had to shape, and sometimes arguably to misshape, its foreign policy in the light of its dependence on Middle East oil and gas. No longer: that era is now over. For decades, too, Europe has been fearful of the threat that Russia might cut off the gas supplies on which it has relied so heavily. No longer: that era will very soon be over, too. Thanks to the shale gas revolution, the new found energy independence of the West is a beneficent game-changer in terms of world politics as much as it is in the field of energy economics. --Nigel Lawson, Daily Mail, 8 December 2012

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is ramping up pressure on President Obama to fast-track natural-gas exports to reduce Europe’s dependence on Russia. During a briefing with Republican leadership on Tuesday, Boehner hit the administration and Senate Democrats for opposing “common-sense measures.” “President Obama is in Europe today. I hope he uses this as an opportunity to discuss how we can help the Europeans reduce their dependence on Vladimir Putin,” Boehner said. --Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, 25 March 2014

The U.S. shale gas boom should be used to counteract Russian influence in Europe and on Ukraine, a key senator said on Tuesday, as lawmakers weighed changes to export policy to take into account a shifting geopolitical landscape. European worries about the security of energy supplies have skyrocketed since Russian forces seized control of the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine this month. Moscow has in years past cut gas supplies during regional disputes. --World Bulletin, 26 March 2014

The Crimean crisis is poised to reshape the politics of oil by accelerating Russia’s drive to send more barrels to China, leaving Europe with pricier imports and boosting U.S. dependence on fuel from the Middle East. China already has agreed to buy more than $350 billion of Russian crude in coming years from the government of President Vladimir Putin. The ties are likely to deepen as the U.S. and Europe levy sanctions against Russia as punishment for the invasion of Ukraine. --Rakteem Katakey, Bloomberg, 25 March 2014

Russia’s strategic strength in Europe springs (apart from its willingness to use force) from the fact that the EU has been asleep at the energy policy switch, blinded by its climate obsessions. While policy makers have been focused on the angels’ pinhead of sustainability, and postured against“intergenerational tyranny,” Europe has disarmed itself in the face of very real this-generation tyranny. Europe’s commitment to green energy has been not merely expensive and disruptive – without measurable impact on climate – it has left the EU comprehensively exposed to Russian blackmail. --Peter Foster, Financial Post, 26 March 2014

What is the reason for the lack of warming observed at the surface of the Earth since about 1997? Many causes have been proposed, and with increasing frequency, but most only represent partial explanations. There are clearly more putative causes than can possibly be the case. --David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 26 March 2014

Obama Calls On Europe To Develop Domestic Shale Resources
European Leaders Ask Obama To Allow Increased Exports Of US Shale Gas

The crisis in Ukraine underscores the need for the European Union to consider imports of natural gas from the U.S. and development of domestic resources to diversify supplies, President Barack Obama said. --Ewa Krukowska, Bloomberg Businessweek, 26 March 2014

European leaders on Wednesday asked Barack Obama to share the US's shale gas bonanza with Europe by facilitating gas exports to help counter the stranglehold Russia has on the continent's energy needs. Obama, while not ruling out the possibility, stressed the need for Europe to diversify its sources of energy in order to make it less vulnerable to Russian blackmail, and said Europe should open up to fracking to develop its own gas supply. --Ian Traynor, The Guardian, 27 March 2014

The crisis in Ukraine has intensified calls from industry and political leaders—including senior U.S. officials—for Europe to develop its own shale industry. With 470 trillion cubic feet of potentially recoverable shale-gas reserves, Europe has around 80% of the resource available in the U.S., according to U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates. But some of its biggest potential gas producers, including France and Germany, have banned fracking, the technology used to extract gas, for fear of potential water contamination. --Selina Williams, The Wall Street Journal, 27 March 2014

Major offshore oil discoveries and prospects for shale gas extraction are generating excitement – and resistance. Spain is already the world’s largest olive oil producer but now it’s looking to a very different kind of oil to pull it out of economic decline: petroleum. The discovery of two significant offshore deposits, and prospects for fracking in many areas, have triggered a black-gold rush, with demand for exploration permits up 35% since 2012. Deloitte predicts that Spain could become a gas exporter by 2031 while producing 20% of the oil it consumes. --Stephen Burgen, The Guardian, 26 March 2015

The utopian dream of an economy powered by renewables is more and more turning into a nightmare. Ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, under whom the “green energy revolution” started, is now calling for a revision of this policy; he warns of more damaging and unachievable targets for renewable energy and for CO2 reduction and advocates a longer life for Germany’s remaining nuclear power stations... During the heyday of climate fears in the last decade, centre-left politicians in Britain and Germany were united in the belief that climate change would be the new mass mobilising topic that would help save their parties. A more likely outcome is that this strategy will neither save the centre-left nor will it help to prevent climate change. --Jürgen Krönig, Policy Network, 24 March 2014