Climate scientists come to terms with the lack of global warming

- The Daily Caller - http://dailycaller.com -

Climate scientists come to terms with the lack of global warming

Posted By Michael Bastasch On 10:42 AM 04/26/2013 In Daily Caller News Foundation | No Comments

Despite the heated rhetoric from the Obama administration and environmental groups about the urgency of global warming, climate scientists have begun to come to terms with the lack of evidence of catastrophic global warming over the last decade.

“While some climate scientists continue to resist the obvious that the climate system is more complex than they assumed, others are starting to accept that the multi-decadal climate projections provide very incomplete simulations has to how the real climate system works,” Roger Pielke, Jr., environmental studies professor at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Establishment media outlets have been reporting about the unexpected stabilizing global surface temperatures over at least the last decade, and even former NASA scientist and environmental activist James Hansen has recognized the decade-long lull.

This has frustrated some environmentalists who recently sent a letter to major news networks urging them to have more coverage on global warming, and to stop portraying the issue as a “two-sided debate” by featuring global warming skeptics.

“The divergence of the real world observations from the multi-decadal climate predictions, both in terms of forecasting the magnitude of global warming and of changes in regional climate, is finally initiating a much overdue scientific debate on the level of our knowledge of the climate system,” Pielke added. “While there is no doubt that humans are altering the climate system, it is in a diverse variety of ways besides that caused by adding greenhouse gases such as C02.”

Pielke said that climate scientists are beginning to recognize that the natural climate forces and feedbacks play a larger role than previously thought.

“This is a highly complex calculation to make in the first place. The short period of time, only 10 years in which the increasing temperature has leveled, really doesn’t tell us very much other than the fact that temperatures may still be rising but just not as fast as they were before,” said Elgie Holstein, the senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund, told Fox News.

“The mainstream media cannot maintain the official man-made global warming narrative any longer,” Marc Morano of the climate skeptic website ClimateDepot.com told TheDC News Foundation. “With the lack of warming and the failure to shift the climate debate to ‘extreme weather,’ warmists are now losing once stalwart members of the media in promoting man-made climate fears.”

A study by Norwegian researchers from earlier this year found that global warming is less severe than was predicted by the United Nations climate authority. In fact, studies have been lowering their warming forecasts since the 2007 UN estimate.

In a Washington Times op-ed, Cato Institute climate scholar Patrick Michaels provides a partial list of studies that have made estimates lower than the UN:

“Richard Lindzen gives a range of 0.6 to 1.0 C (Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 2011); Andreas Schmittner, 1.4 to 2.8 C (Science, 2011); James Annan, using two techniques, 1.2 to 3.6 C and 1.3 to 4.2 C (Climatic Change, 2011); J.H. van Hateren, 1.5 to 2.5 C (Climate Dynamics, 2012); Michael Ring, 1.5 to 2.0 C (Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2012); and Julia Hargreaves, including cooling from dust, 0.2 to 4.0 C and 0.8 to 3.6 C (Geophysical Research Letters, 2012).”

“It’s appropriate to jump off a ship when it begins to take on water,” Michaels said. “If you look at the monthly temperature anomalies from the University of East Anglia you see no significant trend in any direction going back to the fall of 1996 which would put us at 17 years of no trend.”

“These are not good times for the promoters of global warming,” said Morano. “Earth is failing to follow global warming predictions and the new study claiming current temperatures are the ‘hottest ever’ may be facing a full scientific retraction. The great warmist retreat has officially begun.”

However, environmental groups were encouraged earlier this year when President Obama promised to address global warming during his second term, threatening executive action if Congress failed to pass legislation on the issue.

“We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence,” Obama said in his State of the Union Address. “Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science — and act before it’s too late.”

Green groups may have a reason to be optimistic as a Gallup poll from March found that 58 percent of Americans say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming, up from 51 percent in 2011.

Follow Michael on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

---

Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/26/climate-scientists-come-to-terms-with-the-lack-of-global-warming/

 

THE GREEN ENERGY FRAUD

THE GREEN ENERGY FRAUD

By Michael S. Coffman
September 26, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Just like Obamacare, President Obama is committed to force us into using green energy regardless of what the people want – or can afford. Although U.S. reserves of oil, natural gas and coal are inexpensive and very abundant, Obama has done all he can to shut down every plan to develop these sources of economically cheap energy.

Obama even defied a court order requiring the Department of Interior grant deep water drilling permits for oil. Meanwhile, Cuba contracted several companies, including China, to conduct exploratory drilling within 60 miles of the Florida coast; something Obama would not let U.S. companies do. By the end of 2011, Cuba had brought in a Chinese deep water drilling rig and started drilling some 60-70 miles from Florida.

The EPA is also refusing to grant new permits to open new coal mines and has gone so far as to revoke existing permits. Once again, the federal court ruled against the efforts of the Obama administration, in this case the EPA, charging that the EPA exceeded its authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

One of Obama’s most recent actions was to deny the permit to build the XL oil pipeline from Canada down to Texas. The pipeline would have delivered 1.2 million barrels of oil a day; the amount of oil the U.S. currently gets from Saudi Arabia, and 46 percent more than all the wind and solar energy currently produced in the U.S. each day. This has led energy-sector executives to suspect the administration “is at war with American energy.”

While Obama gives lip service to reducing the dependence of the U.S. on foreign energy and create jobs, he is actually making America more dependent on foreign energy, reducing the U.S.’s national security, while killing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. It borders on the bizarre, yet the mainstream media are strangely quiet about this threat while promoting the president’s jobs program which even some Democrats in the U.S. Senate voted down.

After spending tens of billions of dollars on subsidies to green energy wind and solar farms Obama’s Clean Energy Program, the nation’s dependence on green energy has barely budged, from about 1.5 percent 10 years ago to 2 percent today. Worse, in his new book, Throw Them All Out, Peter Schweizer details how 80 percent of DOE funds for clean energy have gone to Obama backers:

…In the…government-backed-loan program [alone], for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 [2011] went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.

This is beyond cronyism, its raw corruption that calls into question whether Obama is pushing green energy because he believes in it, or to pay off his supporters with taxpayer’s money. Solyndra is a case in point. Solyndra was Obama’s poster child for his “clean energy initiative.” The dirty details of the Solyndra scandal trickled out over months, in spite of the administrations herculean effort to bury the information.

One of the details exposed was that a DOE employee monitoring the Solyndra loan guarantee, Steve Spinner, happened to be one of Obama’s top fundraisers. Another major Obama fundraiser, George Keiser, had deep ties to Solyndra. His George Keiser Family Foundation’s investment arm, Argonaut Ventures, owned a huge piece of Solyndra and received direct political support from the Whitehouse and money from the federal government. Argonaut’s President, Steve Mitchell, also served on Solyndra’s board of directors.

As the scheduled groundbreaking for Solyndra approached, a series of emails from the Whitehouse showed the administration put intense pressure on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to make a decision immediately on the Solyndra loan. The Whitehouse never said what the OMB’s decision should be, but wanted Vice President Bidden to attend the groundbreaking ceremony as a photo op and time was running out. However, the OMB said the Whitehouse deadline did not give them time to do their due diligence. If they had, perhaps the OMB would have said “no.”

Worse, as it became clear Solyndra would fail, the DOE allowed private creditors, including many big donors to the Democrats, to get paid first when Solyndra’s assets were sold, in violation of the law. The investors got some of their money back, the U.S. taxpayer got none. Then, as layoffs became inevitable, the Energy Department asked Solyndra to delay the announcement until after the 2010 election.[1]

Besides the cloud of corruption, the Solyndra scandal shows why the government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers. Not only is wind and solar power economically ruinous, it just doesn’t work. Simply put, wind energy only works when the wind blows, about 25 percent of the time. Likewise, solar power is even less effective because it doesn’t work when the sun doesn’t shine or it’s cloudy. There are a host of other technical reasons why wind and solar won’t economically competitive with carbon-based energy on a large scale for a long time into the future.[2] Yet, the Obama administration is spending billions of dollars to force us to use green energy because of a proven failed ideology.

Europe is already reeling from the realization green energy is bankrupting them. Great Britain estimated last summer that 25 percent of their population already suffers from “energy poverty” as British energy costs skyrocketed by 71 percent. British companies are threatening to move to other countries. Some are already moving.

The European evidence means nothing to Obama. His clean energy plan is an utter failure that has cost the American people tens of billions of dollars, killed hundreds of thousands of jobs, and opened the door to what appears to be rampant corruption. Yet, the Obama administration and the progressives in Congress continue to force-feed us its failed policy. It’s time to say goodbye to any elected official who blindly accepts Obama’s failed clean energy policies.An in-depth study in Spain found that for every job green energy creates, 2.2 are lost in the rest of the economy as the enormous subsidies required for green energy sucks jobs out of the private sector. Research in Italy found that they lost an incredible 6.9 jobs in the industrial sector and 4.8 jobs across the entire economy for every green job created. As European nation after European nation realizes the enormous costs of alternative energy, they are shutting off their astronomic subsidies to prop up green energy. Green energy is in a death spiral in Europe.

© 2012 Michael Coffman – All Rights Reserved

Footnote:

1. Carol Leonniug and Joe Stephens. Solyndra: Energy Dept. Pushed Firm to Keep Layoffs Quiet Until After Midterms. Washington Post, November 15, 2011.
2. Ibid

Dr. Coffman is President of Environmental Perspectives Incorporated (epi-us.com) and CEO of Sovereignty International (sovereignty.net) in Bangor Maine. He has had over 30 years of university teaching, research and consulting experience in forestry and environmental sciences. He produced the acclaimed DVD Global Warming or Global Governance (warmingdvd.com). His newest book, Rescuing a Broken America (rescuingamericabook.com) is receiving wide acclaim. He can be reached at 207-945-9878.

E-Mail: mcoffman@epi-us.com

Website: DiscerningToday.org

 

Radical Muslims, Environmentalists, and the Green Jihad

- Accuracy In Media - http://www.aim.org -

Radical Muslims, Environmentalists, and the Green Jihad

Posted By Mark Musser On April 25, 2011 @ 3:45 pm In AIM Column | 

(A Special Report from the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism)

Rep. Keith Ellison, the Muslim Congressman from Minnesota who shed tears in protest over the congressional hearings on the growing radicalization of Muslims in the U.S., wrote the foreword to a book entitled Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet ^[1]. In Arabic, “deen” means religious creed. The author of Green Deen is Ibrahim Abdul Matin. He wrote his book to demonstrate that there is a close relationship between Islam and modern environmentalism.

It turns out Ellison would have been a good witness to how Muslims are being radicalized as foot solders not only for global Jihad but for a “green” future. It is an unholy alliance that threatens our future but which escapes the attention of media predisposed to believe that radical Muslims working with environmentalists could only produce positive results.

What is fascinating is that Matin works in New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s environmental planning department as a policy advisor for New York City’s long term sustainability, and was one of the Muslims promoting the idea that the new mosque being considered near Ground Zero should be a green one ^[2]. In fact, Matin devotes one whole chapter of his book to “Green Mosques” and provides a list of environmentally friendly practices that can and should be implemented at each local mosque. Being the progressive Muslim that he paints himself to be, Keith Ellison was very impressed with Matin’s abilities and proudly decided to endorse his book.

One of the reasons Ellison decided to work with Matin was because of his own growing personal involvement in the green movement, which surprisingly enough, is becoming more popular among Muslims. In an interview posted on the DC ^[3] Green Muslim’s website ^[4], Ellison commented that “my involvement in politics is really rooted in my desire to try to promote unity among people, trying to promote unity with the Earth and creation, and trying to promote justice.” Ellison is also involved in an organization called the “Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota (EJAM ^[5]).” Ellison, the first Muslim Congressman in U.S. history, thus believes in green Islamic social justice of sorts—a veritable Islamic political ecology.

Ellison first met Matin in 2008 at a Muslim American seminar caucus in Washington, D.C.  Matin was a fellow of “Green For All ^[6],” the very organization founded by communist Van Jones ^[7] to help promote the financial wonders of the so-called Green Economy ^[8]. Matin also helped organize Green For All’s National Day of Action ^[9] calling for “Green Jobs Now,” which more than 50,000 people attended. Ellison was very impressed by Matin’s influence at the caucus: “Ibrahim made an important connection that day—that the faith community needs to be involved in the green movement.” He went on to conclude his foreword by saying that “Green Deen brings faith communities into the environmental movement by changing the conversation from the facts of global warming to the fact that we all live and work here together and have a collective responsibility to keep this place clean and safe for everyone.”

While there is certainly no small controversy over exactly what a caliphate ^[10] may be, especially with regard to how Sunnis and Shia ^[11]s view it, or how closely it may be tied to the ushering in of Sharia law ^[12], Islamic totalitarianism ^[13], terrorism ^[14] and violence ^[15], it is a word that shows up often in Matin’s Green Deen. Matin innocuously translates the word “caliphah” to simply mean “steward,” a very environmentally-correct term. While this may satisfy the environmental consciousness of modern Western elites, this definition is, of course, very far removed from how most of the Muslim world have historically understood this word.

However, no matter how green a Muslim may or may not be, by definition, the caliphate must still be an Islamic theocratic state under the dominion of Allah. Even though Matin maintains ^[16] that he wrote his book to help rebrand Muslims from being considered terrorists to environmentalists, he still prefaces his entire book with the idea that “the earth is a mosque.”  This means that the environmental holism being espoused by Matin must necessarily be subject to Allah’s totalitarian authority over the earth. In other words, environmental holism and Islamic totalitarianism go hand in hand in Matin’s Green Deen.

Secret Conquest

If the entire earth is a mosque, as Matin maintains, then Allah’s boundaries are boundless, and this means that simultaneously Americans must live under the theocratic dictates of Allah, and environmentalism can easily be used alongside Sharia law to help bring America to its knees under Islamic jihadist control. While many on the left would naively consider such a possibility beyond the pale, something along these lines is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood ^[17] has in mind for the future of America. Indeed, in 1991, the radical Muslim Brotherhood espoused ^[18] that “the process of settlement…in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” In other words, something like environmentalism can be easily used as a jihadist tool in the hands of a green Muslim to help sabotage America from within. After all, Matin says that “Muslims have a personal connection to the color green,” and that “the favorite color of the Prophet Muhammad was green.”

More troubling is that Keith Ellison’s pilgrimage ^[19] to Mecca in 2008 was paid for by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, which is just another name ^[20]for the Muslim Brotherhood. Ellison also likes to attend Hamas rallies ^[21], and has even worked with communist front groups ^[22] like the National Lawyers Guild ^[23]. He even once went so far as to praise ^[24] the terrorist record of Bernardine Dohrn—the wife of the infamous Bill Ayers. After converting from Roman Catholicism to Islam, Ellison also praised ^[25] the likes of Louis Farrakhan ^[26] and the Nation of Islam ^[27] during his college days. This hot-wiring of the anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, together with environmentalism, only helps to serve up an explosive eco-fascist concoction not seen since the 1930’s ^[28].

With such a cadre of characters and organizations under Ellison’s belt, is it any wonder that suspicions should arise over his activities, even over something as allegedly harmless as environmentalism? Which brings us back to Matin. Why in the world would Matin want Ellison’s endorsement if all he wants to do is try and show Americans that Muslims are not terrorists but are becoming progressive environmentalists? Neither should it be overlooked that the Muslim American Society also touts ^[29] the Green Deen book. Matin even considers Malcom X, who was also one of his heroes as a child when he used to listen to his tapes, to be a green Muslim ^[30]. Such disconcerting connections betray the image that Matin’s Green Deen is as benign as it reads.

Indeed, Matin’s whole approach to energy is viewed as a green Muslim apocalyptic dichotomy between heaven and hell. Matin considers gas, coal and oil as energy from hell, i.e., from the ground: “it is dirty, and it is a major cause of pollution and climate change. Energy from hell is non-renewable; it takes away from the Earth without giving back. It disturbs the balance of the universe and is therefore a great injustice.” As such, it appears that energy from hell needs to be placed under the caliphate control of Allah to help bring about a green Muslim social ethic on the earth: “one way we can stand out firmly for justice is by ending our reliance on oil and coal. Energies from hell are particularly devastating and unjust to people and the planet.”

From One Hell to Another

With the likes of the OPEC oil cartel largely run by the Middle East, coupled with the environmental restrictions on the homefront, perhaps the earth indeed is becoming one giant mosque. Worse is that Matin’s Green Deen only promises to become more hellish, leaving America increasingly exposed to the harsh natural elements of the sun, storm and wind. Yet, Matin views such exposure as a gift from heaven. For him, solar and wind power are Allah’s answers to America’s energy problems: “energy from heaven comes from above. It is not extracted from the Earth and it is renewable…energy from above is a gift from heaven.” The problem now, however, is that America’s electrical grid is not ‘smart ^[31]’ enough yet to incorporate Allah’s heavenly gifts into her energy system.

Matin also proudly notes in his book that the EPA received much needed help from a green Muslim by the name of Dr. Aziz Saddiqi. In the 1960’s Saddiqi was a young doctoral candidate who was doing groundbreaking research in the Houston area on chemical engineering. The University of Houston was so impressed with his work that he was offered a job: “Soon he found himself guiding the development of curriculum that would help the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency carry out its new mission of enforcing the Clean Air Act.” His chemical engineering expertise was much needed at the beginning to help the EPA get off of its feet: “In 1973 the EPA was only three years old and did not understand the full breadth of its power.” The EPA thus had a lot of growing up to do, and Dr. Saddiqi was at the heart of it all at the very beginning: “The EPA, its scientists, and its partner agencies needed to be trained on how to monitor pollution from smokestacks and other commonly used industrial practices.”

In fact, it seems that they were all on the learning curve together on this, as Dr. Saddiqui “had to learn how to explain his research in chemical engineering to this group of regulators.” Dr. Saddiqi “also authored the training materials used to teach EPA scientists how to sample ambient air and develop pollution controls.” Today, Dr. Saddiqi is in charge of the largest Islamic community in the United States, called the Islamic Society ^[32] of Greater Houston.

It is certainly comforting to discover that the EPA had a green Muslim helping them all out at the beginning on how to be good regulators. Environmentalism and the Islamic caliphate working together arm in arm at the very foundations of the EPA?  Green hippies and a green Muslim expert working hard together trying to come to grips with the full regulatory power of the Clean Air Act?

Conflict of Civilizations

However innocent some green Muslims and environmentalists may or may not be in this whole ecological experiment that America is increasingly rushing headlong into, ratcheting up secular problems with apocalyptic concerns and solutions will only feed radicalism and religious fervor. It also draws in the naïve and unsuspecting to do things that they would not normally do. By apocalypticizing their worries and concerns ^[33], environmentalists have managed to take something as banal and neutral as handling natural resources and have turned it into a gigantic worldwide ethic of ecological social justice requiring immediate action that now is even beginning to draw ^[34] in the Muslims as well.

Muslims like Ibrahim Abdul Matin and Keith Ellison would do well to think again about the differences between Gaia ^[35], considered the spirit of the earth by environmentalists, and Allah. Though both havetotalitarian ^[36] goals, they are by no means the same. Ecological pantheism ^[37] cannot be mixed with monotheism ^[38], even if the Muslim religion is symbolized by a crescent moon. At some point, these two ideologies will collide, and even though I am not a betting man, I would put my money on the growing juggernaut of Western pantheism. It has already largely devoured the Judeo-Christian worldview in America, and is well on its way to spitting out the pieces of what is left of free market capitalism.

---

Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org

URL to article: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/radical-muslims-environmentalists-and-the-green-jihad/

URLs in this post:

[1] Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet: http://www.greendeenbook.com/

[2] green one: http://www.aim.org../aim-report/the-%E2%80%9Cgreen%E2%80%9D-mosque-near-ground-zero/

[3] DC: http://arabnews.com/world/article20017.ece

[4] website: http://dcgreenmuslims.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html

[5] EJAM: http://www.ejamn.org/

[6] Green For All: http://www.greenforall.org/

[7] Van Jones: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15455

[8] Green Economy: http://junkscience.com/2011/03/23/clean-energys-junk-economics/

[9] National Day of Action: http://www.greenjobsnow.com/

[10] caliphate: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1278

[11] Sunnis and Shia: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=754

[12] Sharia law: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/05/10/caliphate-and-sharia-law.html

[13] Islamic totalitarianism: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/the_muslim_mainstream_and_the.html

[14] terrorism: http://www.danielpipes.org/2798/what-do-the-terrorists-want-a-caliphate

[15] violence: http://www.raymondibrahim.com/8882/caliphate-jihad-sharia-now-what

[16] maintains: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/16/author-wants-to-rebrand-muslims-from-terrorists-to-environmentalists/

[17] Muslim Brotherhood: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/muslimbrotherhood.html

[18] espoused: http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/20

[19] pilgrimage: http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/36417549.html?source=error

[20] name : http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/muslim-american-society-leader-admits-group-is-part-of-muslim-brotherhood/

[21] Hamas rallies: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/02/rep-keith-ellison-attends-ugly-prohamas-rally-in-minnesota.html

[22] communist front groups: http://www.aim.org../aim-column/times-helps-muslim-rep-ellison-obstruct-terror-probe/

[23] National Lawyers Guild: http://debs.indstate.edu/u588r47_1950.pdf

[24] praise: http://www.aim.org../aim-column/will-rep-king-expose-rep-ellison%E2%80%99s-pro-terrorist-record/

[25] praised: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/764obcsx.asp

[26] Louis Farrakhan: http://ww3.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue22/chajua22.htm

[27] Nation of Islam: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/NOI.html

[28] 1930’s: http://gulagbound.com/14685/nazi-political-biology-the-hotwiring-of-power-politics-naturalism-environmentalism-racism

[29] touts: http://muslimgreenteam.org/

[30] green Muslim: http://www.greendeenbook.com/author_malcolm.html

[31] smart: http://www.greensmartgridinitiative.org/

[32] Society: http://www.isgh.org/

[33] apocalypticizing their worries and concerns: http://www.theignorantfishermen.com/2011/03/eco-fascist-prophecy-of-global-warming.html

[34] draw: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_690815.html

[35] Gaia: http://www.usasurvival.org/cultofgaia.html

[36] totalitarian: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100032069/only-global-fascist-tyranny-can-save-us-now-says-nice-old-man/

[37] Ecological pantheism: http://www.brontaylor.com/environmental_books/dgr/dark_green_religion.html

[38] monotheism: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10499a.htm

 

 

The Nazi-Palestinian War on Jesus

- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -

Posted By Giulio Meotti On June 15, 2012 @ 12:25 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 53 Comments

Under intense pressure by the PLO and its Western allies, the upcoming meeting of UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee, to be held in St. Petersburg, Russia from June 24 to July 6, is expected to recognize the “Birthplace of Jesus: the Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage route, Bethlehem” as the Palestinian first world heritage site. The Vatican has capitulated to the Palestinian propaganda and the Holy Land’s Custodian, Fr. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, has asked for recognition to be given to the city of Bethlehem as a whole as a heritage site and not just to the Basilica. “Given this history of Palestinian mistreatment of the Church of the Nativity, isn’t it odd that the Vatican is silent as Unesco plans to put the Palestinians officially in charge of the church?”asks the well known Jewish blogger Israelmatzav.

When in 1995 Israel turned over Bethlehem to the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, a Muslim, proclaimed: “This is the birthplace of our Lord the Messiah, the Palestinian.” The Vatican authorities bear a tragic responsability in the Palestinian war on Bethlehem. In 1989, Jerusalem’s Roman Catholic patriarch Michel Sabbah supported the Palestinian Intifada as he celebrated a Christmas midnight Mass at Jesus’ birthplace. “Despite all that is happening to you, you will win, in the end you will win,” declared Patriarch Sabbah, appointed by Pope John Paul II. Off Manger Square, a group of Muslims chanted: “The Zionist is God’s enemy!” and “Jews, Mohammed is coming back!”

If UNESCO’s Palestinian bid won’t be stopped on time, the Arabs will go further in their Palestinization and de-Judaization of the holy land. Jesus will become an honorary member of the PLO, with the corollary of an Islamicized Christianity. According to Omar Awadallah, who heads the UN department in the PA Foreign Ministry, “Jesus is the Palestinian prince of hope and peace”.

The odious invention of a “Palestinian Jesus” persecuted by the Jews is central to the multifaceted Arab campaign that includes boycott and terrorism, the so-called “right of return” and diplomatic attempts to isolate Israel internationally. According to this Palestinian propaganda, Jesus was not born a Jew but a Christian, and Bethlehem was not a Jewish town in Judea, but a Muslim-Arab one. The former Arab League spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi, who is also the PLO’s propagandist, declared: “I am a Christian, Jesus was born in the Muslim town of Bethlehem.” The Palestinian cynical assault on history is more political than theological. But if the Arab gangsters will successfully delegitimize Jews and Judaism at the United Nations, they will have advanced their goals of ideological criminals.

Palestinians have already been efficient in turning the global arena against the Jews. In 2010, UNESCO already decided that Rachel’s Tomb and Hevron’s Jewish tombs are officially “Muslim mosques.” To understand why the Palestinians feel they have a winning strategy about the Jewish holy sites, one has to look at the members of the “International Committee for the preservation and the promotion of the Old City of Hevron.” You will find Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former Secretary-General of the United Nations and Federico Mayor, former Director of UNESCO. In recent years, UNESCO also increased its collaboration with ISECO, the cultural body of the Organization of the Islamic Conference which is supporting the Palestinian efforts.

To understand the importance of the Palestinian campaign one must remind that there has been another manipulation of Jesus: the “Aryan Jesus” of Adolf Hitler. The pro-Nazis Christian Movement’s recasted Jesus as an Aryan fighting against the Jews. According to the Hitler’s theologians, Jesus was not a Jew, but a Galilean opponent of Judaism. The Christian Bible was stripped of all “Jewish influence.” As the Aryan Jesus was the Christian legitimization of the Nazi Holocaust, the Arabized and Islamicized Jesus under the Palestinian warfare is a tool in the Jihad against the State of Israel and its Jews.

Under the PLO’s dictatorship, the Jewish history has already become “Palestinian Arab history” and the Jewish nation (“Am Yisrael”) that ruled in the Holy Land for a thousand years and developed a world-shaking culture never existed. The brave Jewish historian Bat Ye’or in the pivotal book “Dhimmitude” called it “Arabization of Jesus” and “de-Judaization of the Bible,” which are both serving the Palestinian cause.

The Palestinian Authority’s television aired a program asserting that the tales of the Bible took place in what is today Yemen, not in the modern State of Israel. A PA-TV show also argued that Palestinians are “the true descendants of the biblical Israelites.” Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus and the most ancient synagogue in Jericho, two cities transferred by Israel to Palestinian control in suicidal agreements, are among the sacred Jewish places destroyed by Arabs, in eerily similar attempts to the Taliban’s deplorable annihilation of ancient Buddhas in Afghanistan. Abdallah al-Hourani, the former Palestinian minister for refugee affairs, told the newspaper Al-Hayat al-Jedidah: “The Crusaders lived in our land for 242 years, until the liberation of their last outposts, and Israel is like a tree that has flowered on land not belonging to it. No matter how much it is fertilized, it cannot put down roots, and when the fertilizer stops, it will die”.

The Palestinian lies are lethal. Alex Grobman’s wonderful book “License to Murder” (Balfour) details that Arafat carried the Arabic copy of the “Protocols of Elders of Zion” wherever he went, regularly quoting from it to impress upon his visitors the perfidy of Zionism. Like Hitler, Arafat used the Protocols as a manual in his war to exterminate the Jews. The PA still consistently cites the book while their strictly controlled media continually runs stories about Jewish “conspiracies” and “plots.” In his welcoming speech to Jericho in July 1994, Arafat “borrowed” from the Protocols. According to the scholar Grobman, “the Protocols provided the PA with the ‘academic’ credibility and authenticity it needed to portray Jews and Israelis as evil, and thus making ‘fighting and killing Jews a natural response’”.

After Hitler’s Holocaust which tried to destroy the body of the Jewish people and Stalin’s Holocaust which tried to destroy the heart of the Jewish people, it’s now the turn of the Palestinian ideological Holocaust seeking to destroy the history of the Jewish people. The 20th century of Joseph Goebbels has taught all of us that a lie starts as a small one, but if it is not corrected it festers like a cancer destroying truth, justice and finally human beings.

The world community must not embrace the sinister Palestinian lies. In case UNESCO takes, again, the side of the Arabs, the State of Israel should suspend any cooperation with the UN’s cultural body. This is an historical battle that Israel can win with the support of Westerners who still care about the fate of their civilization.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

---

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/15/the-nazi-palestinian-war-on-jesus/

Islamic Terror vs. Norway Massacre

- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -

Islamic Terror vs. Norway Massacre

Posted By Raymond Ibrahim On June 15, 2012 @ 12:35 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 25 Comments

Ever since last year’s Norway massacre, when Anders Breivik killed some 70 people, the relativists and Muslim apologists of the world felt exonerated: for here at last, thought they, was proof positive that terrorism had nothing to do with Islamic teachings per se. If Christianity cannot be blamed for Breivik, why blame Islam for al-Qaeda?

This question was restated in a recent email to me from Gehan D. Sabry, editor of Cross Cultures, a website dedicated to “Promoting Harmony Through Knowledge and Better Understanding.” Regarding my recent article “A Tale of Two American Martyrs,” where I discussed the slayings of two American Christians in the Muslim world due to allegations of proselytizing, she wrote:

[…] I know enough fellow Christians who agree with me that the majority of Muslims and Christians, in fact the moderates of ALL religions … get along just fine, and only the radicals of each are the ones who make the news, and cause turmoil and tragedy in this world … when I read this article of yours, I immediately remembered the psycho from Norway who killed over 70 youth recently … why don’t you try to explain that away for me?

My explanation, which may be of general interest—this question of moral equivalency plagues the many who think on superficial terms—follows:

First, the two murdered American teachers were killed by Muslims under accusations of proselytism.  As it happens, according to mainstream Islamic interpretations of Sharia, proselytizing Muslims is a capital offence.  In fact, it is mentioned as far back as the so-called Pact of Omar, which Muslim doctrinaires still quote from, and which delineates what non-Muslims (it was first made with Christians in Syria) must—and must not—do to safeguard their blood.

One of the stipulations they had to agree to was, “We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it.” At the very end of the pact, they had to agree that “If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant, and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition,” which is death.Thus the Muslims who killed the American teachers accused of Christian proselytism had doctrinal backing from Islam—one that, by the way, has manifested itself regularly throughout the course of Muslim history.

On the other hand, Anders Breivik had absolutely no Christian support—doctrinal or scriptural—for his shooting spree.  Nor did he articulate his terror in the name of religion, the way Koran-waving Islamic terrorists do daily.  The importance of this contrast should be clear to objective thinkers.

Also, as earlier explained, the terror campaign of Breivik—who openly confessed that al-Qaeda was his “inspiration” to the point that he tried to emulate its tactics by beheading and videotaping his victims—was influenced, consciously or subconsciously, by Islamic-style jihad and terror.

Finally, let us not overlook the fact that the American teachers who were killed by Muslims, and the 70 Norwegians who were killed by Breivik, were all killed in response to Islam—the former directly, the latter indirectly.

Along with the countless non-Muslims daily persecuted under Islam, the Americans were slain in direct accordance with Islam’s punishment for proselytism.  Conversely, though only Breivik is directly responsible for his murderous spree, it was, nonetheless, indirectly prompted by his conviction (shared among many Europeans) that Islam—from mass and illegal immigration, to calls for Sharia and death for cartoon publishers—is making cataclysmic inroads in Europe.

Without removing the sole responsibility from Breivik, the question is: Would there have been a Norway massacre if there was no Islam in Europe—with all the troubles associated with it?

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

---

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/15/islamic-terror-vs-norway-massacre/

Whistleblowing Scientist Who Challenged Environmental Regulation Sues UCLA

LOS ANGELES, June 14, 2012—After 35 years at the University of California, Los Angeles, Dr. James E. Enstrom is suing UCLA to keep his job. Following many years of disagreement over research on air pollution and its implications for environmental regulations, UCLA finally refused to reappoint Enstrom after he engaged in successful whistleblowing against a member of the department. When UCLA told Enstrom he was being let go because his research failed to accord with the department’s “mission,” Enstrom turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help. “FIRE has been helping Dr. Enstrom to keep his job for two years now, but enough is enough,” said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. “While a lawsuit should never have been necessary, we’re grateful that the American Center for Law and Justice and former FIRE President David French have filed suit on Dr. Enstrom’s behalf, and we hope that justice will finally be served.” Enstrom has worked at UCLA as a researcher and professor since 1976, being rehired consistently each year until his ordeal began. Beginning in 2004, he worked in UCLA’s Department of Environmental Health Sciences (EHS). Over the years, he and a few of his colleagues have sometimes disagreed strongly about research on environmental health issues—for example, on the extent of the threat to public health posed by certain air pollutants, a topic of Enstrom’s research which has been the subject ofintense debate in California because of its implications for state environmental regulations. Enstrom also was a successful whistleblower whose activism led to fellow EHS faculty member John Froines being replaced on a panel for the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Several members of the panel, including Froines, had been serving beyond the three-year legal limit on their terms of office, and Enstrom’s whistleblowing provided part of the grounds for a June 2009 lawsuit on the issue. Enstrom also blew the whistle on a fake Ph.D. degree claimed by a CARB researcher. UCLA’s retaliation against Enstrom first became apparent in December 2009, when Enstrom discovered that UCLA had cut off his salary fund and charged his salary against his research funds without his knowledge. In February 2010, Environmental Health Sciences Chair Richard J. Jackson told Enstrom that UCLA was laying him off. Enstrom fought back and kept his job. After UCLA’s first attempt failed, Enstrom learned of further retaliation in June 2010 when the EHS faculty (including Froines) voted not to rehire him because his “research is not aligned with the academic mission of the Department.” UCLA also invoked vague and previously unmentioned “minimum requirements,” even though his research output was similar to or greater than that of other professors in his department. Enstrom learned he was going to be “indefinitely laid off” effective June 30, 2010.  Enstrom has demonstrated that his research on environmental health is fully aligned with EHS’ researchmission of furthering “extremely interdisciplinary” research “at the interface between human health and the environment.” Enstrom came to FIRE for help. FIRE wrote UCLA Chancellor Gene D. Block on August 26, 2010, pointing out that it is unconstitutional to refuse to rehire a faculty member because of his protected expression. FIRE assisted Enstrom with internal grievances at UCLA and ultimately helped him win two additional years at UCLA. Reason.tv also produced a video about the case. Enstrom’s situation has received national attention as well as statements of concern from state legislators. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) also took up Enstrom’s case and is representing Enstrom in a lawsuit filed late yesterday in Los Angeles federal court against UCLA officials and the University of California Regents. Enstrom is seeking a declaration that UCLA violated Enstrom’s free speech and due process rights, as well as an injunction requiring UCLA to rehire him. “Because of Enstrom’s research and his whistleblowing against prominent advocates of environmental regulation in California, UCLA seemingly has decided to silence him any way it can,” said FIRE Vice President of Programs Adam Kissel. “If there is anywhere we need honest scientists who aren’t on a mission to exclude whistleblowers and skeptics, it is the American university.” FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America are described at thefire.org. CONTACT: Adam Kissel, Vice President of Programs, FIRE: 215-717-3473; adam@thefire.org Gene D. Block, Chancellor, University of California, Los Angeles: 310-825-2151; chancellor@ucla.edu     Please support FIRE’s efforts to restore liberty on campus by giving a tax-deductible donation.

TO KILL A PIGLET

by Attorney Scott Tips, JD

May 25, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

The State of Michigan does Harper Lee one better with its “Farm Kill” Orders

There were 20 of them, cute and innocent as could be. The farmer raised his shotgun and pumped one shot after another into each one of them, killing every last piglet, and their mothers too. This was heart-wrenching for the farmer, but he knew he had no choice since the State of Michigan was about to descend upon him with a SWAT-style team intending to arrest him as a felon if any of his pigs were found alive on his property. His crime? Harboring an animal that the State had designated as an “Invasive Species.”[1] And this farmer’s tragedy was not the only one to play out in the State, there were thousands of others facing similar dilemmas.

The Invasive Species Order

The Michigan Invasive Species Order (ISO) that kick-started this series of tragedies went into effect on April 1, 2012. Issued by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) in December 2010, the ISO prohibited all “feral” swine, even on private property.[2] Unfortunately for those small family farmers breeding heritage pigs, the ISO identified invasive-species pigs using incredibly vague and common characteristics that would cover virtually all pigs and hogs.

As opponents of the ISO have contended, “Pigs can be identified as invasive – and thus eligible for slaughter – regardless of how long they have been part of animal husbandry in Michigan. They will be rounded up according to the color of their fur (black or striped), their undercoat color (lighter than the topcoat), whether their tails are straight or curly, and other arbitrary characteristics.”[3]

The MDNR alleges that it has a feral-pig problem in the State; and heritage breeds, which are raised outdoors in the Sun and with real soil beneath their hooves in fenced-in spaces on family farms, are wrongly threatened with elimination because they “might escape” and become feral. Interestingly enough, less healthy and certainly less happy pigs that are confined to concrete-floored pens and are treated like factory-line commodities have been given a pass by the MDNR. Ironically, then, the inbred “modern” pigs raised in factory farms are permitted to live while the more genetically-diverse and old-fashioned breeds are destroyed.

The civil fines for violating the cited sections of the Invasive Species Act can be daunting. They range from $1,000 to $20,000 per violation. Kick in the threat of jail time where the authorities meet resistance and you have a very motivating legal combination forcing men to shoot their pigs.

Shakespeare to Blame

On one hand, it’s hard not to sympathize with those who don’t want native species of animals wiped out through the thoughtless introduction of other species. In 1988, the Eurasian Zebra Mussel was most probably dumped out of bilge water into Lake St. Clair, one of the Great Lakes. Today, they are everywhere, clogging pipes, fouling ship hulls throughout the Great Lakes, and outcompeting and eliminating native mussels. Another problem, the foreign Tiger Shrimp, has been spotted in the Gulf of Mexico and along the U.S. East Coast in rapidly increasing numbers in the last few years. These shrimp feed on, among other things, those shrimp native to the Gulf.[4]Some say the outcome of that inter-species battle, in the decades to come, is already a foregone conclusion. Others say, pass the garlic butter.

And in 1890 and 1891, a Bronx resident, Eugene Schieffelin, and his cohorts – with the addled notion that every bird mentioned in the works of Shakespeare should be introduced into the New World – released about 100 starlings from the Old World into Central Park. Today, starlings in North America number more than 200 million! Other bird species that compete for the same aviary ecological niches have correspondingly declined.

A Federal law, called the National Invasive Species Act, was passed in 1996 to try to augment existing controls for these problems.[5] It simply reauthorized and amended the 1990 Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, which dealt with water-borne species. But individual States have their own Invasive Species Orders that they have enacted and enforce with varying degrees of success. As is the trend these days with most governmental actions, the perpetrators are not the Legislatures but rather the unelected bureaucrats to whom the Legislatures or the Chief Executives have delegated (read, abdicated) their authority. In this case, the opening clause of the Michigan ISO has the MDNR announcing its right to issue an administrative order affecting the lives of millions of humans and animals.

The Usual Suspects

Lurking behind the scenes, of course, are the usual suspects – the lobbyists and their bosses, the “concerned” competitors who only want to do what is “right.” Amazingly, though, these competitors’ definition of “right” always seems to fall on the side of what will enhance their profit margins. As Karl Marx once wrote, “There is a direct connection between a person’s pocketbook and their heart.” He may have been a rotten philosopher, but when it came to this perceived link, Marx definitely had his finger on the pulse of humanity.

With the drop-dead date of April 1st (for enforcement of the ISO on pig farms) staring them in the face, Mark Baker of Bakers Green Acres, appeared in front of the Michigan Senate Agriculture Committee to ask that the Senators rescind the MDNR’s Declaratory Ruling specifying the characteristics of prohibited swine, arguing that the Ruling is both biologically and scientifically unsound. Baker’s State Senator had arranged this hearing; and, according to witnesses and the actions that subsequently took place, Baker was evidently very convincing and it seemed as if enough Senators would grant the requested rescission, or at least a 90-day stay.[6]

In a news release, Baker reiterated his arguments. “The DNR says certain breeds of pigs must be banned because there are feral pigs in Michigan,” said Baker. “My pigs, however, are not feral. They are kept inside a fence and are under the care of my family. It is impossible to genetically differentiate between swine, so the department decided certain pigs will be banned due to their appearance. The characteristics they outlined are ridiculous because all pigs have those traits. Honestly, the entire thing seems like a bad April Fool’s joke, but unfortunately for pig farmers like me, it’s not.”[7]

Not to be outdone, the Big Pork industry lobbyists, representing the Michigan Pork Producers Association, reportedly pulled Michigan State Senators out into the hall for private meetings. It was not reported what passed between the Senators and Big Pork’s representatives; but when the Senate Committee reconvened, those “hallway” Senators withdrew their support for Baker and his Senator. The ISO was confirmed and went into effect on April 1, 2012.[8] Big Money won again, using the coercive tools of government to obtain by force what it could not win fairly in the free marketplace.

The Fight Continues

Lawsuits and other actions abound. Mark Baker and three other parties have retained attorney Joseph O’Leary to carry forward their lawsuit against the MDNR to stop that Agency from continuing to overstep its authority by entering upon private property. At the same time, the MDNR has civil suits pending against pig-farmer Ronald McKendrick and of course his wife Charlene (using the old, pressure-the-wife-to-get-the-husband-to-cave tactic) as well as an Upper Peninsula pig producer, asking the Court to force them to “depopulate” their remaining prohibited swine.[9] Piling onto the fight are two on-line petitions to get the MDNR off the backs of the small farmers.[10]

The anti-MDNR petitioners have said it best: “Small family farms represent the backbone of a local, sustainable food system. While huge industrial farms dominate the market, small farms have been able to thrive by providing high-quality food raised in environmentally healthy ways. This includes livestock humanely raised on pasture.”[11]

The MDNR is actively and dramatically expanding its reach from public lands into farms and other private property. This is a wrongful and unconstitutional breach of private-property rights, especially upon persons and their livestock, neither of which have caused any harm whatsoever. There are Federal remedies available to stop these blatant violations of the McKendricks’, Baker’s, and others’ Constitutional rights and these injured parties would be well-advised to investigate filing suits in Federal court to remedy the wrongs done to them. Clearly, the MDNR has become yet another rogue agency.

Small farmers deserve every bit as much protection of their property rights as do the big factory farmers, and it should be recognized especially by a State charged with protecting the health of the public that those farmers raising heritage breeds are helping to preserve genetic diversity and hardier breeds. Just as importantly, they are providing more-ethically raised meats and a real choice for consumers. These farmers, though, are not to be supported in their legal battles simply because they are small producers, they are worthy of support because they have been legally wronged. Large or small, we should all be equally protected in our private-property rights and anything less than equal protection under the law is an injustice.

Ironically, enterprising litigants and their attorneys might consider researching the application of these ISOs, or variants thereof, as part of a legal basis to launch novel challenges in the courts against Genetically Modified/Genetically Engineered crops and seeds. “Food” crops such as Monsanto corn, soy, and other altered grains are, after all, non-native and “invasive species.” The owners of the patents will argue, naturally, that these are the same species and that therefore there is no difference; but if that were true, then it would completely undercut those same owners’ arguments before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that their patented crops are distinctive enough to deserve patent protection. They cannot have it both ways. And just maybe, as with Boo Radley in To Kill A Mockingbird, an ISO might surprise us and turn out to be a good guy after all.P.S. ISO’s Real Promise

© 2012 – Scott Tips – All Rights Reserved

Related Article:

1- Michigan SWAT Teams Invade Farms, Forces Farmer to Kill His Own Livestock

Footnotes:

1. Bakers Green Acres, accessed May 3, 2012.
2. “Invasive Species Order,” accessed May 3, 2012.
3. “Governor, State of Michigan: Stop the Imminent Slaughter of Heritage Pigs on Small Farms in Michigan,” accessed May 3, 2012.
4. Eyewitness News, “Asian Tiger Shrimp Potential Shrimp Industry Threat,” May 1, 2012, accessed May 3, 2012.
5. “National Invasive Species Act.”
6. “Big Pig Lobbyist Uses Cloakroom Tactics to Foil Small Farm Defense,” Apr. 3, 2012, accessed May 3, 2012.
7. “Booher Calls on Governor to Rescind Invasive Species Order on Swine,” accessed on May 3, 2012; See a responsive, undated MDNR press release,which can be found here.
8. “Big Pig Lobbyist Uses Cloakroom Tactics to Foil Small Farm Defense,” Apr. 3, 2012, accessed on May 3, 2012.
9. “Invasive Swine Prompts DNR Visit to Renegade Ranch, Case in Court Friday,” accessed May 3, 2012.
10. Baker’s Green Acres; (see two petitions to be found there, which you are encouraged to sign if you live in Michigan and agree with the petitioners), accessed May 3, 2012.
11. Ibide

Scott Tips received his Bachelor of Arts degree, magna cum laude, from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1976, studied at the Sorbonne (Paris I) from 1976-1977, and obtained his Juris Doctorate degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) in 1980, where he was the Managing Editor of the California Law Review. A California-licensed attorney, he has specialized in food-and-drug law and trademark law, but also engages in business litigation, general business law, and nonprofit organizations, with an international clientele.

Since 1989, Mr. Tips has been the General Counsel for the National Health Federation, the World’s oldest health-freedom organization for consumers, and is now its president. He also writes a regular column for NewsWithViews.com and Whole Foods Magazine called Legal Tips, a column he started in 1984. Currently, Mr. Tips is occupying much of his time with health-freedom issues involving the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its and other attempts to limit individual freedom of choice in health matters.

To understand better the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the global food standards and guidelines that it is creating, you must read Codex Alimentarius – Global Food Imperialism. This book is a collection of articles by those few health-freedom activists with first-hand knowledge of Codex and the dangers that it poses to our health and health freedom. Compiled by Scott Tips, this easy-to-read book can be purchased here.

Website: National Health Federation

E-Mail: sct@thenhf.com

America’s Real Climate and Environmental Crisis

By Paul Driessen

5/25/2012

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says we face serious threats to human health, welfare and justice. She’s absolutely right. However, the crisis is not due to factory or power plant emissions, or supposed effects of “dangerous manmade global warming.”

The crisis is the result of policies and regulations that her EPA is imposing in the name of preventing climate change and other hypothetical and exaggerated environmental problems. It is those government actions that are severely impacting Americans’ health, welfare, and pursuit of happiness and justice.

After Congress rejected cap-tax-and-trade, President Obama said there are “other ways to skin the cat.”

By hyper-regulating carbon dioxide, soot, mercury, “cross-state air pollution” from sources hundreds of miles away, and other air and water emissions, EPA intends to force numerous coal-fired power plants to shut down years before their productive life is over; block the construction of new coal-fired power plants, because none will be able to slash their carbon dioxide emissions to half of what average coal-fired plants now emit, without employing expensive (and nonexistent) CO2 capture and storage technologies; and sharply reduce emissions from cars, factories, refineries and other facilities, regardless of the cost.

EPA has also issued 588 pages of rules for hydraulic fracturing for critically needed oil and natural gas, while the Obama Administration has vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline and made 95% of all publicly owned (but government controlled) lands and resources off limits to leasing, exploration, drilling and mining.

These actions reflect President Obama’s campaign promise to “bankrupt any company that tries to build a new coal-fired power plant,” replace hydrocarbons with heavily subsidized solar, wind and biofuel energy, make energy prices “necessarily skyrocket” – and “fundamentally transform” America’s constitutional, legal, energy, economic and social structure.

Energy is the lifeblood of our nation’s economy, jobs, living standards and civil rights progress. Anything that affects energy availability, reliability and price affects every aspect of our lives. These diktats put the federal government in charge of our entire economy – and impair our health and welfare.

Moreover, the anti-hydrocarbon global warming “solutions” the Obama Administration is imposing will bring no real world benefits – even assuming carbon dioxide actually drives climate change. That’s largely because China, India and other developing countries are increasing their use of coal for electricity generation, and thus their CO2 emissions – far beyond our ability to reduce US emissions. These nations rightly refuse to sacrifice economic growth and poverty eradication on the altar of climate alarmism.

Even worse, the health, welfare and environmental justice benefits that EPA claims will result from its regulations are equally exaggerated and illusory. They exist only in the same dishonest computer-generated virtual reality that concocted its alleged climate change, health and environmental cataclysms, and in junk-science analyses that can only be described as borderline fraud.

Implementing EPA’s regulatory agenda will inflict severe economic dislocations and send shock waves through America’s factories, farmlands and families. Far from improving our health and welfare – they will make our economy, unemployment, living standards, health and welfare even worse.

EPA’s new automobile mileage standards alone will result in thousands of additional serious injuries and deaths every year, as cars are further downsized to meet its arbitrary 54.5 mpg requirements. Its anti-coal rulings and anti-fracking attitudes will severely impact electricity generation, reliability and prices; factory, office and hospital operations and budgets; American industries’ competitiveness in global markets; employment, hiring and layoffs; and the well-being of families and entire communities. Especially for areas that depend on mining and manufacturing – and the 26 states where coal-based power generation keeps electricity rates at half of what they are in states with the least coal use and toughest renewable energy mandates—it will be all pain, for no gain.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a White House letter to House Speaker John Boehner inadvertently acknowledged that EPA alone is still working on new regulations that the agency itself calculates will impose $105 billion in additional regulatory burdens and compliance costs. Win or lose in November, the Administration will likely impose these and other new rules after the elections. We, our children and grandchildren will pay for them in countless ways.

Utilities will have to spend $130 billion to retrofit or replace older coal-fired units, says energy analyst Roger Bezdek – and another $30 billion a year for operations, maintenance and extra fuel for energy-intensive scrubbers and other equipment, to generate increasingly expensive electricity.

Duke Energy’s new $3.3 billion coal gasification and carbon dioxide capture power plant will increase rates for its Indiana customers by some 15% the next two years. Hospitals, factories, shopping malls and school districts will have to pay an extra $150,000 a year in operating expenses for each million dollars in annual electricity bills. That’s four or five entry-level jobs that won’t be created or preserved.

Nationwide, 319 coal-fueled power plants totaling 42,895 megawatts (13% of the nation’s coal fleet and enough for 40 million homes and small businesses) are already slated to close, the Sierra Club joyfully proclaimed. Illinois families and businesses could pay 20% more for electricity by 2014, theChicago Tribune reports. Chicago public schools may have to find an extra $2.7 million a year to keep the lights and heat on and computers running.

Higher electricity prices will further strain refineries already struggling with soaring electricity costs and EPA’s sulfur and other regulations, restrictions on refinery upgrades and construction, constraints on moving crude oil to East Coast refineries, and other compliance costs – all of dubious environmental or health benefit. Three East Coast refineries have already closed, costing thousands of jobs and causing the Department of Energy to warn that pump prices are likely to soar even higher in Eastern states.

When we include discouraged workers who have given up looking for jobs and people who have been forced to work fewer hours or at temporary jobs, our unemployment rate is a whopping 19 percent – and double that for black and Hispanic young people. America’s labor force participation rate is at a 30-year low, its 2011 economic growth rate was a dismal 1.7 percent.

Well over a million US workers age 55 and older have now been out of work for 27 weeks or more. Not only do prospects plummet for re-employment of older workers. The longer they are unemployed, the more they are disconnected from society, the further their living standards fall, the more their physical and emotional well-being deteriorates, and the more likely they are to die prematurely.

The cumulative effect is that families have even less money to buy food, pay the rent or mortgage, repair the car or house, save for college and retirement, take a vacation – and keep people comfortable (and alive) on frigid winter nights and sweltering summer afternoons. Health and welfare, family relationships, future prospects and psychological well-being plummet. Because they spend the highest proportion of their incomes on energy, poor and minority families suffer disproportionately.

And yet EPA’s regulations, regulatory agenda and horse-blinder definition of health, welfare and justice ignore these realities – and ensure that this intolerable situation will only get worse. In fact, the only welfare EPA’s rules will ensure is the expansion of our welfare rolls, our unemployment lines and our already record-setting food stamp programs.

Worst of all, our Congress and courts have completely abdicated their obligations to provide oversight and control of this dictatorial agency and Obama Administration. If this is the hope, change and future we can look “forward” to, our nation’s health, well-being and justice will be bleak, indeed.

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which is sponsoring the All Pain No Gain petition against global-warming hype. He also is a senior policy adviser to the Congress of Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.

‘Star Wars’ director surrenders to eco-tyrants

 

‘Star Wars’ director surrenders to eco-tyrants Sussman tells of relentless fight against George Lucas’ property rights

After 25 years of battling environmentalists, “Star Wars” filmmaker George Lucas has retreated from plans to construct a beautiful mission-style moviemaking mansion on thousands of acres of land he owns in Marin County, Calif., 20 miles north of the Golden Gate Bridge. The people of Marin are proud of their liberalism and adherence to the green agenda. The community is extremely upscale and home to many rock stars and Hollywood-types. One would think the inhabitants of this hippie and yuppie paradise would be thrilled to have George Lucas’ business located in their backyard, but not so. His purposes, they contend, would disturb nature, and that’s a clear no-no in Marin. Since 1995, a gaggle of rabid eco-interests have relentlessly attacked the billionaire film magnate, whose productions ushered in the digital arts age, over his plans for a production complex that would house Lucasfilm, Industrial Light and Magic, and LucasArts, all beneath one roof. Initially Lucas wanted to build a 450,000 square foot facility, discreetly tucked away within the privacy of thousands of acres of his personal property. However, the greens immediately began holding him as an eco-hostage. In return for allowing his proposal to move forward, Lucas would have to agree to restore creeks on his land and set aside 2,500 acres of open space (over the years Lucas has been pressured to preserve more than 5,000 acres of property in the region). Lucas generously agreed, and the Marin County Board of Supervisors approved his project. They demonize capitalism and freedom … and it’s working! Read Sussman’s new book, “Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America” However, the penance the environmentalists wanted Lucas to pay was simply a green ruse. What they really desired was for the entire plan to be hurled into another galaxy far, far away. At this point, Lucas cut a deal with San Francisco to use the former Presidio military base, overlooking the Golden Gate, to establish his world-renowned production facilities. He’s been there ever since, but in the meantime, continued to work on building a state-of-the-art campus on his land in Marin. Finally, two weeks ago, the county supervisors gave the “Star Wars” creator the thumbs up to build his dream complex, though its size was to be reduced by nearly half and another green deed would have to be carried out by Lucas: fund a county-wide climate change action agenda. Lucas was ready to close the deal when officials moved to provide the opposition one last opportunity to state their case as to why the project should not be allowed. When the eco-warriors showed up at the County Hall with lawyers and reams of paperwork last week, George Lucas decided to finally surrender. Click here to read more about Brian Sussman’s new book. “We have several opportunities to build the production stages in communities that see us as a creative asset, not as an evil empire,” stated a letter from George Lucas’ property company. “The residents [surrounding the property] have fought this project for 25 years, and enough is enough. Marin is a bedroom community and is committed to building subdivisions, not business.” However, before withdrawing, Lucas unfurled his light saber one last time, shocking everyone into reality; the letter continued, “The land will revert back to its original use for residential housing. We hope we will be able to find a developer who will be interested in low-income housing since it is scarce in Marin.” Touché. Lucas’ story illustrates an important fact: The environmentalists are incredibly long-suffering when it comes to undermining personal property rights, which – like Marx and Engels – is the No. 1 goal of their agenda. Once they have selected a target, they will unrelentingly wear out those involved through, protests, lawsuits and green blackmail schemes. Their plans and purposes are not in keeping with liberty, but instead, with eco-tyranny. George Lucas is their latest victim. WND note: The following is an exclusive WND interview with author Brian Sussman:

Follow Up: Revisiting the 2010 IPCC Press Release on Economics of Disasters

As I prepared for my lunch seminar which I am giving later today. I had a chance to revisit the press release issued by the IPCC on January 25, 2010 in response to an article that appeared in the UK Sunday Times one day earlier which detailed failures of the IPCC AR4 related to claims made about climate change and disasters.

The Sunday Times article was about how the 2007 IPCC AR4 mishandled the issue of the economic toll of disasters and climate change. With the advantage of hindsight, we can now see that the claims made in the Sunday Times article have been completely vindicated and the IPCC press release was full of misinformation (to put it kindly).  This post has the details.

The IPCC press release of 26 January 2010 started out as follows (PDF):

The January 24 Sunday Times ran a misleading and baseless attacking the way the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC handled an important question concerning recent trends in economic losses from climate-related disasters

What did the Sunday Times article claim?

The United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report’s own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough. . .

The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC’s 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s”.

It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: “One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend.”

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”

Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.

None of these claims are “misleading and baseless” but are factually correct. (Note that full text of the Times article can be found here.)

In its press release, the IPCC explained its position by re-asserting what was claimed in the report:

one study detected an increase in economic losses, corrected for values at risk, but that other studies have not detected such a trend

We now know that the “study” that was cited by the IPCC (a white paper from a workshop that I had organized) did not contain any analysis of trends. Instead, that paper was intentionally miscited by one of the chapter’s authors to circumvent the deadline for inclusion of relevant publications. When the miscited paper actually did appear in the literature it said this:

“We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses.“

Thus, the paper that the IPCC wanted to cite did not say what the was claimed in a specially invented graph that was made up for the report but which did not appear in the miscited paper. Further, the IPCC intentionally miscited it to get it into the report in the first place. Three bad moves.

The IPCC press release also said that

In writing, reviewing, and editing this section, IPCC procedures were carefully followed to produce the policy-relevant assessment that is the IPCC mandate.

The IPCC did not follow its procedures for citing grey literature, for following its own deadline for publications, for proper citation of source material and included a graph that cannot be found in any literature anywhere. The IPCC press release was thus wrong again — the procedures were ignored, not “carefully followed.”

The bottom line is that the Sunday Times article has proven correct comprehensively on the substantive and procedural aspects of the IPCC’s failures (the substance of which hasrecently been reaffirmed by the IPCC SREX report).

The IPCC 26 January 2010 press release still sits uncorrected on the IPCC website (here in PDF). If the IPCC has a commitment to getting things right, shouldn’t it correct “baseless and misleading” claims that it has made?

Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 4/09/2012 10:21:00 AM