Co-author of Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Despite the devastating financial impact it will have on all American households and businesses, President Obama declares Cap and Trade must be passed this year. As with suggestions for better-structured health care reform, there is a way to clean the planet without imposing dire hardships on its inhabitants, including those living in the United States. Yet, President Obama yields to the strident call of radical environmentalists such as Al Gore, reportedly desirous to become the first global-warming billionaire, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. In a Washington Post opinion column, Ban blamed the slaughter in Darfur on global warming instead of the Muslim genocide being perpetrated against non-Muslim blacks. With that, one would have to extrapolate that Osama bin Laden’s call for jihad in Darfur is also the result of global warming. With extreme hyperbole, Ban warns of war and pestilence to come if the United States does not throw billions of Americans’ tax dollars into an increasingly deceptive environmental abyss.

President Obama should put a lock on the U.S. treasury in the face of the environmental embarrassment known as climate-gate with revelations of fraud and erupting scandals among pro-global warming scientists. Yet, once again, the President is rushing to bow to a far-left agenda of international wants instead of looking out for America’s needs. With record setting snowfall and planet-cooling temperatures being documented worldwide and with the latest science and nature stacking against him, why is President Obama adamant in forcing through disastrous Cap and Trade legislation? All the while, he dispassionately declares that Americans’ energy bills will necessarily “skyrocket.”

Enter: AGENDA 21. Agenda 21 is a United Nation’s game plan for a radical transformation of the global society. At the Rio Earth Summit, Al Gore stated that “Americans are going to have to face a wrenching transformation of Society.” President Obama’s stated goal is a “transformation of America” as we know it. The innocuous term used by the United Nations to accomplish this transformation is “Sustainable Development.” Broken down, that means the dismantling of America as a sovereign nation and the globalization of our economy and our laws. Our rate of development, according to globalists, is “un-sustainable” based on underdeveloped countries. In effect, it restricts population and economic growth in America through government-controlled health care and through decreased and redistributed resources such as energy and wealth. Americans should no longer “sustain life” of the very young or elderly or remain sovereign and prosperous. The globalists’ creed is – the planet cannot endure it.

Progressive politicians on both sides of the aisle have signed on to Agenda 21’s “Sustainable Development.” Obama’s health-scare will have a vice-like grip on who gets medical care – who lives or dies, whereas Cap and Trade, that Obama so desperately wants, will allow the government to have a vice-like grip on how Americans live. With Cap and Trade, the Environmental Protection Agency will have power to force many homeowners to virtually rebuild their homes to meet stringent environmental requirements before they can sell them. Living in a house that does not meet the EPA’s “green” regulations for roofing, windows, doors, insulation or heating and cooling systems will be slapped with fines. Electrical companies are now installing “smart monitoring systems” to track usage of energy by residents. Hence, President Obama’s warning that your energy bills will “skyrocket.” This represents only one area of control.

America’s health, wealth, and way of life are to be sacrificed to global need based on bogus science by those who believe you can be duped into believing it is all in your best interest and the interest of the planet. Cap and Trade is a global agenda with pockets to be lined at America’s expense. President Obama says there is a “deficit of trust” in America. What he did not say is that it is directed at the White House.

Website: DarwinsRacists.com

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A radical environmentalist of the 1700s wrote in the Temple of Nature that man should eye with tenderness all living forms, including…his brother-ants and sister-worms. That man was Erasmus Darwin, a virulent anti-Christian Pantheist who was grandfather to Charles Darwin. As revealed in the book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (DarwinsRacists.com) — influenced by his grandfather’s writings, Darwin conceived the theory of evolution. It is a “theory” that replaces God as Creator and worships the god of nature or natural selection. It is hardcore environmentalism and is being taught in schools across America today.

Indoctrination by environmentalists in America’s schools is girded by Darwin’s “theory” of nature, which continues today to lack empirical scientific data to support it as fact. Yet, as with global warming, advocates like to insist that the debate is over. Though man-made global warming is heavily tainted with fraud, the United Nations and radical environmentalists are now desperate to discredit the scandal that discredited their “scientific data” as a scam. But, the word is out making it a hard sale even to the most gullible. Nonetheless, hundreds of millions of dollars, donated to the U.N., are funneled into school systems to indoctrinate students in support of Climate Change. Persuading or frightening young minds is vital, because much is as stake.

The U.N.’s Green Charter, based on a radical environmental agenda reliant on “global panic,” seeks to transfer world power to a world body, such as the U.N. It sets out to “redistribute global wealth” from the wealthier nations, such as America, to less developed nations. It advocates creating “green jobs” through abandoning coal, oil and gas in favor of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. It seeks to elevate the rights and protections of animals, fish and insects in their natural habitat above that of humans. It seeks to nationalize lands and seize personal property, including farmlands.

The strategy to take down America, as we know it, is spelled out in the U.N.’s Green Charter. Crucial to the Green Charter’s goal to accommodate underdeveloped countries is to overhaul, to effect a “change,” to America’s system of government and economic prominence. In short, Americans’ hard work, innovation, creativity and initiative undermine countries that have not kept up. Those who support the U.N.’s Green Charter seek to dissolve individual rights through health care regulations, to control and allocate energy resources to individuals through government control via mechanisms like Cap-and-Trade, to control individual ownership and rights to property through processes like imminent domain, and take control of middle class lifestyles involving food intake, health decisions, size of families, use of appliances, use of air conditioning at home and at work, and restrict single family housing in favor of a stack-and-pack plan.

The Green Charter warns that America’s “refusal to act now on global warming would represent a crime against present and future generations.” In other words, America would be considered a criminal enterprise if it did not respond to the threat of man-made global warming. The ecological fly in that ointment, however, is the damning revelation of climate-gate’s bogus data. It should be noted that the U.N.’s Green Charter as drafted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 was a guideline for Al Gore’s documentary film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” The Rio Earth Summit demanded that industrialized nations must ante up 600 billion dollars to underdeveloped countries as penance for their sin against nature and the environment. If history is any indication, accountability for and application of the $600 billion may easily disappear through the sieve of the U.N.’s notoriously inbred corruption. World power is the bottom line, a Teutonic shift to take down America as a dominant economic leader to a nation answerable to the demands of concentrated global control in the hands of an elite few. That the U.N.’s Green Charter consists of an almost identical blueprint as Barack Obama’s Health Care and Cap-and-Trade plans is undeniable and highly problematical.

Consider that members of Congress may need to be bribed or promised sought-out committee appointments or comfortable ambassadorships to accomplish the deconstructing of America. The President has taken action that weakens both Congress and his Cabinet’s relevance vis-à-vis his power-laden Czars. That he already “ignores” the very Constitution he swore to uphold, seems to be lost on members of Congress as they jostle for bones being tossed by the White House. The success of the U.N.’s Green Charter (available online) is based on Climate Change, control of energy resources and control of health care. It diminishes America’s power and surrenders it to global interests.

Every one of us is an environmentalist who wants cleaner air and cleaner water for all people who share the globe. But, Americans recognize a scam, even one of global proportions, especially when they are the primary target. That our multi-national companies and leaders in the upper echelons of our government are positioning themselves to cash-in at the expense of American liberty and sovereignty is a crime against this great nation and the people who have worked and died to build and protect it. America did not elect a president to oversee its decline.

Sharon Sebastian DarwinsRacists.com is an author, writer and contributor for various forms of media including broadcast, print and online websites. Her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, addresses the global “evolution vs. creation” debate highlighting both the impact of Social Darwinism on America’s culture today and its influence on current policy coming out of Washington.

Website: DarwinsRacists.com

Part One: LEAN, MEAN & “GREEN”: The Smoking Gun by Sharon Sebastian

Part Two: LEAN, MEAN & “GREEN”: Takedown of America by Sharon Sebastian

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job-creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development.

As for that pre-Hopey Change concept of consent of the governed:

President Obama could enact the plans in this memo with just the stroke of a pen, without any input from the communities affected by it.

The land grabs are to be justified by unilaterally designating them as “monuments” under the Teddy Roosevelt era Antiquities Act. The government has its eye on over 13.5 million acres, including

a 58,000-acre area in New Mexico. The memo said this should be done so the lesser prairie chicken and the sand dune lizard will be better protected. Are these animals going extinct? No. The bureaucrats wrote that the land should be locked up to “avoid the necessity of listing either of these species as threatened or endangered.”

But our land isn’t being stolen just for the animals. The thoroughly debunked global warming hoax once again comes into play.

In Nevada, the Obama administration might make another monument in the Heart of the Great Basin because it, supposedly, is a “center of climate change scientific research.”

Also, the government needs to seize land to assure that it isn’t used to meet our energy needs.

In Colorado, the government is considering designating the Vermillion Basin as a monument because it is “currently under the threat of oil and gas development.”

Think of the jobs that could be created were this land to be used productively instead of turned over to the lizards and prairie chickens.

The progressive authoritarians controlling the federal government are quite literally stealing our country away from us.

On tips from J and LouieLouie. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Headline – We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change

He’s right. Mother Nature will do as Mother Nature wants, no matter what we say or do. But, of course, that isn’t what he means. And he wants to keep the money train rollin’.

It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

No scare-mongering there. Funny how human civilization prospered the best during the current warm period and the Medieval Warm Period.

Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.

Which is a separate issue that most, including myself, would agree with. We do need to do those things, as we import entirely too much oil from radical Islamist countries. We do need to look towards renewable sources as our economy progresses (though, the fast trains thing just doesn’t work too well in the USA.) However, that has nothing to do with Gore’s fake science, which he cannot even call “global warming” anymore.

But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.

Is Gore talking about globull warming in that second sentence, or the Stimulus legislation and other spending by Obama and the Democrats? As for the 3rd sentence, isn’t that the way science is done? I didn’t realize that we were supposed to simply take alarmist reports at face value, and never respond. Perhaps we hurt their wittle feewings when say examine the reports and find that they are full of mule fritters.

Anyhow, I could keep going on and on, picking apart Gore’s fanciful and mega-alarmist, not too mention scare-mongering, op-ed, but, that would make for a really, really big post. So, let’s end with this cute one down near the bottom of page one

Here is what scientists have found is happening to our climate: man-made global-warming pollution traps heat from the sun and increases atmospheric temperatures. These pollutants — especially carbon dioxide — have been increasing rapidly with the growth in the burning of coal, oil, natural gas and forests, and temperatures have increased over the same period. (note: the rest of the paragraph is a recitation of many recent “we’re all going to die!!!!!!” news reports about AGW)

Yet, despite the continued increase in CO2 levels, and what the computer models say, there have been several downturns in the global temperature. One of the main climate alarmists even told us there has been no statistical increase in the global temperature over the last 15 years, as well as stating that the Medieval Warm Period being warmer than the current warming period. Let us jump over to the OC Register and a story by Mark Landsbaum called “Arguing global warming with Arnold”

Tiny carbon footprints – All greenhouse gases worldwide make up 2 percent of the atmosphere. Only 3.6 percent of that 2 percent is carbon dioxide. Only 3.4 percent of that 3.6 percent is man-made. If California shut down every man-made CO2-emitting source the result would be atmospherically unnoticeable. In fact, even using their favorite government and U.N. computer calculations, warmists admit that if every nation on Earth had rolled back CO2 emissions to the economy-killing extent called for in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, there would have been no noticeable change in global temperatures.

It’s a bit early on a Sunday morning to work the math, but, damn! that is a tiny percent, isn’t it? But, it was never about saving Gaia: it’s always been about money, prestige, and power. And if Gore’s pet rock, er, theory, dies, he loses all three.

BTW, anyone think he will testify before Congress, as Jim Inhofe wants him to do?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Three key senators are engaged in a radical behind-the-scenes overhaul of climate legislation, preparing to jettison the broad “cap-and-trade” approach that has defined the legislative debate for close to a decade.

Why? Because Lindsay Graham, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman realize that climate alarmism has collapsed, people get really, really, really ticked off over cap and trade, but they still feel they have to “Do Something.” And what are they going to do in their clueless ineptitude?

According to several sources familiar with the process, the lawmakers are looking at cutting the nation’s greenhouse gas output by targeting, in separate ways, three major sources of emissions: electric utilities, transportation and industry.

Power plants would face an overall cap on emissions that would become more stringent over time; motor fuel may be subject to a carbon tax whose proceeds could help electrify the U.S. transportation sector; and industrial facilities would be exempted from a cap on emissions for several years before it is phased in. The legislation would also expand domestic oil and gas drilling offshore and would provide federal assistance for constructing nuclear power plants and carbon sequestration and storage projects at coal-fired utilities.

And what does this mean for the American people? Higher costs for everything. Period. Electric bills will skyrocket. Gas prices will skyrocket. This will cause everything else to skyrocket, as those will cause the increased business costs to be passed on to consumers, not too mention the direct costs to the American people for driving their cars and having electricity at home. Oh, and let’s not forget the lost jobs, as companies move their businesses out of the USA so as to avoid the onerous and burdensome cost of doing business, particularly those who are in the business of making some sort of product that needs to be competitively priced.

Many lawmakers and lobbyists say even a radically different climate bill would face big hurdles to passage, given conflicting corporate and consumer interests, regional divides and a crowded Senate calendar. Energy industry lobbyists have turned much of their attention to proposing numerous variations of more narrow energy legislation.

Inside the beltway mentality. They are not even considering what the American people are thinking, nor want. And they do not want more Washington ideas that increase their cost of living. We know Obama doesn’t care

But President Obama has continued to push for broad legislation that he says would make the U.S. economy more efficient, slow climate change and fulfill U.S. pledges in international climate talks in December to cut the country’s emissions by 17 percent by 2020. A U.S. failure to fulfill that commitment could undercut the determination of other nations to live up to their pledges.

Apparently, “efficient” means “put people out of work.” Manmade global warming is not happening, and only fools in complete denial still walk that quasi-religious line anymore. As for the world? Most Kyoto signatory countries failed to meet their targets. It was all a feel good gesture based on junk science, and all those countries and the people who live in them should feel really great after damaging their economies for a fake issue.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results“. The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: “It’s one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science.” He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study’s conclusion.

It would probably be irresponsible and rude to say that the study was probably looking to strengthen the UN IPCC’s hysterical conclusions, wouldn’t it? That they wanted a certain outcome? Especially since the sea, at this time, is not rising. That is not to say that, in the past, and in the future, it won’t. It probably will. It has been slowly rising over the past 7,000 years, after most of the melt from the end of the last ice age 18,000 years ago, when it rose dramatically for 11,000 years. Over the last 7k, it has been up and down.

But, hey, good news! The EPA considered classifying water vapor a “pollutant.” Could water vapor be the next AGW demon?

Finally, here comes the next bubble-carbon trading

According to Mr Schapiro, carbon trading is now the fastest growing commodities market on earth. Since Kyoto signatories bought in to the cap and trade concept in 2005, there have been more than $300bn carbon transactions, prompting several investment banks, including Goldman Sachs and Barclays, to set up their own carbon trading desks. But that’s just the start. If President Obama and his supporters can institute a cap-and-trade system in the United States – and that’s a big if for this increasingly marooned presidency – demand could explode into a $2 to $3 trillion market.

And here’s the great thing about it. Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will eventually involve delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon market is based on lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no-one. Since the market revolves around creating carbon credits, or finding carbon reduction projects whose benefits can then be sold to those with a surplus of emissions, it is entirely intangible.

‘Nuff said.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

President Barack Obama next week will announce a loan guarantee to build the first nuclear power plant in the United States in almost three decades, an administration official said Friday.

The two new Southern Co. reactors to be built in Burke, Ga., are part of a White House energy plan administration officials hope will draw Republican support. Obama’s direct involvement in announcing the award underscores the political weight the White House is putting behind its effort to use nuclear power and alternative energy sources to lessen American dependence on foreign oil and reduce the use of other fossil fuels blamed for global warming.

Loan guarantees for other sites are expected to be announced in the coming months, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the decision had not yet been made public. The federal guarantees are seen as essential for construction of any new reactor because of the huge expense involved. Critics call the guarantees a form of subsidy and say taxpayers will assume a huge risk, given the industry’s record of cost overruns and loan defaults.

I support this, even though it is most likely pure rhetoric. Gregory of Yardale points out:

Basically, this “push” for nuclear power is just a ruse to try and get cap and trade passed. Democrats are far too beholden to the Luddite environmental left to seriously support nuclear power. The only place Obama really supports nuclear power is Iran.

and Duane Lester:

In reality, this is very easy for him to promote. He knows that any new proposed nuclear power plants would be smothered in red tape, eco-Marxist protests and the usual NIMBY push back.

He loses nothing by pushing it. He knows it will never happen but can position himself as being for it.

Indeed, indeed. It is rhetoric, but I’ll support it rhetorically too. I hope it works out, cuz that would be a route towards energy independence we greatly need.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Despite all the talk of green jobs, the overwhelming majority of stimulus money spent on wind power has gone to foreign companies, according to a new report by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at the American University’s School of Communication in Washington, D.C.

Nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been spent on wind power, funding the creation of enough new wind farms to power 2.4 million homes over the past year. But the study found that nearly 80 percent of that money has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines.

“Most of the jobs are going overseas,” said Russ Choma at the Investigative Reporting Workshop. He analyzed which foreign firms had accepted the most stimulus money. “According to our estimates, about 6,000 jobs have been created overseas, and maybe a couple hundred have been created in the U.S.”

Chuck Schumer is incensed, because the money was intended to create jobs in the USA fund liberal projects, and this makes people distrust Washington. Ya think? Cue a Typical Obama Administration Liar

Matt Rogers, the senior adviser to the Secretary of Energy for the Recovery Act, denied there was a problem.

“The recovery act is creating jobs in the U.S. for American workers,” said Rogers, “That is what the recovery act is about, that is what it is doing. Every dollar from the recovery act is going to create jobs for the American workers here in the U.S.”

And then the spin starts, as he sort of admits that quite a bit of the actual units are being built overseas. I think a firing would be in order for lying to the public.

And even with the wind farms, regular type power plants have to stay in operation for when it is not windy.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

First up, the UK Telegraph exposes Wavegate

The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company. (snip)

…..a diagram used to demonstrate the potential for generating electricity from wave power has been found to contain numerous errors.

The source of information for the diagram was cited as the website of UK-based wave-energy company Wavegen. Yet the diagram on Wavegen’s website contains dramatically different figures for energy potential off Britain and Alaska and in the Bering Sea.

When contacted by The Sunday Telegraph, Wavegen insisted that the diagram on its website had not been changed. It added that it was not the original source of the data and had simply reproduced it on its website.

The diagram is widely cited in other literature as having come from a paper on wave energy produced by the Institute of Mechanical Engineering in 1991 along with data from the European Directory of Renewable Energy.

Experts claim that, had the IPCC checked the citation properly, it would have spotted the discrepancies.

In other words, the UN IPCC included a changed version of the graph which was meant to support their climate alarmist ideas.

On to Africagate

Following an investigation by this blog (and with the story also told in The Sunday Times), another major “mistake” in the IPCC’s benchmark Fourth Assessment Report has emerged.

Similar in effect to the erroneous “2035″ claim – the year the IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers were going to melt – in this instance we find that the IPCC has wrongly claimed that in some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.

At best, this is a wild exaggeration, unsupported by any scientific research, referenced only to a report produced by a Canadian advocacy group, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specialises in carbon trading, citing references which do not support his claims.

This claim was included in the IPCC’s Synthesis report, considered to be the most important part of the IPCC report, and was the personal responsibility of Dr R K Pachauri, the chair of the UN IPCC, who also seems to have a *surprise!* financial stake in pushing climate alarmism.

We’ve seen the IPCC use student dissertations (some unpublished), flagrantly false studies, changed data, newspaper and press releases, and reports from environmental pressure groups, among others. They make claims that it is hotter than ever, but won’t let anyone check the data. Yet, we are supposed to listen to people who are involved in fantasy, rather than science? People who have a financial stake in making sure that people believe in the worst case.

Come on, climate alarmists, step away from Jim Jones, and come back to the place where real science is done.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Obama administration gave a boost to the corn and coal industries Wednesday, announcing a series of moves to accelerate biofuel use and deploy so-called clean-coal technology on power plants.

Unsurprisingly, the EPA recently finalized a rule that would give corn ethanol a larger share of the biofuels market. Even though it has been shown that corn ethanol provides minimal power, uses a lot of water to produce, actually does little to decrease CO2 output, and, oh, drives up the cost of food.

And it doesn’t help when the alarmists are saying topsoil “could” vanish in 60 years

Fertile soil is being lost faster than it can be replenished and will eventually lead to the “topsoil bank” becoming empty, an Australian conference heard.

Chronic soil mismanagement and over farming causing erosion, climate change and increasing populations were to blame for the dramatic global decline in suitable farming soil, scientists said.

I’ll have to agree that “climate change” is partly to blame. Why? Because the alarmists are creating an environment where food is being turned into barely functional fuel in ever increasing quantities, burning through soil. In reality, it seems that climate change was thrown in there simply as a scare phrase.

The conference heard world soil, including European and British soils, could vanish within about 60 years if drastic action was not taken.

Stop using it to make barely functional fuels, then. OK? This will also play into the more extreme alarmists notions on reducing Earth’s human population, which would mean less need for grown food.

Soil is also a valuable store of carbon and can release the greenhouse gas if it is ploughed or dug up.

How soon till the alarmists call for all food to be grown in vats?

Of course, as said many many times, climate alarmism is very much driven by money. And, surprise! Climate alarmism came in dead last in the latest Pew survey.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post