Many of you probably have never heard of Professor Phil Jones, but he is the scientist whose data Al Gore and many global warming alarmist used to push their climate change agenda.  Based on his “data”, countries have invested 10’s of billions of dollars to “prevent” the catastrophic disaster that we were told would be caused by the “warming of the earth”.

In the latest revelation, Professor Jones has confessed that there as not been any “statistical” global warming for the past 15 years.  In fact, the professor admits that the Earth was warmer during medieval times than now and suggests that global warming may not be man-made after all.

The latest U-turn has provided skeptics, such as myself, fresh ammunition to counter liberals and the progressives’ efforts to push forward legislation that would raise taxes on business that emit natural occurring CO2.  We can anticipate that alarmist, like Al Gore who have made millions advocating and pushing faulty science, to distance themselves from Jones while still attempting to advance their agenda.

From Mail Online:

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

\

____________

It’s cold out there!  Record breaking cold weather has swept the planet and snow accumulations have shattered all previous records.  But… yes, it’s the result of global warming.  Remember, these global warming alarmist are the same people who warned that the polar icecaps would be melted in 10 years and the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro would be gone in 2035… oh wait, the guy who wrote that report “accidentally” put the “0″ in the wrong place– it’s 2350.  Yeah, we’re supposed to trust the ‘irrefutable” data of “experts” who can’t transcribe numbers properly.

A week doesn’t go by and we read of another scandal surrounding global warming… whoops, it’s cold so we’re being inoculated with “climate change”.  I guess the Progressives have concluded that it’s hard to sell “global warming” when it’s below zero with 3 feet of snow outside.  As more people are wising up to the fraud that is global warming, be prepared for the Progressives to change gears and instead of telling us that we are all going to fry from the heat and drown in our flooded cities that we need to take action to create jobs by going green– although there’s been a few studies out there that say that “cap and tax” actually costs jobs.  Global warming was never about saving the environment, nor is going green about creating jobs, it’s about taxing you more in order to take more control of your lives.

____________

Obama's Agriculture Department wants to convert this farmland to forest to stem global warming. Will it work?

I could write to you tonight about the disaster that is the Obama national security, but you already know that.  Even some of you liberals are beginning to recognize that.  I could write tonight about the liberal Congressman Barney Frank who was one of six Democrats responsible for the banking crisis who just drafted a bill that would give bankers a whopping $4,000,000,000,000.00. but the incompetence and machinations of Barney wouldn’t surprise you.  Then again, I could write tonight about the $3.8 billion that the Obama Treasury is about to give to GMAC, the financial arm of GM.  Yes, the GM who went bankrupt and that is now owned by the government and the unions… but that would only get you upset thinking why we continue to throw money down a rat hole.

Well, tonight I want to write about your stomach and how liberals are about to make it more expensive to feed it.  We all remember how liberals pushed through legislation that rewarded farmer who grew corn that could be converted to ethanol in lieu of cattle feed, barley, oats, wheat, etc. causing prices of those commodities to rise…. well, in an effort to save the planet from global warming and control that even pollutant that our bodies naturally blow out, CO2, Obama’s Agriculture Department wants to pay farmers to turn their farms into forest.  Yes, you read it right, liberals have now concluded that we should turn farms into forest so that there will be more trees to absorb that awful pollutant CO2.

Now I know some of you think I’m making this up and others want to dismiss this as hyperbole, but, in fact, this is in the climate bill passed by the House and supported by Obama.  Here, read this from the Washington Times:

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has ordered his staff to revise a computerized forecasting model that showed that climate legislation supported by President Obama would make planting trees more lucrative than producing food.

The latest Agriculture Department economic-impact study of the climate bill, which passed the House this summer, found that the legislation would profit farmers in the long term. But those profits would come mostly from higher crop prices as a result of the legislation’s incentives to plant more forests and thus reduce the amount of land devoted to food-producing agriculture.

According to the economic model used by the department and the Environmental Protection Agency, the legislation would give landowners incentives to convert up to 59 million acres of farmland into forests over the next 40 years. The reason: Trees clean the air of heat-trapping gases better than farming does.

Mr. Vilsack, in a little-noticed statement issued with the report earlier this month, said the department’s forecasts “have caused considerable concern” among farmers and ranchers… continued here if your blood pressure can handle it.

Basically, the latest cockamamie idea from this liberal Congress is to plant trees on farms that would normally grow food for our survival, because it just might reduce CO2 which is hypothesized to cause global warming.  Oh, but it gets better than that.  The Secretary of Agriculture wants the models that concluded that food prices would increase to be “reviewed” and “updated”.  Let me make it simple, he’s wants them to fudge the numbers to show that you can convert 59 million acres of farmland into a forest and have no real impact on the price of food.

Mr. Vilsack said he has directed his chief economist to work with the EPA to “undertake a review of the assumptions in the FASOM model, to update the model and to develop options on how best to avoid unintended consequences for agriculture that might result from climate change legislation.”

Do these people have the slightest clue about micro and macro economics?  Do they have just the slightest clue about how supply and demand work?  Do they not realize that if you wipe out our farmland you’ll reduce the supply of food and drive up the cost?  Do they understand how higher food prices will hurt those who are already struggling to make ends meet– actually, I think they do.  The more people who are hurting and struggling the more who will become slaves to the government, reliant on Big Brother rather than themselves.  When will some voters finally wake up.

_______________

Things are getting really confusing to me and I’m needing a liberal to take the time to really explain to me a couple of question that I have.  First, I don’t want you liberals to go on a tirade and repeat those excuses that you’ve been brainwashed to repeat.  For example; its George Bushes fault or global warming is responsible for global cooling.  I want some honest research and intelligent answers.

First dilemma;

I need help in understanding why Al Gore repeats so-called facts that he knows is inaccurate or outright lies.  Why he hasn’t corrected the many false claims he continues to make and that have been found to be false in his book, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’?  Do liberals not have an issue with, what I consider a conflict of interest, Al Gore pushing so-called, “Green Energy” and these carbon exchanging when his venture capital partnership is poised to make billions of dollars if the government enacts some of Al Gore’s proposals?   Or, is it acceptable to liberals for Al Gore and his liberal cronies to make billions off of an unproven science at the expense of the taxpayers while berating Cheney who, as a CEO of a service company, made a few million heading a company that provided a service and thousands of jobs?

Which brings me to my next question; do liberals feel that they’ve been lied to over this global warming climate change hysteria?  By the way, have you noticed that, since the Earth has been getting colder, liberals now call it “climate change”.  It’s difficult to sell “global warming” when your freezing your a*s off, but then again, there are some really stupid people who, if told that freezing cold is the result of global warming, will believe it. Every day there are more scientist who are speaking up and saying that man has no control or impact on the climate.  Are liberals aware that man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history?  Can a liberals admit that they’ve been scammed or will they bring the whole country down with them to protect and defend an ideology, because they’re too proud to admit they’ve been wrong?

Now this is something that REALLY has boggled my mind; what was wrong with the prison at Guantánamo Bay?  What’s the difference if they’re housed at Gitmo or in Chicago, aside from the fact that this administration has just put a huge target on the city and has put the prison guards and their family’s at risk.  I mean, how easy is it for an Al Qaeda operative to follow a prison guard home and threatening to kill his wife and children.  Just a thought.  It seems liberals saw Guantanamo as a way of criticizing Bush and liberal politician were quick to jump on the bandwagon rather than educating their supporters on why Gitmo was and is important.  Liberals like Obama, have boxed themselves in a corner and it’s for that reason that he’s now forced to close Gitmo and do nothing more than move them to a prison with a different name, albeit on US soil.

I have many other question, but I don’t want to get these liberals too exhausted having to actually research facts rather than emulating Al Gore and repeating the some tired lies and lines that are fed to them.

_________________

Have the Obama Administration and these liberals lost their minds?  I mean honestly, have they?  I get an AP alert on my iPhone that the EPA has now declared Carbon Dioxide a pollutant.  Are you kidding me?  Are you truly and honestly kidding me!!!  First, let me be clear, this is nothing more than another way for government to invent an excuse to penalize companies so that they can extract more money from them.

Here are the facts;  without carbon dioxide there would be NO VEGETATION!!!  And without vegetation there would be no oxygen.  You see, Trees convert carbon dioxide into carbohydrates during photosynthesis, releasing oxygen in the process.  It’s high school biology.  Here’s another fact; humans breath in oxygen and in the respiration process, we breath out, gasp, carbon dioxide.   Is the Obama administration now going to regulate and tax our lungs?

People, when are some of you going to wake the heck up and see what’s going on.  This whole nonsense of global warming has been nothing more than one giant hoax by the left designed to tax you more.  Is there any sane person out there who honestly believes that 40 years of data can determine whether or not the Earth is truly getting warmer when the Earth has been around for billions of years?  Has anyone notice that now that we’ve been experiencing global cooling, the radicals have now gone from “global warming” to using “climate change”.  Hello!!! Of course there’s going to be a change in the climate– there are many variables for this and the main one is the Sun.

Do not let these liberals, who have made billions, (Al Gore stand up), scaring you into believing that man has anything to do with changing the climate.  It is complete nonsense.  One volcano eruption emits more “pollutants” into the air than the United States has managed to emit throughout the last 100 years.   Just yesterday night, I read a report that’s being presented in Copenhagen that cows release more CO2 than all cars driven by man.  Does this mean we kill the cows?  Man would be arrogant to believe that we can control the climate of this planet.  God designed a unique world for us that works in perfect harmony with nature.  The Earth is a marvelous creation.

Wall Street Journal:

An “endangerment” finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions — even if Congress doesn’t pass pending climate-change legislation. EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected…

The vast majority of increased greenhouse-gas emissions is expected to come from developing countries such as China and India, not from rich countries like the U.S. But developing countries have made it clear that their willingness to reduce growth in emissions will depend on what rich countries do first. That puts a geopolitical spotlight on the U.S.

At the heart of the fight over whether U.S. emission constraints should come from the EPA or Congress is a high-stakes issue: which industries will have to foot the bill for a climate cleanup. A similar theme will play out in Copenhagen as rich countries wrangle over how much they should have to pay to help the developing world shift to cleaner technologies.

“There is no agreement without money,” says Rosário Bento Pais, a top climate negotiator for the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm. “That is clear.” Full Story

___________________