Key Evidence of Global Warming Fraud

By Roger F. Gay

I was disappointed upon seeing a Global Warming “science” pitch recently published in Politico. Cold shoulder for climate change was written by sports writer turned outdoors, travel and entertainment reporter turned environmental journalist Darren Samuelsohn.

I won't pick apart details of the entire article. It's based on the old propaganda template: warmers are scientists, skeptics are right-wing ideologues. No mention of the much larger number of professional scientists and engineers who have gone from skeptical to calling the whole thing a fraud. In Samuelsohn's world, warmers and their climate theories have been “exonerated” and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is slated to rise in public status again.

Sameulsohn's background – about as far from scientifically educated as possible – is rather typical for environmental journalists. The rank and file tend to drive the ad nauseam element of Global Warming Propaganda - the endless repetition of an idea in the hope that it will begin to be taken as the truth. What else are they qualified to do? We can kind-of understand this serving up of a previous season's warmed over nonsense by someone without enough knowledge to be embarrassed by it. It's a living, right?

So I doubt he had a clue that his article contained one of the most basic bits of evidence that the global warming scare is a complete fraud and the IPCC is a scam.

“We need to equip ourselves with the ability and capacity to deal with the heightened scrutiny … which we have been subjected to recently,” IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said earlier this month during a conference in Abu Dhabi.

Warmers tend to think of science as magic. Chant the word “science” enough and a cow pie should become the Mona Lisa if that's what you say it is. But what is it about (real) science that implies such overwhelming credibility? If your answer is “the scientific process” then congratulations; you're light-years ahead of environmental journalism.

Scientific process: If you're asking, “What's that?” then let me give you a hint. Skepticism and scrutiny are essential to the process. If ideas are not exposed and tested with skepticism and scrutiny, it isn't science. A “skeptic” is the more likely scientist than the “open-minded” unskeptical believer. The mere fact that a Nobel Peace Prize recipient says something doesn't make it true. That an article is “published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal” does not make everything in it true either. Publications communicate ideas, which are then subject to skepticism and scrutiny. That's scientific process.

The word of a “scientific committee” cannot be presumed truth. The so-called “scientific consensus” on global warming is meaningless (and still would be even if it actually did favor their argument as they insist). A good example of scientific perspective on such things is illustrated by Einstein's response to a 1931 pamphlet entitled “100 authors against Einstein.” The pamphlet was commissioned by the German Nazi Party as a clumsy contradiction to Relativity Theory that did not fit the canons of the “Aryan science.” Similarly, the IPCC and modern leftist political operatives define acceptable scientific views to conform with a political and economic agenda and support it with a claim of a consensus view. Einstein’s answer; “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough.”

Scientific fact is not determined by appointments and elections. It didn't matter how many Nazi supporters lined up against him or how strong their influence on public discussion. Nor does the past few decades of political influence through biased funding and its impact on the number of scientific journal articles determine the truth about global warming. Science is not conducted by committee and certainly not by political appointees in an intergovernmental panel.

What IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri reveals in his statement is that scrutiny has been missing from the IPCC process – something many of us “skeptics” already knew. The IPCC was established in 1988. That makes 23 years of non-science. The problem isn't confined to United Nations' activities and their reports that warmers treat as the bible of climate “science.” It's found throughout the entire chain of “climate science” activities and it's been intentional and systematic. (That's also an important part of what was exposed to the general public through Climategate.) “Science” is the basis of their claim of credibility, and it's the one thing they've avoided doing.

Some of the warmers have Ph.D.s. In fact, there are plenty of them, and they understand all this too. The global warming scam isn't just the product of uneducated sports writers trying to make a living. It is a fraud. Science is something done by scientists. But who is a scientist and who is not, is not determined by who holds what scientific degrees. Degrees don't make scientists. Scientists are people who actually do science. Having made claims to scientifically established facts without subjecting them to the rigors of scientific process is not science. The people who do it are not scientists. They are frauds.

Quote of the Day "The 'private sector' of the economy is, in fact, the voluntary sector; and the 'public sector' is, in fact, the coercive sector. -Henry Hazlitt

Repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to any 10th amendment resolution

"The state governments are essentially part of the system. The senators represent the sovereignty of the states. They are in the quality of ambassadors of the states. But suppose that they were to be chosen by the people at large (17th amendment)? Whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states (Article 1 Section 3), but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. WHAT WOULD BECOME OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS, AND ON WHOM WOULD DEVOLVE THE DUTY OF DEFENDING THEM AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?" - Fisher Ames in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution "WHAT WOULD BECOME OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS?" We have one up on Founder Fisher Ames. We can now answer that question conclusively. Let's make the assumption that you agree that there exists an overbearing Federal Government, that the State Governments as not much more now than appendages of it, and their purpose is mostly to carry out the Federal central dictates. What is the solution to this assumed problem? Is the solution simply to reaffirm (as I spelled out in the accompanying letter) the states' 10th Amendment rights via a resolution? This would be only a fine start, it's a definitive statement of concurrence with the true intents of the Federalist system that the Founders set up with the Constitution. But how exactly are the states' rights, state government powers and authority, that are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" by the 10th Amendment, implemented in order to halt Federal encroachments? Is there a single simple mechanism for achieving this? The answer lies in what caused the separation of power between state and federal governments to be dissolved. What was the cause? There is one very simple answer. Even if you don't believe a system of Federalism was established by the Constitution, or believe that a central power in Washington is the answer to all, or even don't know what a system of Federalism is…the following review may be of some service to you. Definition: Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments. It was the conclusion of the Founders, from studying centuries of history, and multifarious forms of government, that the most essential mechanism needed to reduce the abuse of power was one that decentralized and divided power into receptacles that checked and balanced each other. I could go on for pages and pages presenting quote upon quote to prove the point. But being that you are likely acquainted with many of them, and for the sake of brevity and keeping within the scope of this letter, I will simply refer you back to the two quotes of Madison and Jefferson presented in the accompanying letter. The system of Federalism they crafted called for separation of power-authority into two main differing realms of operation. The National government operating purely in external spheres, with matters that dealt with foreign nations, and disputes between states. The State governments were to operate purely in the internal spheres within their respective states. This dynamic created the largest and most important division and check on power to keep it from consolidating to a National center, as was the case throughout history, which always led inexorably to government oppression of the people it was suppose to protect. This dynamic also created the and most important division and check on power to keep it from reverting back wholly to the individual state level, thus recreating the failures of the Articles of Confederation, where each individual colony behaves as its own nation within itself. This reversion would have led to the danger of external conquest, state by state. How then was this proper Constitutional federalist separation to be sustained? Precisely the same way it had been laid out from the beginning. I restate what I said earlier in this letter: "But how exactly are the states rights, state government powers-authority, that are 'reserved to the States respectively, or to the people' by the 10th Amendment implemented? Is there a single simple mechanism for achieving this? The answer lies in what caused the separation of power between state and federal governments to be dissolved." For those with ears to hear, it is not enough for a State to reaffirm its 10th Amendment rights, and not have in place the "lost" mechanism, the "teeth" to exercise them. These "teeth" are to be found in the same place they ever were, that which was lost by the 17th Amendment, that in turn caused the proper federalist separation to be dissolved. Article 1 Section 3: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof Seventeenth Amendment: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state. The Founders had assigned the Senate the responsibility of representing the states as sovereign entities. This is why Senators at the federal level were appointed by the state legislatures rather than being elected directly by the people of the state. It was so that Senators would not be compelled to involve themselves in the popular issues of the day (always at the task of hearing "the voice of the people" in order to win re-election), but could concentrate primarily on the protection of states' rights from the encroachments of the National government. Their primary assignment was one of balancing the budget, keeping taxes as low as possible, tempering the radicalism of the House, and serving as the "elder statesmen" of the Congress. Despite the Founders' intentions, all of this was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment. In effect, this made both the Senate and the House a reflection of the popular will, both to be violently tugged and tossed by the less-informed populace for their re-election survival. So they would become less in touch with the sovereign interests of the states (which were distilled into their purest form in the state legislatures), or the checks and balances which the states were to have provided through their Senators. It was understood, and still remains true, that the state legislatures would most certainly be more informed of all the concerns and interests of all the counties in their respective states than would the populace directly. Thus they would be in a much more enlightened position to appoint these "ambassadors of the state" to wholly represent the state as a state check upon a less informed House of Representatives at the federal level, and the wholly national nature of the Executive. This was the federalism of the Founders. The nature of the appointing of Senators was a vital element in the Federalist system. In fact, it was so vital that James Madison had this to say about it in The Federalist Papers no.39: "The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the states, and in this respect the government is federal, not national." Another way of putting it is, "If the Senate does not derive its powers and authority directly from the appointment by the state legislature, then this system is in no way a federalist one." Yet another way of putting it is, "If this system of federalism is not upheld in this manner, we will eventually have no separation of powers between the state governments and the national government." Or, as Jefferson put it, we will wander into a miasma of boundless power-grabbing Federal government law, unanchored by any Constitutional basis: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." To President George Washington, opinion against the constitutionality of a national bank, 15 February 1791 It is of no coincidence that in 1913, once this vital mechanism of this system of federalism was stripped by the 17th Amendment, immediately thereafter, in the same year, the most egregious encroachments of the national government into the realm of state government authority occurred. Those being the Federal Reserve, and the national income tax with it Cerberus, the IRS. Here is the full quote from Fisher Ames: "The state governments are essential parts of the system.... The senators represent the sovereignty of the states; in the other house, individuals are represented.... They are in the quality of ambassadors of the states, and it will not be denied that some permanency in their office is necessary to a discharge of their duty. Now, if they were chosen yearly, how could they perform their trust? If they would be brought by that means more immediately under the influence of the people, then they will represent the state legislatures less, and become the representatives of individuals. This belongs to the other house. The absurdity of this, and its repugnancy to the federal principles of the Constitution, will appear more fully, by supposing that they are to be chosen by the people at large. If there is any force in the objection to this article, this would be proper. But whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states, but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. What would become of the state governments, and on whom would devolve the duty of defending them against the encroachments of the federal government? A consolidation of the states would ensue, which, it is conceded, would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this very article, so much condemned, is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against a consolidation. The state governments represent the wishes, and feelings, and local interests, of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the Constitution; they will protract the period of our liberties; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights." 　 _____________________________________________ A proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, designed to repeal the 17th Amendment, follows: SECTION ONE. The Seventeenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. SECTION TWO. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, selected by the legislature of each State. Each Senator shall serve a six year term and may be reappointed. Each Senator shall have one vote. SECTION THREE. Among the duties of each Senator is the primary duty to represent the government of their State, and in particular, their State's Legislature, in the Senate. For the purpose of maintaining communications with its Senators, each State Legislature shall establish a liaison committee and shall specify the duties, procedures, and method of appointment of that committee. This committee shall work with its United States Senators in evaluating the impact of federal legislation on their State. All legislation proposed by Congress, and all treaties proposed, shall be submitted to each State's liaison committee. SECTION FOUR. Senators are subject to removal by the State Legislature. Removal of a Senator requires a majority of each House of the State Legislature. SECTION FIVE. Congress is precluded from enacting any legislation affecting the senatorial selection process. Each State Legislature shall enact rules and procedures, consistent with this amendment, related to the selection and removal of Senators. SECTION SIX. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures.

Canada's carbon catastrophe begins

Ottawa Sun: Canada's carbon catastrophe begins

It’s like watching the same train wreck — twice.

Our politicians are starting to commit the same wasteful blunders, resulting in the same perverse consequences, as the Europeans have in pricing carbon dioxide emissions, ostensibly to fight climate change.

The harbinger of many bad things to come for us is now happening in B.C.

There, the provincial government is forcing the transfer of millions of tax dollars from cash-strapped schools, hospitals and other public institutions, by requiring them to buy carbon offsets.

Money which then benefits hugely profitable energy companies like Encana.

This is eerily reminiscent of what happened in Europe when it started pricing emissions years ago.

Hospitals, universities and other public facilities had to spend millions of dollars that could have gone toward hiring more nurses and professors, buying carbon credits.

Meanwhile, energy giants like BP and Esso made millions after receiving free carbon credits from European regulators — which they then sold into Europe’s disastrous cap-and-trade market, the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Read the entire article at the Ottawa Sun site: Canada's carbon catastrophe begins

Quote of the day

Quote of the Day "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests". -Patrick Henry

A libertarian take on the Tea Party movement

A libertarian take on the Tea Party movement

Lawsuit alleges Ohio has over collected millions in child support payments from parents

Lawsuit alleges Ohio has over collected millions in child support payments from parents

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A lawsuit alleges Ohio has over collected millions of dollars in child support payments and doesn't provide parents with any way of knowing if they have paid too much.

The lawsuit filed Friday in the Ohio Court of Claims also alleges the state purposely over collects to boost federal incentives the state gets for processing child support payments.

The lawsuit alleges there are more than 114,000 child support cases where individuals have paid more than they're legally required, a figure that could be as high as $176 million over a three-year period.

Ben Johnson, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, declined comment.

Ohio processes about $1.7 billion in child support payments annually in a system driven by federal incentive payments.

Yes, Says Virginia, There Are Limits on Federal Power

Cato Institute - Article includes link to oral argument on forced purchase of health insurance.

Today, the Fourth Circuit became the first appellate court in the nation to enter the Obamacare fray. It heard two very similar cases back-to-back, Liberty University’s, in which the government won in the district court, and the Commonwealth of Virginia’s, in which Judge Henry Hudson struck down the individual mandate back in December. Going into the hearing, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s legal team had done a wonderful job setting out the reasons why Hudson was correct and why Congress went too far in asserting the unprecedented power to compel people to enter into contracts with private insurance companies. ...

Complete article: Yes, Says Virginia, There Are Limits on Federal Power

How Libertarian Is the 2012 GOP Field?

Cato Institute

Republicans Doubtful About 2012: What to do? What to do?

By Roger F. Gay

Byron York wrote a good article for the Washington Examiner titled 2012 and the Republican rescue fantasy. The sense among South Carolina's Republicans is that the current field of presidential candidates is poor. I could say, Well, DU-UH! but feel no urge to treat the writer disrespectfully. Someone did have to report it after all, and it is at least half my purpose here to repeat it.

The “Republican rescue fantasy” York refers to is that “a superhero candidate will swoop down out of the sky and rescue them from their current lackluster presidential field.” After reviewing the usual suspects and some dropped names of “unattainable” candidates, he concludes that “One thing is certain: No previously-unknown savior is going to descend from the sky to save Republicans. If they are to defeat Barack Obama, they'll have to do it with someone from their extended field today.”

Well, OK. Given that ending, York's piece can be classified as commentary and I'm free to rag a bit. If the analysis is to be a serious one, it must first be recognized that the Republican difficulty in defeating the most overtly corrupt president in the nation's history is just pathetic.

The Republican mid-term success was due to a simple promise to fight back. The new House of Representatives opened with a dramatic historical event; the first time the House read through the U.S. Constitution. They won because they told us they'd do everything they could to see that government began playing by the rules. That in fact was the Republican fantasy; one hypocritically aimed at the voting public. Once seated, it soon became clear that they preferred to take the quickest route back to “business as usual.”

I do not think that a superhero candidate is needed. He or she need only be better than the opponent. I do not agree with York that Republicans need to pick someone from the current extended field. That seems the worst possible course. The Republican problem is one of credibility, making any established Party operative a liability. It's difficult to believe, for example, that anyone thinks Mitt Romney will ever win the presidency, even if he runs against the Devil who declares actually being the Devil and runs on a platform assuring that everyone who votes for him will go to Hell.

Republicans have said they'd be better many times, but then when it's time to deliver – they aren't. Instead they merely present a different set of excuses, lies, and arguments for compromise that lead to the same sort of corrupt policies, growth of government, and centralized control. The credibility problem has become critical, producing the pathetic difficulty they now face. In the hearts of voters: Fool me once, shame on me! Fool me a few hundred times … well … dude, you've got a serious problem.

The place to focus for 2012 is back on the promise of 2010 and what they actually need to do (talk is cheap) to improve the Party's credibility enough to raise them from their pathetic status.

Ron Paul Revolution 2012

Congressman Ron Paul has formed an exploratory committee to run for President in 2012. It is the start of the Ron Paul Revolution once again.

Here is video of the Congressman talking with John Stossel about the Libertarian movement and his intentions for the country:

Why the U.S. is ‘Screwed’

There has been a long debate on the state of our country in financial terms, and just for your viewing eyes, here is a chart to show why the U.S. is "screwed!"