If you haven't noticed that governments and corporations around the world are jumping on the "green" bandwagon, then you must be living under a rock. This catch-phrase is being used for everything, but what does it really mean? Have all the corporations realized the folly of their ways, repented and are now trying to save the earth? If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you on the moon. No my friends, there is always an agenda lurking in the backround, and if you can break free of the brainwashing, you will be able to see it, clear as day.

The fact is, there is a power elite manipulating society in the direction they see fit. The question is which way are they steering it? When you look past all the rhetoric, this green movement is forcing humanity into a controlled society, where every movement and action is tracked and traced in a high-tech control grid that we are paying for. Does humanity really want to give control of every aspect of our lives to the same group of people who brought you Hitler, Stalin, Mao, fractional banking, both world wars and on and on....

Why would they want to control everything you do? Because they are control freak, monopoly men who are in control of society now and want to ensure they and their progeny are in control forever! If the "green" agenda were about saving the planet, then they would be banning genetic engineering, toxic waste, nuclear weapons, over fishing, depleted uranium and torture, to name a few things. Instead they want to make everyone feel bad about their carbon footprint, which is ironically part of the cycle of life, not a toxin at all.

The "green" agenda is not about saving the planet, but is the solution the the population "problem". The elite's believe, the problem is that there are too many people to control, who may be a threat to their monopoly of power, so the solution is to reduce the population by at least 80%. They can't come out and say this, so they have to find a reason for us to go along with their agenda. They have found their excuse in carbon dioxide.

Their own quotes lay everything out for those who have eyes to see:

The Green Agenda

THE WHISTLE BLOWS FOR TRUTH
The whistleblower deep in the basement of one of the ugly, modern tower-blocks of the dismal, windswept University of East Anglia could scarcely have timed it better.
In less than three weeks, the world’s governing class – its classe politique – would meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world’s wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a pen, on the pretext of addressing what is now known to be the non-problem of manmade “global warming”.
The unnamed hero of ‘Climategate’, after months of work gathering emails, computer code, and data, quietly sent a 61-megabyte compressed file from one of the university’s servers to an obscure public message-board on the internet, with a short covering note to the effect that the climate was too important to keep the material secret, and that the data from the University would be available for a short time only.
He had caught the world’s politico-scientific establishment green-handed. Yet his first attempts to reveal the highly-profitable fraud and systematic corruption at the very heart of the UN’s climate panel and among the scientists most prominent in influencing it’s prejudiced and absurdly doom-laden reports had failed. He had made the mistake of sending the data-file to the mainstream news media, which had also profited for decades by fostering the “global warming” scare, and by generally denying anyone who disagreed with the official viewpoint any platform.
The whistleblower’s data file revealed, for the first time, the innermost workings of the tiny international clique of climate scientists, centered on the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, that has been the prime mover in telling the world that it is warming at an unprecedented rate, and that humankind is responsible.
REVEALED: THE ABJECT CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE
The gallant whistleblower now faces a police investigation at the instigation of the University authorities desperate to look after their own and to divert allegations of criminality elsewhere. His crime? He had revealed what many had long suspected:
- A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all scientific research.

• The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.
• The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.
• The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.
• They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
• They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.
• They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled.
• They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.
• They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.
• They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
• They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
• Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent.

THE NATURE ‘TRICK’ TO ‘HIDE THE DECLINE’ IN TEMPERATURES
Among the most revealing of the emails released to the world by the whistleblower was one dated November 1999. In that email, Professor “Phil” Jones of the CRU wrote to Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, the authors of the infamous “hockey stick” graph that falsely abolished the medieval warm period:
Almost immediately after the news of Climategate broke, Professor Jones told Investigative Magazine’s TGIF Edition that he “had no idea” what he might have meant by the words “hide the decline”. He said:

“They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”

A few hours later, the science hate-crime website created by the Team cobbled together a jumbled, snivelingly self-serving, and entirely different pretext:

“The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction [the ‘hockey-stick’ graph of pre-instrumental temperatures over the past 1000 years in the Northern Hemisphere], and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s [another prominent member of the Team] maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem” … and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al. in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so, while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.”

Enter Steve McIntyre, the one who had first realized that the UN’s climate panel in 2001 had used a corrupt graph that had falsely abolished the medieval warm period with the aim of pretending that today’s global temperatures are unprecedented in at least 1000 years. Later that day his website, www.climateaudit.org, revealed the truth about the conspirators’ “trick”.
In order to smooth a data series over a given time period, one must pad it with artificial data beyond the endpoint of the real series. However, when Mann, Bradley, and Hughes plotted instrumental data against their reconstructions based on the varying widths of tree-rings from ancient trees, their favourite form of proxy or pre-instrumental reconstructed temperature, no smoothing method could conceal the fact that after 1960 the tree-ring data series trended downward, while the instrumental series trended upward. This was the Team’s “divergence”:

“So Mann’s solution [‘Mike’s Nature trick’] was to use the instrumental record for padding [both the proxy and the instrumental data series], which changes the smoothed series to point upwards.”

Accordingly, though the author of the original email had said that the “trick” was to add instrumental measurements for years beyond available proxy data, his conspirators at the science-hate website admitted it was actually a replacement of proxy data owing to a known but unexplained post-1960 “divergence” between the proxy data and the instrumental data. In fact, it was a fabrication.
The next day, in a statement issued by the University of East Anglia’s press office, Professor Jones fumblingly tried to recover the position:

“The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.”

As we shall see, Professor Jones was not telling the truth.
BREAKING THE BROKEN CODE: DISSECTING THE DODGY DATA
The “Documents” folder in the enormous data-file released by the whistleblower contains many segments of computer program code used by Jones and the Team in contriving the Climate Research Unit’s global temperature series. The data-file also contained a 15,000-line commentary by programmers concerned that the code and the data used by the Team were suspect, were fabricated, and were not fit for their purpose.
Looking at the seldom-tidy code, the sheer number of programs which subject the raw data to various degrees of filtering, processing, and tampering is disconcerting. Some of these alterations were blatant and unacceptable, notably those which removed proxy data that correlate poorly with measured regional temperature, or even replaced proxy data altogether with measured data to conceal a discrepancy between what the proxy data actually showed and what the Team wanted it to show.
The Team’s programmers even admitted, in comments within the code, that they were artificially adjusting or “correcting” the proxy data from tree-rings. In Fortran, the high-level computer language long in use at universities for programming, a programmer’s comment is usually preceded by the statement “REM” for “remark”, indicating that the text on the line following the word “REM” should be ignored by the compiler program that translates the Fortran code that humans can understand into executable machine language that the computer can understand.
One of the commonest remarks included in the program fragments disclosed by the whistleblower is as follows:

“These will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”

There could scarcely be a plainer admission that the data are being regularly, routinely, materially tampered with, for the sake of making it appear that the proxy data are sufficiently reliable to appear close to the instrumental temperatures.
This is no mere debating point. The UN’s climate panel had issued specific warnings against using proxy data (MXD) from tree-rings, because warmer weather is not the only reason why tree-rings become wider in some years than in others. There are at least two other prominent reasons, both of which can – and do – distort the tree-ring data beyond the point where they are useful as indicators of (or proxies for) pre-instrumental temperatures. First, the tree-rings become wider whenever the weather becomes wetter. Secondly, and of still greater concern, the tree-rings widen when there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And there is 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there was in 1750.
Yet, as McIntyre and McKitrick had established originally in 2003, and had published in a leading journal in 2005, the majority of the data on the basis of which Mann, Bradley and Hughes, and later other members of the Team, had attempted to pretend that there had been no medieval warm period were tree-ring series. Take out the suspect tree-ring series, together with just one other rogue series, and all the remaining data series establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Middle Ages were truly, materially, and globally warmer than the present.
Scientists with programming knowledge have already begun to examine the computer code that Professor Jones and his colleagues had attempted to hide for so long. Here is Marc Sheppard’s selection of three examples of the tortuous sequences of deliberate data tampering that are evident within the program code.
Read the complete report from SPPI here:

For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.

Lord Monckton’s summary of Climategate and its issues

The Global Warming Scam

Global Warming Or Global Freezing?
Is The Ice Really Melting?
By F. William Engdahl
Author of Full Spectrum Dominance:
Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order
9-25-9

Scare stories about melting Arctic ice make dramatic headlines but the scientific truth is different President Obama just made a melodramatic appeal at the United Nations for global measures to dramatically curb what he called “the climate threat,” current euphemism for what is more popularly known as Global Warming, the theory that man-made CO2 emissions from cars, coal plants and other man-made sources are causing the earth to warm to the point the polar icecaps are irreversibly melting and threatening to flood a quarter or more of the earth’s surface. There’s only one thing wrong with Mr. Obama’s dramatic scenario: it is scientifically utterly wrong. Since 2007 the polar icecaps have been growing not melting and the earth has been cooling, not warming. If the fear of death from a fictitious Swine Flu were not enough, the scare stories on world media such as BBC or CNN, showing melting icebergs are dramatic enough to cause one sleepless nights. The Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon even made a recent appeal while standing on an Arctic ice-flow, claiming that man-made CO2 emissions were causing “100 billion tons” of polar ice to melt each year, so that in 30 years the Arctic would be “ice-free”. One organization, the WWF, claimed that the Arctic ice was melting so fast that in eighty years sea-levels would rise by 1.2 meters, creating “floods affecting a quarter of the world.” Wow! That’s scary. Goodbye Hamburg, New York, Amsterdam… The publicity stunt of Ban Ki-Moon was carefully orchestrated. It was not said that his ship could only come within 700 miles of the North Pole owing to frozen ice. Nor that he made his stunt in the summer when Arctic ice always melts before refreezing beginning September. The reality about Arctic ice is quite different. Although some 10 million square kilometres of sea-ice melts each summer, each September the Arctic starts to freeze again. The extent of the ice now is 500,000 sq km greater than it was this same time last year ­ which was, in turn, 500,000 sq km more than in September 2007, the lowest point recently recorded (see Cryosphere Today of the University of Illinois, http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ ). By next April, after months of darkness, it will be back up to 14 million sq km or likely more. As British science writer Christopher Booker remarks, “even if all that sea-ice were to melt, this would no more raise sea-levels than a cube of ice melting in a gin and tonic increases the volume of liquid in the glass.” Sunbeams from cucumbers? The current global warming propaganda scare is being hyped by politicians and special interests such as Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street financial firms that stand to reap billions trading new carbon credit financial futures. They are making an all-out effort to scare the world into a deal at the December Copenhagen Global Warming summit, the successor to the Kyoto agreement on CO2 emission reduction. It’s been estimated that the Global Warming bill supported by Barack Obama and his Wall Street patrons, passed by the House of Representatives but not by the more conservative US Senate, would cost US taxpayers some $10 trillion. In the UK, where Prime Minister Gordon Brown is fully on the global warming bandwagon, the BBC, the Royal Society are proposing wild schemes for “climate engineering,” including putting up mirrors in space to keep out the sun’s rays, or lining the highways with artificial trees to suck CO2 out of the air, to be taken away and buried in holes in the ground. Perhaps it would provide make-work for a few thousand Britons unemployed by the ravages of the recent financial collapse, but it would do nothing else than waste taxpayer money already stretched to the limits in bank bailouts. The entire farce has been compared to satirist Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver who meets a fictional character trying to extract sunbeams from cucumbers. A major new study published in the respected Journal of Geophysical Research of the American Geophysical Union, Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, by scientists J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas of the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland in New Zealand and R.M. Carter (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml), confirms that over the past fifty years, since 1950, fully 81% of tropical climate change can be linked to the Pacific weather phenomenon known as El Nino. And the remaining 19% they linked to increased solar radiation. No man made emissions played a role. Solar flares and not man-made CO2 emissions are the major factor influencing world climate El Ninos, termed by scientists El Nino Southern Oscillations or ENSOs, are believed by climatologists and astrophysicists to be related to eruptions in solar activity which occur periodically. Dr. Theodor Landscheidt of Canada’s Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, says ENSO is the “strongest source of natural variability in the global climate system. During the severe ENSO event 1982/1983, when the sea surface off Peru warmed by more than 7° C, it was discovered that there are strong links to weather in other regions as, for instance, floods in California and intensified drought in Africa.” Landscheidt adds, “El Niño and La Niña are subjected to external forcing by the sun’s varying activity to such a degree that it explains nearly all of ENSO’s irregularities and makes long-range forecasts beyond the 1-year limit possible. This is no mere theory. My forecasts of the last two El Niños turned out correct and that of the last one was made more than two years ahead of the event” (Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña, in http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm.). Even James Hansen, one of the outspoken protagonists of the Global Warming idea admits, “The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change…The natural forcing due to solar irradiance changes may play a larger role in long-term climate change than inferred from comparisons with general circulation models alone.” El Ninos are linked to floods, droughts and other weather disturbances in many regions of the world. In the Atlantic Ocean, effects lag behind those in the Pacific by 12 to 18 months. They tend to occur every three to eight years. La Ninas are the associated cooling phase of the Pacific Ocean cycles. According to the US National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration, in North America, El Niño creates warmer-than-average winters in the upper Midwest states and the Northeast. California and the southwestern US become significantly wetter, while the northern Gulf of Mexico states and northeast Mexico are wetter and cooler than average during the El Niño phase of the oscillation. In Asia and parts of Australia El Nino causes drier conditions, increasing bush fires. This sounds remarkably like what the Global Warming scare chorus claims is the result of manmade CI2 emissions or as they now slyly term it, “climate change.” Warmer 1000 years ago? In Sweden a new study (in published by Haakan Grudd of the University of Stockholm’s Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology confirms that the Arctic today is not warmer than in previous historical periods centuries ago before coal power plants or automobiles. Grudd’s study concludes that “The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around a.d. 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on a.d. 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data.” (H. Grudd, Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500­2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers, Climate Dynamics, Volume 31, Numbers 7-8 / December, 2008, in http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j71453650116753/ ?p=fcd6adbe04ff4cc29b7131b5184282eb&pi=0.) Put simply, the earth was warmer one thousand years ago than today. And there were no records of SUVs or coal plants belching CO2 into the atmosphere back then. The only problem with these serious scientific studies is that mainstream media entirely ignores them, preferring dramatic scare story scenarios such as Barack Obama presented in his UN speech or the UN’s Ban Ki-Moon in his staged Arctic ice drama. Strangely enough, none of the Global Warming proponents that I am aware of have tried to correlate ENSO activity with global temperature changes. Should we instead be proposing to outlaw El Ninos or forbid solar eruptions? It makes as much scientific sense as banning or capping CO2 emissions. Global Warming as a new religion is one thing, but we should be clear that the high priests are the same Gods of Money who brought us Peak Oil religion a few years ago and the current trillion dollar financial meltdown known as asset securitization. The reality is that Global Warming like Peak Oil and other scares are but another attempt by powerful vested interests to convince the world to sacrifice that they remain in control of the events of this planet. It’s a thinly veiled attempt to misuse climate to argue for a new Malthusian reduction of living standards for the majority of the world while a tiny elite gains more power.

Global Warming Or Global Freezing?

Former climate change negotiator for Bill Clinton and Democratic Senator Timothy Wirth admits that the cap and trade proposal is “out of control,” and makes no sense whatsoever.

Such a scornful rebuke from somebody who would normally be expected to vehemently support climate change legislation goes to show just how nightmarish the plans really are.

Read the full article here

P.S......

Now, according to the Wall Street Journal, the economists who invented the entire cap-and-trade concept say it probably won't work in regards to climate change.

Whatever you think about global warming, carbon trading is a scam which will only create a new profit-making machine and speculative bubble for Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and the rest of the boys who caused the financial crisis.

Even Top Climate Change Negotiator Admits Cap And Tax “Out Of Control”

Global Warming or Global Cooling? A New Trend in Climate Alarmism by Dr. David Evans
	Global Research, July 23, 2009
Senator Steve Fielding recently asked the [Australian] Climate Change Minister Penny Wong why human emissions can be blamed for global warming, given that air temperatures peaked in 1998 and began a cooling trend in 2002, while carbon dioxide levels have risen five per cent since 1998. I was one of the four independent scientists Fielding chose to accompany him to visit the Minister. The Minister's advisor essentially told us that short term trends in air temperatures are irrelevant, and to instead focus on the rapidly rising ocean heat content: Figure 1: Wong's graph. This is the new trend in climate alarmism. Previously the measure of global warming has always been air temperatures. But all the satellite data says air temperatures have been in a mild down trend starting 2002. The land thermometers preferred by the alarmists showed warming until 2006, but even they show a cooling trend developing since then. (Land thermometers cannot be trusted because, even in the USA, 89 per cent of them fail siting guidelines that they be more than 30 meters from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source, and their data is forever being "corrected".) Ocean temperatures were not properly measured until mid-2003, when the Argo network became operational. Before Argo, ocean temperatures were measured with bathythermographs (XBTs)—expendable probes fired into the water by a gun from ships along the main commercial shipping lanes. Geographical coverage of the world's oceans was poor, XBTs do not go as deep as Argo, and their data is much less accurate. The Argo network consists of over 3,000 small, drifting oceanic robot probes, floating around all of the world's oceans. Argo floats duck dive down to 1,000 meters or more, record temperatures, then come up and radio back the results. Figure 2: The Argo network has floats measuring temperature in all of the oceans. Figure 3: An Argo float descends to cruising depth, drifts for a few days, ascends while recording temperatures, then transmits data to satellites. The Argo data shows that the oceans have been in a slight cooling trend since at least late-2004, and possibly as far back as mid-2003 when the Argo network started: Figure 4: Ocean heat content from mid 2003 to early 2008, as measured by the Argo network, for 0-700 metres. There is seasonal fluctuation because the oceans are mainly in the southern hemisphere, but the trend can be judged from the highs and lows. (This shows the recalibrated data, after the data from certain instruments with a cool bias were removed. Initial Argo results showing strong cooling.) Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in charge of the Argo data, said in March 2008: "There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant". The ocean data that the alarmists are relying on to establish their warming trends is all pre-Argo, from XBTs. Now that we are measuring ocean temperatures properly, the warming trend has disappeared. And by coincidence, it disappeared just when we started measuring it properly! Notice how the Minister's graph above shows rising ocean heat content for 2004 through 2006, but the Argo data shows a cooling trend? There is a problem here. The Argo data is extraordinarily difficult to find on the Internet. There is no official or unofficial website showing the latest ocean temperature. Basically the only way to get the data is to ask Josh Willis (above). The graph above come from Craig Loehle, who got the data from Willis, analysed it, and put the results in a peer reviewed paper available on the Internet. Given the importance of the ocean temperatures, don't you think this is extraordinary? If the Argo data showed a warming trend, don't you suppose it would be publicised endlessly? So what's going on? Our best data, from satellites and Argo, says that both the air and oceans have not warmed for at least five years now. In the short term, some cooling force is overpowering the warming due to human emissions. Let's look at the long-term trend. The medieval warm period around AD 1000 - 1300 was a little warmer than now: crops grew in Greenland, and there were many signs around the world of extra warmth during that period. That gave way to the bitter cold of the little ice age from 1400 to 1800: animals in Europe died from cold even inside barns, and the River Thames in London would freeze over every winter (it last froze over in 1804). Global air temperatures have been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century since about 1750, as the world recovers from the little ice age: Figure 5: Reasonable global air temperature data only goes back to 1880. This analysis into a steady rising trend and oscillations is simply an empirical observation, by Dr Syun Akasofu. The IPCC predictions are their widely publicised 2001 predictions. On top of that trend are oscillations that last about 30 years in each direction: 1882 - 1910 Cooling 1910 - 1944 Warming 1944 - 1975 Cooling 1975 - 2001 Warming In 2009 we are where the green arrow points in Figure 5, with temperature levelling off and beginning to fall slightly. The pattern suggests that the world has entered a period of cooling until about 2030. The long-term trend suggests that the last warming period (1975-2001) was like the previous one (1910-1944), and that once the effects of the little ice age have finally passed, the temperature will get back to where it was in the medieval warm period (which is also where it was during the Roman Optimum, and in the Holocene optimum before that). What about human influence? Human emissions of CO2 were virtually non-existent before 1850, and were insignificant compared to current levels until after 1945. It is worth bearing in mind that there is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide was the main cause of recent warming—it's only an assumption, and the calculations of future temperature rises derive most of their warming from an assumed water vapor feedback for which there is only counter-evidence. Dr David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, building the carbon accounting model that Australia uses to track carbon in its biosphere for the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University.
Global Research Articles by David Evans

Global Warming or Global Cooling? A New Trend in Climate Alarmism

The cap and trade bill will be another nail in the coffin of independent free humanity. If USA goes down, which is certainly the agenda, there will be nothing to stop the world's decent into a global totalitarian dictatorship. This next article portends the death of the already dead housing market. Just another star in the constellation of tyranny.

Democrats’ Cap-and-Trade Bill Creates ‘Retrofit’ Policy for Homes and Businesses
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
By Matt Cover
original article here

(CNSNews.com) – The 1,400-page cap-and-trade legislation pushed through by House Democrats contains a new federal policy that residential, commercial, and government buildings be retrofitted to increase energy efficiency, leaving it up to the states to figure out exactly how to do that.

This means that homeowners, for example, could be required to retrofit their homes to meet federal “green” guidelines in order to sell their homes, if the cap-and-trade bill becomes law.

The bill, which now goes to the Senate, directs the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and implement a national policy for residential and commercial buildings. The purpose of such a strategy – known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) – would be to “facilitate” the retrofitting of existing buildings nationwide.

“The Administrator shall develop and implement, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for single-family and multi-family residences,” the bill reads.

It continues: “The purpose of the REEP program is to facilitate the retrofitting of existing buildings across the United States.”

The bill leaves the definition of a retrofit and the details of the REEP program up to the EPA. However, states are responsible for ensuring that the government’s plans are carried out, whatever the final details may entail.

“States shall maintain responsibility for meeting the standards and requirements of the REEP program,” the bill says.

States may contract with private agencies to oversee the retrofitting and measuring of improved efficiency and environmental friendliness of houses and other buildings, making sure that private citizens have a variety of choices for retrofitting their homes.

“States and local government entities may administer a REEP program in a manner that authorizes public or regulated investor-owned utilities, building auditors and inspectors, contractors, nonprofit organizations, for-profit companies, and other entities to perform audits and retrofit services,” reads the bill.

It further says, “A State or local administrator of a REEP program shall seek to ensure that sufficient qualified entities are available to support retrofit activities so that building owners have a competitive choice among qualified auditors, raters, contractors, and providers of services related to retrofits.”

In fact, individual homeowners are even allowed to retrofit buildings themselves. The bill gives specific protection to individual owners’ rights to choose who inspects and retrofits their property.

“Nothing in this section is intended to deny the right of a building owner to choose the specific providers of retrofit services to engage for a retrofit project in that owner’s building.”

Even though Congress says the states are responsible for carrying out the retrofits, the EPA and the Department of Energy will establish the guidelines and rules for doing so.

“The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall establish goals, guidelines, practices, and standards for accomplishing the purpose stated in subsection (c) [the retrofits],” the bill says.

The program would involve a system of certified auditors, inspectors, and raters who inspect homes and businesses using devices such as infrared cameras (which measure how much heat a building is giving off) to measure their energy efficiency.

The results of these energy audits would then be used to determine what retrofits need to be performed. The audits would examine things like water usage, infrared photography, and pressurized testing to determine the efficiency of door and window seals, and indoor air quality.

Those retrofits would be performed by licensed retrofit contractors using government-approved methods and resources including roofing materials that reflect solar energy.

“[B]uilding retrofits conducted pursuant to a REEP program utilize, especially in all air-conditioned buildings, roofing materials with high solar energy reflectance,” the legislation states.

After the retrofitting is complete, the government – state, local, or federal – will come back and re-inspect the house to determine how much energy has been saved and whether the retrofit is up to federal government standards.

“Determination of energy savings in a performance-based building retrofit program through — (A) for residential buildings, comparison of before and after retrofit scores,” the proposal states.

To help pay for the cost of these retrofits, states and localities may provide loans, utility rate rebates, tax rebates, or implement retrofit programs on their own. In fact, the government will even pay up to 50 percent of the cost of a retrofit through financial awards to individual home and building owners.

Another nail in the coffin

Banksters Love Cap-and-Trade: Economic collapse about to accelerate

In his latest C4L video, Dr. Paul discusses the House vote on Cap and Trade and reminds his colleagues that opposition to big government intervention should carry through to all acts against the Constitution.

Ron Paul trashes the cap and trade bill

Rep. Sensenbrenner on suppressed EPA report

Man made global warming?