Archive for January, 2012

Let Speaker Boehner Know that
Agenda 21 is a Real Threat!

Concerned Americans,

I have some astounding – exciting news to report to you.

After 18 years of fighting, APC’s efforts to stop the UN’s Agenda 21 has just received an amazing boost!

Because the Republican National Committee (RNC) just UNANIMOUSLY passed a resolution opposing Agenda 21!

That means that our fight is no longer hidden from the main stream of the American political debate.

It means no longer can our opponents succeed in labeling us “fringe conspiracy nuts” as they have tried so hard to do.

One of the two main political parties in the United States of America – the Republican Party – just said Agenda 21 is a treat to our freedom!

This is a huge victory. And it is energizing our activists across the nation.

It means we can now use this resolution as a weapon against Agenda 21. It means Republican elected officials, from Congress on down to your city councilmen will be much more willing to listen to our protests.

But, of course, the battle is far from over.

You and I must use this new weapon effectively. We must demand that Republicans at every level be pressured to support the platform of their party.

That’s why it’s urgent that you sign the enclosed Petition to Speaker of the House John Boehner urging him to oppose any Agenda 21 legislation that comes before the House of Representatives.

The petition includes the exact language used in the RNC resolution.

Speaker Boehner is the highest elected Republican office holder in America. He leads all policy decisions that come before the House.

He is the man who can block Sustainable Development grants, comprehensive development schemes, energy controls, and federal land grabs – all part of Agenda 21.

For the past year APC has been gaining success in waging battles against Agenda 21 in city councils and county commissions, helping more than 54 communities to end their memberships with the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). And we’ve started to have some success in state legislatures as well.

Now for the first time we have the opportunity to take the battle to Congress because the Republican Party – on a national level – has taken this action to officially oppose Agenda 21.

It is now our duty to take up this courageous action by the Republican National Committee and use it to apply pressure on Congress.

So please, today, right now, sign your petition to Speaker Boehner and it will be instantly emailed to him.

Every Republican office holder in the nation must be made to toe the party line – starting with Speaker Boehner!

Your signed petition is the first step. Sign your petition here.

And please, as you send your signed petition please also include your most generous contribution to the American Policy Center. APC is the recognized leader in the nation in the fight to stop Agenda 21.

I must have your continued financial support to win this battle for American liberty. Without your support I can do nothing.

Every dollar counts. If you want to make a contribution that makes a difference then your dollars to APC is your best investment.

APC is scoring victories in a battle they said we could never win!

So please sign your petition to Speaker Boehner and make a contribution to APC today.

I’ve never been more energized or more convinced that we will win. Your support is making this possible.

Sign your petition to Speaker Boehner by clicking here

Thank you!

Tom DeWeese

P.S. The best way you can help APC financially is to pledge a monthly contribution of $10 or $15 or more. That gives me a guarantee of income and helps me through the lean months. And it helps me plan our battles. Whatever you can send is vital to our efforts. Thanks so much for your loyal support. Click here to make a donation.


Read Full Post »

We, Mayors of the World, coming from 35 cities in 30 countries and representing all continents gathered in Bonn, Germany, convened by World Mayors Council on Climate Change together with our partners at the Resilient Cities 2011: 2nd World Congress on Cities and Adaptation to Climate Change, are dedicated to confirm our commitment to globally coordinated local climate action.

Thereby, We, Mayors of the World, 


 That recent disasters which hit in particular Pakistan, Australia, United States, Canada, Brazil, and Japan, since our last meeting in Bonn in June 2010 remind us that resilience to disasters is of critical importance. Moreover, climate change is likely to exacerbate the intensity and frequency of many disasters, with a disproportionate amount of the associated impacts affecting the urban poor and vulnerable in developed and developing countries. As such, appropriate measures need to be urgently implemented at the local, subnational, national, regional and international levels to build local adaptive capacity for all types of disasters, including those likely to be exacerbated by climate change


 The Global Cities Covenant on Climate Change -the ‘Mexico City Pact’ and its reporting mechanism –the carbon Cities Climate Registry, key outcomes of the World Mayors Summit on Climate in Mexico City on 21 November 2010, as successful implementation of the proposals contained in the 2010 Bonn Declaration of Mayors and acknowledging the African Mayors Climate Change Declaration adopted in Cape Town, South Africa in March 2011 as providing important regional support to this global process.


The 2011 UN-HABITAT Report on Cities and Climate Change, the outcomes of the Mayor´s Task Force on Urban Poverty and Climate Change, the First Assessment Report on Cities and Climate Change (ARC3) and the IPCC Expert Meeting on Human Settlements in Kolkata, India, on 22-24March 2011, with a view that the outcomes of all these efforts should be appropriately fed into IPCC 5thAssessment Report and other relevant scientific and global studies in order to reflect the needs and opportunities for immediate climate action at the local level.

Building upon 

The achievements of ‘Making Cities Resilient’ Campaign launched in Bonn in May 2010, under the leadership of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

Fully supporting

Decision X/22at of the 10thConference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its annex -The Plan of Action on Sub-National Governments, Cities and Local Authorities on Biodiversity, which further strengthens Decision IX/28,with a view that UN Climate negotiations should be inspired by such ambitious and innovative decisions.


Opportunities presented by the Cancun Agreements, in particular para.7 of Decision1/CP16 that designates local governments as ‘governmental stakeholders’, introducing city wide approaches on CDM, the launch of the Green Climate Fund for long-term finance and the Cancun Adaptation Framework. 

 We, Mayors of the World, declare the following Action Points:

Regarding adaptation and urban resilience: 

1. Considering the fact that over the next 40 years, particularly in the cities of the Global South, we will have to urgently build the same level of urban capacity that we built over the last 4000 years, efforts on urban resilience and adaptation should shift from a singular, special purpose focus on specific climate-affected infrastructure and locations towards a more integrated focus on overall risks, development conditions, and local area performance.

2. Future urban development should be assessed in terms of its contribution to improved urban resilience.

3. We recognize that the impacts of climate change will most severely affect vulnerable groupswithin our cities, and commit to pursuing strategies for social, economic,cultural and environmental development that will reduce the vulnerability of all citizens.

4. We recognise that ecosystem based adaptation offers a cost-effective and sustainable approach to adaptation that can improve human wellbeing, particularly of vulnerable groups, in the cities of the Global South.

5. We recognise the need for financial institutions to fund locally relevant and appropriate development, rather than conventional global financing mechanisms determining which local projects are eligible for funding. As such, we take note of ICLEI’s Global Report: Financing the Resilient City presented at Resilient Cities 2011 and underline the three essential bottom-up features for building adaptive capacities for resilient communities and cities;

a. Local planning processes for identifying vulnerabilities and risks,

b. Local technical and institutional capacity for designing comprehensive   adaptation and resilience upgrading projects;

c. Local procurement of investment through managed, competitive sourcing mechanisms and processes.

6. We further encourage efforts to advocate for the implementation of the below findings of the Report at the local, subnational, national and international level, supported via additional appropriate joint initiatives with business and civil society partners;

a. Mainstreaming new adaptation and resilience standards into conventional urban development projects, similar to recent ‘green building’ standards that have been mainstreamed into urban development and construction over the last decade.

b. Developing specialized financial instruments for comprehensive local adaptation and resilience upgrading projects in urban areas and systems known to be highly vulnerable.

c. Building additional local institutional capacity to prepare, structure and manage large scale redevelopment;

Regarding UN Climate Negotiations: 

7. We urge the UNFCCC delegates to commence relevant processes for the full implementation of para.7 of the Decision1/CP16 that designates local governments as ‘governmental stakeholders’ both at the UNFCCC level and within the negotiations related to international environmental governance, with a view to reach an effective and efficient global environmental system.

8. We encourage national delegations to include local government representation where appropriate.

9. We propose that sustainable and resilient urban development that prioritises climate change adaptation, poverty alleviation and improved human well-being should be defined as a thematic window in the design of the Green Climate Fund under the UNFCCC.

 Regarding further collaborative actions: 

10. We encourage all local governments to further engage in decentralized and city-to-city cooperation in order to advance adaptation actions.

11. We encourage our international networks and in particular ICLEI and UCLG to work closely together maximising the engagement of local governments in the global environmental governance system. We encourage local governments to join the Making Cities Resilient campaign. We further invite interested partners and stakeholders to consider their support in building an alliance that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the Resilient Cities Congress as the global forum for learning, cooperation and networking on all aspects of urban resilience and adaptation to climate change.

12. We call upon national governments, multilateral institutions, and civil society stakeholders to recognize the value of the Global Cities Covenant on Climate -“the Mexico City Pact” and the carbon Cities Climate Registry, which has191signatory cities as of today, representing around 300 million citizens, as the global response by local governments to the call for measurable, reportable, verifiable climate action and access to global climate funds. 

13. In preparation for COP 17 in Durban, South Africa, in December 2011, we commit to support the pre-COP conference to be hosted by Durban and its partners, aimed at raising the international profile of adaptation as an urgent priority for the cities of the world, in particular those of the Global South, where high levels of poverty and underdevelopment put vulnerable populations and infrastructure at immediate and severe risk, thereby hindering progress towards achieving global development objectives. On the eve/during COP17in December 2011, in Durban, we will further communicate outcomes of this pre-COP conference at the Conference of Signatories to the Mexico City Pact, with a view to strengthening adaptation actions alongside those of mitigation.


Read Full Post »



The revolution continues worldwide!

Forum Post: California Democrats Wake Up!! They are Exposing Agenda 21!!

Mind Boggling!! The proof for Agenda 21 is now glaringly public, no-one can deny it now. This is the reason people are being kicked out of their houses and off their land. This is how arrogant the elite are. They believe they have the divine right to make these decisions over us and that they “own” the world because they can trace their lineage back thousands of years. Don’t believe it? Keep reading. Rosa Koire video is good. This is taken from another blog here;


California Democrats Wake Up!! They are Exposing Agenda 21!!

Posted By: Rayelan Date: Monday, 23-Jan-2012 10:37:26 Subject: Patriot Alert! This is the smoking gun!!! I found the REAL govt issued Wildlands map for California!!

I was googling as usual and stumbled across this document. It shows map after map of how the state of California will be carved up and connected to provide wildlife corridors all over the state. One of the lead agencies funding this is Caltrans. If you read the document you will see that all of the MPOs (Metropolitan Planning Organizations) will be using this map as part of their transportation planning. Dr. Michael Coffman was right! The biodiversity map he drew was no myth. A good map to look at is page 13 if you don’t want to read all of it.

Here is a 313 page doc about the mapping of all the wildlife corridors in California will be done. It lists all regions with maps of all currently owned public land and how they plan on taking the rest of our land. Have you guys seen this? There is absolutely no mention of compensation or regard for private property rights! Unbelievable.


Please distribute this far and wide!!!!

I recommend you find your own state map if you live in another state. Google wildlands habitat connectivity map “ add your state name”. That should do it.

Heather Gass DRE # 01478987 Better Homes and Gardens | Mason-McDuffie Tel: 925-932-4555 email: heather.gass@bhghome.com Website: http://www.bhghome.com/gasshomes

Rosa Koire – Speaks out on U.N. Agenda 21, The Agenda for the 21st Century At a meeting in Rio Vista California on 11/30/11

Uploaded on Dec 8, 2011 Watch the video on you tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwBZjP062aU

Watch the video on Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/33249202

ROSA KOIRE, ASA is a forensic commercial real estate appraiser specializing in eminent domain valuation. Her nearly thirty years of experience analyzing land use and property value enabled her to recognize the planning revolution sweeping across the nation.

UN Agenda 21 is a worldwide plan to undermine US national sovereignty as a constitutional republic and replace it with global and UN control through a one-world government. Hijacking the environmental movement, this plan is currently being carried out locally in US cities, counties and states through the guise of “sustainable development” and environmental “green” stewardship.

This includes efforts to facilitate, through manufactured consensus, high density urban populations while limiting rural living options, private property rights, and individual freedoms and privacy. Our representative republic is being transformed into a socialist state, where instead of being governed by elected officials, we will be governed by un-elected, appointed commissioners.

The Green Mask must be drawn back—far back from the personalities; the little dictators running trusts, foundations, planning departments, city and town councils, provinces and states, non-governmental foundations and the like.

You are in the midst of the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world. The pretty pastel version of life in a Smart Growth development is a manipulation, a mask. In fact these plans are designed to restrict your freedom.

Awareness is the first step in the resistance.

Get Rosa’s book Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21

Visit: http://www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com http://www.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org 


Read Full Post »


Consensus Consulting will hold citizen focus group discussions on the upcoming Johnson County budget. Focus groups will be organized by JOCO Commission district. Each district will have a date for the focus group to meet and answer questions on what’s important for the county budget.

The dates for focus groups are: Dist. 1- Wednesday, February 15; Dist. 2- Thursday, February 9; Dist. 3- Thursday, March 1; Dist. 4- Monday, February 13; Dist. 5- Monday, March 12; Dist. 6- Wednesday, February 8. Meetings will be from 6 – 8 pm at a central location in each district to be announced. Your county commission district is included on your voter registration card, or you can go to the county web site for information. http://www.jocogov.org/ or http://www.jocoelection.org/.

To register and reserve your seat, contact Jennifer Wilding by e-mail at: jenwilding@consensuskc.org or call 816-531-5078. Participants must be 18 years of age.


(And then there is this pesky email also sent out January 23 but only to Consensus KC members)

Focus groups gives Johnson County residents a voice on budget priorities

If you are a Johnson County resident, the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners would like to invite you to dinner and a focus group of residents in your district. As a result of a challenging economy, commissioners are facing some hard choices related to balancing the budget and they want to know what residents think. They have hired Consensus to conduct focus groups to find out.

At the focus group, you would complete an online budget simulator and then work with other residents to discuss the results. Only a dozen people from each district can be included in each focus group, and we are seeking a mix of people who roughly reflect each district. To be eligible to participate, neither you nor a member of your immediate family can be employed by Johnson County government and you must be at least 18 years of age. 

You do not need to be an expert in the Johnson County budget. We won’t be asking you technical questions. Instead, we’ll be interested in how you made your decisions and what mattered most to you when you considered different choices. We’re looking forward to a lively, honest discussion.

To RSVP, contact Jennifer Wilding at jenwilding@consensuskc.org or 816.531.5078. With so few spaces available, they are sure to go quickly so please get in touch soon.

 Not a Johnson County resident? Forward this invitation to a friend or colleague who is.


After spending some hours searching through Johnson County documents to determine the history of this action, I finally submitted a KORA (Kansas Open Records Act) request at 12:01 am Wednesday January 25 and received the requested information at 5:13 pm January 27. Here is what we found.

During an unrecorded and undocumented discussion occuring at a “Retreat”  (exempt from Kansas Open Meeting Act) on November 10, 2011 Agenda11-10-2011 Commissioner Peterson (from the SPAR Committee) submitted two documents  2011GeneralGovernmentSPARAgenda & CitizenEngagementProposedProcess10-20-11. Following an undocumented 30 minute discussion, the County Manager was directed to solicit a Consensus KC agreement for the purpose to receive focus group input in drafting the 2013 County Budget.

Without a vote and in the absence of an official County meeting, the County Manager signed an agreement on December 16, 2011 with Consensus KC for $11,495 ConsensusKCAgreement2011

Look at this agreement. The questions asked and the interpretation of the responses, is at the sole discretion of Consensus KC. Twelve focus groups will be evaluated, six (one for each District) above the voting age of 18 and six more conducted in schools for those under the voting age of 18.



For almost 20 years after its founding in 1984, Consensus functioned very much like a traditional nonprofit. Then, in 2003, Consensus chose a new path. We were influenced by new trends in nonprofit leadership that focused on entrepre¬neurialism and earned income, and by increased competition for a shrinking pool of operating funds.

Consensus took two actions that set it apart from most other nonprofits. It developed a business plan for earned income and it became a “virtual” organization, with an active working board, no office space and staff members who work on contract. Both decisions have increased the organization’s flexibility, cost-effectiveness and profile while maintaining its focus on the mission of putting the public in public policy.

Consensus continues to rely on philanthropic funding for civic projects such as KC Forums and policy studies, which we augment through earned income. From 2004-2007, Consensus received philanthropic funding from the following sources:

American Academy of Family Physicians
Applebee’s International
Bank of America
Center for the City at UMKC, with funding provided by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
Greater Kansas City Community Foundation
Guy I Bromley Charitable Trust
Hall Family Foundation
Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City
Johnson County Library- Since when is this legal?
Kansas City Public Library
KCPT Public Television
Kettering Foundation
MacNeil/Lehrer Productions
Mid-America Regional Council
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Shughart Thomson & Kilroy
William T. Kemper Foundation



  1.  Although the “Home Rule Charter Commission” recently confirmed that Johnson County politics shall remain “non-partisan”, our Commissioners have paid the County Democratic Party to draft the 2013 Budget.
  2. On January 27 and with the delivery of KORA documents above, additional sources such as area Chambers advertised these ‘focus groups’ (four days after JoCoDems).  Nice try boys.
  3. In November 2011 our Commissioners paid another ‘focus group’ organization (Clarion) to develop a “vision” for The County costing $194,658.
  4. Look up The Hegelian Principle.
  5. Call and sign up.  
“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Anyone Who Threatens It”
Ken Dunwoody                                                                        GOD
Henpecked Acres                                                                      
One Nation
14850 W. 159th St.
Olathe, Ks. 66062
kdunwoody2@aol.com http://NOlathe.net http://NOjocoboco.net
View Sarah’s Story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUWuUvOZ7RY http://vimeo.com/23038312

Read Full Post »

Variations in Earth’s orbit (Milankovitch cycles)

The Milankovitch cycles are a set of cyclic variations in characteristics of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Each cycle has a different length, so at some times their effects reinforce each other and at other times they (partially) cancel each other.

Past and future of daily average insolation at top of the atmosphere on the day of the summer solstice, at 65 N latitude.

There is strong evidence that the Milankovitch cycles affect the occurrence of glacial and interglacial periods within an ice age. The present ice ages are the most studied and best understood, particularly the last 400,000 years, since this is the period covered by ice cores that record atmospheric composition and proxies for temperature and ice volume. Within this period, the match of glacial/interglacial frequencies to the Milanković orbital forcing periods is so close that orbital forcing is generally accepted. The combined effects of the changing distance to the Sun, the precession of the Earth’s axis, and the changing tilt of the Earth’s axis redistribute the sunlight received by the Earth. Of particular importance are changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis, which affect the intensity of seasons. For example, the amount of solar influx in July at 65 degrees north latitude varies by as much as 25% (from 450 W/m² to 550 W/m²). It is widely believed that ice sheets advance when summers become too cool to melt all of the accumulated snowfall from the previous winter. Some workers believe that the strength of the orbital forcing is too small to trigger glaciations, but feedback mechanisms like CO2 may explain this mismatch.

While Milankovitch forcing predicts that cyclic changes in the Earth’s orbital elements can be expressed in the glaciation record, additional explanations are necessary to explain which cycles are observed to be most important in the timing of glacial–interglacial periods. In particular, during the last 800,000 years, the dominant period of glacial–interglacial oscillation has been 100,000 years, which corresponds to changes in Earth’s orbital eccentricity and orbital inclination. Yet this is by far the weakest of the three frequencies predicted by Milankovitch. During the period 3.0–0.8 million years ago, the dominant pattern of glaciation corresponded to the 41,000-year period of changes in Earth’s obliquity (tilt of the axis). The reasons for dominance of one frequency versus another are poorly understood and an active area of current research, but the answer probably relates to some form of resonance in the Earth’s climate system.

The “traditional” Milankovitch explanation struggles to explain the dominance of the 100,000-year cycle over the last 8 cycles. Richard A. Muller, Gordon J. F. MacDonald,[49][50][51] and others have pointed out that those calculations are for a two-dimensional orbit of Earth but the three-dimensional orbit also has a 100,000-year cycle of orbital inclination. They proposed that these variations in orbital inclination lead to variations in insolation, as the Earth moves in and out of known dust bands in the solar system. Although this is a different mechanism to the traditional view, the “predicted” periods over the last 400,000 years are nearly the same. The Muller and MacDonald theory, in turn, has been challenged by Jose Antonio Rial.[52]

Another worker, William Ruddiman, has suggested a model that explains the 100,000-year cycle by the modulating effect of eccentricity (weak 100,000-year cycle) on precession (26,000-year cycle) combined with greenhouse gas feedbacks in the 41,000- and 26,000-year cycles. Yet another theory has been advanced by Peter Huybers who argued that the 41,000-year cycle has always been dominant, but that the Earth has entered a mode of climate behavior where only the second or third cycle triggers an ice age. This would imply that the 100,000-year periodicity is really an illusion created by averaging together cycles lasting 80,000 and 120,000 years.[53] This theory is consistent with a simple empirical multi-state model proposed by Didier Paillard.[54] Paillard suggests that the late Pleistocene glacial cycles can be seen as jumps between three quasi-stable climate states. The jumps are induced by the orbital forcing, while in the early Pleistocene the 41,000-year glacial cycles resulted from jumps between only two climate states. A dynamical model explaining this behavior was proposed by Peter Ditlevsen.[55][56] This is in support of the suggestion that the late Pleistocene glacial cycles are not due to the weak 100,000-year eccentricity cycle, but a non-linear response to mainly the 41,000-year obliquity cycle.


Read Full Post »

  • JANUARY 27, 2012

No Need to Panic About Global Warming

There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.

Editor’s Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.


Read Full Post »

While working on my computer, one of a handful of TV channels will be on.  The two screens compete for my attention.  Thank goodness that today’s designated channel was The History Channel.  A GREAT one hour presentation on plants that produce more ethanol than corn.

At the top of the list was “Switch Grass” producing 2 to 4 times more ethanol per acre than corn, requires no herbicides/pesticides and grows naturally in the mid-west.  Humm.  Looked up “Switch Grass” and it’s part of the “Tall Grass” family.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicum_virgatum  Native to Kansas.

My friends (both of them) will tell you if asked, that I am very inhibited and rarely speak in public.  But I recall saying some years ago that diverting corn from food to fuel would cause food prices to go up.  I also predicted that farmers would plow under wheat to plant corn. Food prices went up even more.

Looked up the ethanol claim http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn , it was accurate and sponsored by the Federal Government.

So why is Kansas Governor Brownback (under the guise of ‘Flint Hills’ tourism) now asking Kansas property owners  to voluntarily surrender their property rights so that Kansas State Government can plant “Switch Grass” that the Federal Government will eventually control through the Grants?  https://nolathe.net/2012/01/24/kansas-republican-governor-brownback-shifts-support-from-perry-to-obama/

I do not believe our Governor is ill meaning and I believe in his heart the intentions are honorable.  As a U.S. Senator maybe he was in D.C. too long.  Those close to him need to slap the back of his head, like I just saw on NCIS, love that show!

“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Anyone Who Threatens It”
Ken Dunwoody                                                                      GOD
Henpecked Acres                                                                   
One Nation
14850 W. 159th St.
Olathe, Ks. 66062
kdunwoody2@aol.com http://NOlathe.net http://NOjocoboco.net
View Sarah’s Story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUWuUvOZ7RY http://vimeo.com/23038312

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »