United State of Goldman

The recent circus featuring democrats yelling at Goldman Sach's officials was politcal theater.  Goldman doesn't care.  

Greg found a site that collected data that reflected much of the information found on the hour show of Beck, the other day and I started to poke around, as well, but I only have one life to report on who actually runs the country and for whose benefit.  But first:

...The Financial Times reports that the cost of insuring Goldman's debt against default has increased by some 80% in the last two weeks. According to Markit, a 5-year credit default swap insuring $10m of Goldman debt currently costs around $162,000-a-year - more than it costs to purchase similar protection for Citi and Morgan Stanley.

• William C. Dudley, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; was a partner and managing director at Goldman
• Gary Gensler, Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; spent 18 years at Goldman
• Mark Patterson, Chief of Staff to Tim Geithner; former Goldman lobbyist
• Philip Murphy; nominated for ambassador to Germany; former Goldman executive
• Diana Farrell; Deputy Director of the National Economic Council; formerly with Goldman
• Emil Michael; White House fellow; former investment banker with Goldman

then there are other Goldman folks,

Hank Paulson, Robert Rubin (largest contributor to Obama's senatorial campaign, )Robert Altman, Gregory Craig, Thomas Donilon, William Dudley, Douglas Elmendorf, of there are about twenty more:  HERE

Michelle Malkin wrote a good article called "All the President’s Goldman Men" but she only listed the usual suspects like Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Rahm Emanuel, Gary Gensler and Mark Patterson.

So, yelling at the shifty CEO on TV who praises the need for conrol is a cruel joke.  Next on the list of crimnal activity is the insertion of "cap and trade."  Where do the ten trillion dollars worth of credits trade:


Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)

CCX is North America’s only voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas reduction and trading system for emission sources and offset projects.  The companies joining the exchange commit to reducing their aggregate emissions by 6% by 2010....

CCX is operated by the public company Climate Exchange PLC, which also owns the European Climate Exchange. (As I understand it, the PLC is also partly owned by Goldman)

CCX is 10% owned by Goldman Sachs and 10% owned by Generation Investment Management (GIM).




Al Gore and GIM – Generation Investment Management

...Al Gore is Chairman of GIM, and David Blood — previously chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management — is CEO.  The pair has given the company its nickname, “Blood and Gore.”...
GIM also owns a 2.98% stake in the Climate Exchange, which in turn owns the Chicago Climate Exchange (and has a larger 10% share in that). This gives Al Gore a financial bias towards promoting global warming control through the trading of carbon credits, one of Obama’s chief agenda items.

What else?

The Joyce Foundation and President Obama

President Barrack Hussein Obama was instrumental in funding the formation of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).  Before becoming a Senator, Obama was a Board Member of the Joyce Foundation, which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange…”

Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama’s top advisors, is still on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation.

It may be interesting to note that the Chicago Climate Exchange, in spite of its hype, is a veritable rat’s nest of cronyism. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs and  Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman.

The Joyce Foundation also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiatives....

----  Finally

 According to the Washington Examiner, Goldman Sachs in 2008 alone gave to Obama's campaign $415,595.63 inflation adjusted, which was itself almost three times as much as Bush received.


Signed, Sealed, Delivered.  Imagine if Bush participate in ONE of the above frauds.

The Obama/Gore/Goldman/Ayers con. Where is Rahm Emanuel?

This blog entry is via Irene. It would be easy to prove wrong.

Some highlights:

1. ...Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”


2.   Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, "... North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”... The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is the big cheese in the underworld of climate change and is one of the main architects of the failing Kyoto Protocol.


4.  Gore, self-proclaimed Patron Saint of the Environment, buys his carbon off-sets from himself–the Generation Investment Management LLP...  (IT trades this fantasy stuff)


5.   The largest shareholder in the [private] Exchange is Goldman Sachs.  Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman, The Joyce Foundation, which funded the Exchange also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiatives.  John is the brother of William Ayers.


Recall the hysteria when the VP Cheney wanted to keep his list of those who met with him about the energy business. He just met with them.  Just another double standard.

Obama, Maurice Strong, Al Gore key players cashing in on Chicago Climate Exchange

March 30, 2009 — Stefan Fobes

Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange–the rest of the story

3.25.09 / Judi McLeod / Canadian Free Press

Good news to know that the truth will always out–even when you’re Barack Obama.

“Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress” is a FOXNews story by Ed Barnes.  In short, “While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.”

The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”

And that’s only the beginning of this tawdry tale, Mr. Barnes.

The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong.

For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”

Gore, self-proclaimed Patron Saint of the Environment, buys his carbon off-sets from himself–the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner. The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Strong, the silent partner, is a man whose name often draws a blank on the Washington cocktail circuit.  Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of an Oil-for-Food beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the United States.  That’s because he spends most of his time in China where he he has been working to make the communist country the world’s next superpower.  The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is the big cheese in the underworld of climate change and is one of the main architects of the failing Kyoto Protocol.

Full credit for the expose on the business partnership of Strong and Gore in the cap-and-trade reduction scheme should go to the investigative acumen of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR).

The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of “An Inconvenient Truth” travelled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI).  MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste.  Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.

“Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day,” wrote EIR.  “First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm’s registered lobbyist, and Gore’s former top Senate aide.”

(Fast-forward to the present day and ask yourself why it is that every time someone picks up another Senate rock, another serpent comes slithering out).

“Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale.  The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers’ cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.

“With Al Gore’s Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal’s stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996.  But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding.  When in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers–including Maurice strong–sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value.  On Oct. 20, 1996–a Sunday–the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.

“On Monday, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share.  By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors.  Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder.  The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong’s role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.

In 1997, Strong went on to accept from Tongsun Park, who was found guilty of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, $1 million from Saddam Hussein, which was invested in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company he owned with his son, Fred.

These are the leaders in the Man-made Global Warming Movement, who three years later were to be funded by the man who was to become President of the United States of America.

If we follow the time line on where Obama was during the funding of the Chicago Climate Exchange, he was still a professor at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law, with his law license becoming inactive a year later in 2002.

It may be interesting to note that the Chicago Climate Exchange in spite of its hype, is a veritable rat’s nest of cronyism. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs.  Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman, The Joyce Foundation, which funded the Exchange also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiatives.  John is the brother of William Ayers.

What a flap when it was discovered that the senator from Chicago had nursed on Saul Alinsky’s milk, had his political career launched at a coffee party held by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and sat for 20 years, uncomplaining in front of the “God-dam-America pulpit of resentment-challenged Jeremiah Wright.

Folk were naturally outraged that the empty suit who would go on to become POTUS was spawned from such anti-American activism.

But the media should have been hollering, “Stop Thief!” instead.

The same Chicago Climate Exchange promoting public rip-off was funded by Obama before he was POTUS.

Even as man-made global warming is being exposed as a money-generating hoax, Obama is working feverishly to push the controversial cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme through Congress.

Obama was never the character he created for himself in the fairy-tale version in “Dreams of My Father”.  He’s the agent of Change and Hope for cohorts making money down at the Chicago Climate Exchange.

The Barbarians are pushing at the gate of the Global Warming fraud, and to borrow a line from children playing Hide and Seek, Here they come, ready or not!

Posted in Global Warming Scam. Tags: al gore, barack obama, cap and trade, climate change, global warming, maurice strong, news,obama. 7 Comments »

The Avalanche Begins

You can't be surprised.  

Below is an excerpt of an article you could read over in 20 seconds, as you have heard it all before, here.  If you want the Senate minority report.  Hit Here.   Thanks Rod.

I explained long, long ago that scientists careers depend on credibility. As the preposterous "warming" assumptions are revealed to the common person to be silly, reputable scientists will have to jump to pointing out the Emperor is not wearing clothing, even in the face of University or government threats. 

The left had its government-university-media complex at work funding the fear of the end of the world, as a political tactic to gain control and money, but they had to know its life span was limited, so look for the next crises, or are we in it? Wasn't it Saul Alinski, the Columbia radical whose group hired a young Obama, who said you can take control by creating constant turmoil, i.e. fear? 

On the other hand, our dull grammar and high school teachers will be repeating their unions' mantra even after their deaths. So, a new generation of non-critical, scientific illiterates will cause problems for decades. Really, all you have to do to destroy the United States is get control of the public school machine. How can a parent express doubt about a law of nature espoused by the "teacher?"  Most parents were produced by those same "teachers."

The scientists who were highly dedicated and actually studying subjects related to the planet never signed on to the hysteria and a few were adamant that they never agreed with our mysterious UN "scientists" who voted on a principle of nature, even though the UN reports named them as signing on.

Anyway, the arctic will be gone in four years, the Gore warning being issued a year ago.  So, there will be a reduction in global shipping, especially if we use sails. I sure hope the warming doesn't continue to heat Mars.

Today's fact:  Henry Paulson (Goldman Sachs) helped Gore start the carbon credit business. 

I think I am too late to sell credits in wind turbines.  I hope not, what a brilliant scam.  The wind turbine project lost its three funding institutions, so only the Farm bureau still has funds to lose, er disperse.  Failing that, I will be soliciting credit investment from you. After all, we will need wind power, once the nuclear plants and coal mines are shut down by the elected out patients.

Things are not looking good, so don't feel smart. The crowd has formed, extinguishing individual thought and work, so put peanut butter in the basement and gold in the yard. It is that bad. 

When I lived in Canada, not so long ago, a popular book came out that I may replicate here: Take The Money and Run

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
December 10, 2008

Posted by Marc Morano – 9:36 AM ET - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV
UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'

'No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise'

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…

A hint of what the upcoming report contains:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico....

Gee, we forgot to include the sun in those really clever miscalculations.

Why I Do Buy the Economist

The sky isn't falling, but prophets still intrigue us. They can be dolts, no reference to Mr. Gore intended, but the mere fact something new is happening gets the attention of the helots and eloi, especially if it predicts the end of the miserable world they inhabit.

The problem with prophets, over history, is their true believers eventually turn on them. One has to careful about over-expansiveness and drinking one's own Kool Aid.

Only in the last year or so, are experts in climate, complex system analysis, and paleoclimatology putting up their professional markers distancing themselves from the IPPC view of the world. They need to distance themselves from the IPPC while not jeopardizing their grants and jobs.

Serious researchers, while in need of current money from the politically correct, are aware their good work may be dismissed as amusing by the next generation of scientists. Recall, the in-crowd today dismisses the science/NYT/Time Magazine of 1976 which stated - "Holy Crap, the Ice Age Is Coming!"

Below is a report from the Economist on the IPPC and Gore''s recent Nobel Prize. Note there is actually reporting of facts, unlike U.S. TV which forgot to mention the IPPC in their filtered view of the world. The facts are placed in a perspective that would be subjective of course, but the Economist is a magazine. Still, its editorializing is far less subjective than the NYT front page. Its "voice" is more of a bemused literary publication than a left or right propoganda machine.
===============================

The Nobel Peace Prize

Peace man

Oct 12th 2007
From Economist.com

Al Gore and the IPPC win it

AFP

IF THE Nobel Peace Prize were awarded for making the world a more peaceful place, then this year’s winners—Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—would be a bizarre choice. But two out of the previous three peace prizes went to people and organisations who had nothing to do with peace. The 2004 winner was Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan woman who plants trees, and the 2006 winners were Mohammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank, a Bangladeshi microcredit institution. (In 2005, in a radical departure from recent practice, the prize did actually go to a person and an organisation whose work has been designed to reduce the likelihood of global conflict—Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency.)

Evidently the committee has decided to redefine the award as the Nobel Prize for Making the World a Better Place in Some Unspecified Way. In that case, Al Gore and the IPCC seem pretty good—though controversial—choices. The IPCC has put together scientific knowledge on the subject in a form comprehensible to policymakers; Mr Gore has pushed the policymakers to take action.

Set up under the auspices of the UN to establish a scientific consensus on climate change, the IPCC has produced vast reports on the current state of knowledge on the subject every four years or so. Its latest came out earlier this year. Unlike Mr Gore, it has not struggled to make its work palatable to the masses. Its conclusions are therefore tentative, representative of the huge uncertainty inevitable in the study of a mechanism as complex as the climate. Its estimate for temperature change, for instance, ranges from a 1.1ºC rise to a 6.4ºC rise by the end of this century.

Even so, the IPCC has come in for some stick. Some scientists claim that sceptics about global warming get frozen out of the process. Some accuse it of alarmism. A prediction that warming would lead to the spread of malaria, for instance, was widely criticised on the grounds that malaria is correlated more closely with development than with temperature (it is present, for instance, in parts of central Asia, but not in the southern states of America).

Still, it would be surprising if a body studying such a vast and complex area did not get some things wrong. And, by and large, the IPCC does what it was supposed to do: it provides a robust scientific basis for politicians to get on with policymaking.

Mr Gore has been pushing them to do just that. The “former next president of the United States”, as he calls himself, tried to get America to ratify the Kyoto protocol to control greenhouse-gas emissions while he was Bill Clinton’s vice-president. Mr Clinton signed the protocol, but the Senate opposed the idea of America agreeing to a treaty that didn’t include controls on developing-country emissions, so it was never ratified.

After an agonisingly tight finish in the 2000 election, which he lost by a few Floridian hanging chads, Mr Gore refused to disappear into the political wilderness. Instead, he prowled the country in the guise of an Old Testament prophet with audio-visual aids, warning of the dangers of climate change. His slick, entertaining presentation was eventually made into a film, “An Inconvenient Truth”. That film, bizarrely for what was in effect a slide-show with lots of charts, did well at the box office and won two Oscars (although one was for a song).

Mr Gore has his detractors. His film is propaganda rather than documentary. A British judge this week ruled that it should not be shown to schoolchildren without a health warning, because there were several claims in it that were wrong: the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica are not, for instance, expected to melt “in the near future”, but in millennia. Nevertheless, America is now generally expected to accept in some form the controls on emissions that it rejected when it turned down Kyoto, and Mr Gore has been instrumental in getting it there.

Confused Conga

Not much to report today. Busy with my virtual reality.

I did hear Mr. Gore tell Congress that 4 times in the last 15 years 100% of all scientists in the world signed off on his thesis that humans, not cows, are causing global warming. (It did reach the 40's when Mr. Gore flew in on his private jet.) That was OK, no one expects him to delve into facts or apply logic. Don't have to when you have true believers.


As to the nation's virtual reality, this photo says it all:


America, the land of the inDUHvidual.

I may disagree with what the man's sign, but will defend to the death his right to special education.

Bush's Ranch - Model Green Home

You have heard about Al Gore's utility bill. The idea behind the bill jibe is "Holy Hypocrite" Batman, which may be interesting character evidence to be used when judging his message, but it is still not a rejection of the message. Ad hominem attacks should be avoided or, at least, kept to a side bar.

I suppose most people would be surprised a bit about Gore since we don't teach in school his family made its money in the Tea Pot Dome scandal and VP Gore rewarded Occidental Petroleum with the $100/acre Dome land diversion.

If you missed the utility dig, here is a teaser:

Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- $30,000 utility bill

ABCNews">

(2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. Etc etc etc.

[Tenn. has one of the lowest electrical rates in the US, thanks to the TVA- Ed]

OK, True Believers will think their Bishop is allowed to light his cathedral because, after all, he is bringing religion to the world. After all, Kerry has his private jet and SUVs. The demi-gods don't have to do what they say. Just like the Communist Party in Russia had big limos driving special lanes in Moscow and fancy dachas in the country.

Perhaps, but check out the following, thanks to Irene, my major news service. Notice the article is from April, 2001, so it is not recent spin.

Chicago Tribune

Bush loves ecology --at home

April 29, 2001

By Rob Sullivan. Rob Sullivan is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.

Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford

According to David Heymann, the house's architect and associate dean of the University of Texas architecture department, Heymann designed the house so that "every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that's different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place."

In a USA Today interview, Heymann said, "There's a great grove of oak trees to the west that protects it from the late afternoon sun. Then there is a view out to the north looking at hills, and to the east out over a lake, and the view to the south . . . out to beautiful hills."

OK, one for the Bush side. He is a guy who quietly has gone off-grid. You would think his personal enemies would give him a little credit. It doesn't look like it, after I visited a few links following a Google search on "Bush's ranch heat sink."

Get this, one article called President Bush a hypocrite! This one has me scratching my head. the theory seems to be he had the green ranch built that way because he knew from his evil friends that oil would be unaffordable.

Another venomous writer said Bush probably had an architect design the place. What? First of all, its true, as the architect is often quoted, but what does the writer mean? If you hire someone to build an off-grid home with a heat sink, you are still evil because you didn't follow plans from Mother Earth magazine? I guess it is supposed to mean Bush is so stupid he had to hire a superb expert to build his green ranch, using the money he earned from putting together a consortium to by the Texas Rangers. That dope.

A long piece by "Off-Grid" opened piece, I put the link above, with all manner of canards about the evil Bush and throughout the article gets in its slug fest, but buried deep:

“By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small,” says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. “Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses.”
The narrow porch stretches across the back and ends of the house. At one end, it widens into a covered patio off the living room.

The Bush ranch is the kind of place we’d all like to live. Too bad his environmental policies are moving the rest of the country in exactly the opposite direction.

So, now you know the rest of the story.

J'accuse Homme (not Home)

Just a few years ago, during global warming, I had a plastic pipe split in the Rube Goldberg plumbing system of the Vermont house. (I once spent a day mapping the system, trying to identify unknown pipes.) Lost in the flood was a Scientific American magazine, back when it read like science, not first person travelogues. The 1970's cover image and story: OH MY GOD GLOBAL COOLING!



Well, I exaggerate on the headline, but that was the theme. I kept the magazine to be my exemplar of how lemmings run off the cliff. Or, was that chicken littles? Now we have the UN taking a vote on aspects of climate change to prove a political point - we need billions more to stamp out human activity. I never heard of a scientific axiom being proved by a vote. How democratic. The first sign of stupidity is judging the messenger instead of the message.

Indeed, I no longer take anyone's ideas seriously that are based upon a listing of others who say the same thing. If someone says 800 scientists agree with me within the first three minutes, they have nothing to add; they have properly identified their true believer status.

TIME Magazine, that bastion of (politically) correct reporting had a piece in a June 24, 1974 piece, Another Ice Age?, where a sad, familiar rhetoric could be found:

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F....

I hope you sense the same ignorant rant in the language and approach to science. This could have been written by Al Gore's doppelganger. Of course, you may feel that because of the proven fact of evolution, today's scientists are more evolved than those of the era when people used to read and think, so when UN "experts" vote on establishing a scientific principal, they know what they are doing.

Contrast this: in April 2001, TIME had a 16 page section on OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE BURNED TO DEATH. There was a frying pan on the cover. (OK, I made up the name of the section.) Apparently, TIME does not use TIME as a source. Good fact checking, at least.

In a recent article by Climatologist Tim Ball, I was reminded of the 1970's. Doctor Ball quoted:

"It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

Good thing the UN didn't vote on that one, we would all be under glaciers.

As you will see, if you read the article, Dr. Ball dismisses the causality of human activity after working through what seems to be half a century of work in climatology, being the first PhD in Canada in that field, the degree from University of London. He explains how academics are highly defensive, which non-academics already know, and that the J'accuse homme (I just made this up) element of this discourse is purely political, driven by the color of money. (If that is crappy French, please advise. I voted on it being correct, but it may not be.)

He indicated the Canadian government brags about spending $3 billion CAD on the issue. The money was spent where? Public relations - media. The media that pushes the issue.

Anyway, you can read the musing of an expert in the field at your leisure. I do wish to quote, however:

Another cry in the wilderness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

Just another right wing crack-pot.


fn: When I tell you who has opinions that are contrary to consensus, its not the same things as me disregarding others who tell me who holds their consensus opinion. When I figure out the difference, I will let you know.