***Obama/EPA declares Carbon a threat to national security/public stability

[Dig]

EPA Poised to Declare CO2 a Public Danger
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126003232518778287.html
By IAN TALLEY

WASHINGTON--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter.

Such an "endangerment" decision is necessary for the EPA to move ahead early next year with new emission standards for cars. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said it could also mean large emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants would have to curb their greenhouse gas output.

The announcement would also give President Barack Obama and his climate envoy negotiating leverage at a global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen, Denmark and increase pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill that would modify the price of polluting.

While environmentalists celebrate EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it has caused many large emitters to cringe at the potential costs of compliance.

According to a preliminary endangerment finding published in April, EPA scientists fear that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming of the global climate. Senior EPA officials said in November the agency would likely make a final decision in December around the time of the summit.

Joe Mendelson, Global Warming Policy Director for National Wildlife Federation, said the endangerment decision, would happen at "absolutely the right time."

"With House legislation passed, a bipartisan Senate bill in the works, and strong EPA action a virtual certainty, the president goes to Copenhagen with a very strong hand to play," Mr. Mendelson said.

The EPA declaration would also ratchet up the pressure on U.S. lawmakers to pass legislation that analysts say would cut emissions in a more economically efficient way. Although the House has passed a climate bill, movement of similar legislation in the Senate has faced much more resistance and passage becomes more difficult in an election year.

The EPA's Ms. Jackson and President Obama's energy and climate czar Carol Browner have said they would prefer Congress to take action but are prepared to move ahead in the absence of lawmakers crafting their own law.

Industry experts say the Clean Air Act--under which the EPA is making its endangerment finding--was designed to regulate more regional and localized air pollution, and would be a much more blunt tool than Congress could craft. Critics, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the endangerment declaration could spark a cascade of litigation and regulation that could harm the economy.

The EPA, meanwhile, says it would regulate in a sensible way. The agency has already moved forward on two rules that would guide regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions, primarily through a proposal to set the threshold level at 25,000 tons a year and requiring such large emitters to report their emissions.

If the EPA decided to move ahead with emission regulations for stationary sources such as utilities, new rules would likely be in place by 2012 and could set stringent emission standards to require firms to install the best available technology.

Two people close to the matter who met with White House officials earlier this week said one change between the proposed endangerment finding issued earlier this year and the final announcement expected next week is the inclusion of the potential cost to society of no emission regulations.

[Dig]

Who Will Stand Up Against the Coming Global Climate Tyranny?
http://www.infowars.com/who-will-stand-up-against-the-coming-global-climate-tyranny/
Adam Murdock, M.D.
Infowars
December 6, 2009

This week, President Obama and the leaders of the world are to meet to determine the fate of humanity. This meeting, to be held in Copenhagen, has as its’ mission to bind the nations of the world under a climatocracy, or rather a climate regulatory scheme devised and operated by bureaucrats and elitists. The members of this climatocracy will profit while the rest of humanity will sink into darkness. There will be nowhere to hide; no oasis to be found in the desert. Indeed, after the discussions have concluded will our freedoms also be concluded? Will humanity be plunged into a global tyranny governed by a state of climate fear or will we be able to stop them before it is too late? There have never been greater stakes for the freedom of mankind.   
      
Al Gore and Maurice Strong have used the cloak of pseudo climate science as their veil.   

Over the past couple decades globalists like Al Gore and Maurice Strong have used the cloak of pseudo climate science as their veil. Now that ‘climategate’ has removed the curtain and shone the light on the slithering cockroaches within the backrooms of climate cookbookery, there is no longer any debate about the science. The only thing that now exists is laid bare before our eyes – a deliberate attempt to subjugate the people of the earth to global governance under the guise of science.

As the newly ‘elected’ EU President Von Rompuy puts it:

“2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”

This goal as stated by the EU President was made prior to the recent revelations about the padding of the climate data by key climate scientists. Yet, what has been the response of the very leaders now proceeding on with the conference? Have they toned down their rhetoric or better yet admitted the charade that the conference represents? Unfortunately, they have done the exact opposite. They have continued their relentless course toward the “global management” of our planet as if nothing has happened. It is as if they are willing to deny that the sun is shining at noonday when it is clearly visible. I can fathom no other reason for these leaders to do this, unless climate change is not really the goal but only a means to an end. Now that their desired end is so close it appears that they are not about to let some emails or real science get in the way of global progress.


It appears that although the fraud has been revealed, the deck may have been stacked against humanity. Indeed, the stacked deck may have already been dealt. My only hope is that the clock has not already struck midnight on our freedoms.

Now is the time to make your collective voices heard. Once the treaties have been signed and freedom has been lost there will be very little we can do to rescind such agreements. Call your local, state, and federal representatives wherever you live. Do it for your children, do it for your country, do it for your freedom to live and breathe as you see fit.

A life of regret will not make up for inaction at this time. Let us hold up a flag of liberty to everyone around us and rally them to the cause of freedom at this crucial moment in our history.

[Dig]

Former UNEP-Chieftain and Bilderberger Admitted to “International Consensus” on Population Policy
http://www.infowars.com/former-unep-chieftain-and-bilderberger-admitted-to-international-consensus-on-population-policy/
Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
December 6, 2009

Klaus Töpfer, 1996 Bilderberg attendee and former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) admitted in 2000 that there is an “international consensus” on worldwide population control. During a speech given in Berlin in the beginning of the new millennium, Töpfer stated:   
   
   
   Klaus Töpfer, 1996 Bilderberg attendee and former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
   


“Most people and policymakers are unaware that there is an international consensus that grounds population policy in human rights and development, emphasizing building the capacities of women to manage their own lives.”

Here Töpfer admits not only that there is an international consensus to ground population policy in the concepts of “human rights and development”, but also that most people and policymakers are unaware of this consensus.

Töpfer should know. He visited a Bilderberg meeting back in 1989, organized in La Toja, Spain and the Bilderberg conference held near Toronto, Canada, from May 30 to June 2 1996. Besides being a Bilderberger and former UNEP-chieftain, Klaus Töpfer is also a member of the Club of Rome. In 2004 he contributed to the Club’s publication ‘Sustainability Creates New Prosperity: Basis for a New World Order, New Economics and Environmental Protection’.

In his speech in 2000, Töpfer stresses the point:


“Policymakers rarely contemplate long time periods and connections between disparate sets of issues, especially controversial ones. Nonetheless, at the dawn of the new century the world faces a host of environmental and security risks strongly connected to the growing size of human population and the growing affluence of some, but not all, of that population.”

Ominously, the Executive Director appeared to manifest a crystal ball:

“Future changes in global population will contribute significantly to the need for such integrated, long-term approaches to environmental problems.”

On another occasion, the Executive Director of UNEP called for the creation of a new global religion:

“We have to develop the ecological, holistic wold view which connects us with the rest of Nature- both materially and spiritually. Religious traditions emphasize this connection. Our task should be to retrieve these basic symbols and doctrines within each tradition and translate them into clear prescription for public policy and behavior.”

This statement about the “international consensus” reaffirms that which we already know, namely that the global elite have their noses pointed in the same direction when it comes to the world’s human inhabitants and the “need” to curb their numbers.

[Dig]

SPP documents attained by freedom of information requests: http://stopspp.com/stopspp/?page_id=11

[Nailer]

great info Sane. so  if obammy does not get his way at copenhagen  he has a back up plan with the EPA to ruin America.

[Dig]

the EPA was set up  to go after the corporations, their superfund has been a problem for industrial polluters for a long time. but the EPA is now a public relations arm of the New World Order. after 9/11 they fixed the numbers to say the air was safe to breath when it most definitely was not. now they are saying humans are a threat to the planet because we are carbon based..

[Nailer]

being  carbon based  my mom always said i was a diamond in the rough, hahaha

[Dig]

Pat Buchanan just on Morning Joe: "What the emails show is 100% proof that climate change is man made. It was made up by these men!"

[TheHouseMan]

This.... is..... madness.

[Evey]

If it wasn't for carbon, this planet would not exist as it does today.  Life would not exist here.  This is a tax on human existence. 

[Lisbeth]

Just heard on TV

[Lisbeth]

Obama to make announcement later today.  Obviously proof that the US is now living under a dictatorship - Congress is irrelevant!

[Lisbeth]

Official Annoucement at 6.30pm UK time.

[larsonstdoc]

  We are living in the the most evil country in the world.  Bob Chapman says the average person in America will see at least a 20% increase in TAXES (if you have a job) if CAP AND SLAVE is enacted.  It is the Obama Deception. 

[Paul-w]

http://cbs11tv.com/national/epa.greenhouse.gas.2.1354352.html

WASHINGTON (AP) ― The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people's health and must be regulated, signaling that the Obama administration is prepared to contain global warming without congressional action if necessary.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson scheduled a news conference for later Monday to announce the so-called endangerment finding, officials told The Associated Press, speaking privately because the announcement had not been made.

The finding is timed to boost the administration's arguments at an international climate conference - beginning this week - that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation.

Under a Supreme Court ruling, the so-called endangerment finding is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from power plants, factories and automobiles under the federal Clean Air Act.

The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had declined to aggressively pursue the issue.

Business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the regulatory process of the Clean Air Act. Any such regulations are likely to spawn lawsuits and lengthy legal fights.

The EPA and the White House have said regulations on greenhouse gases will not be imminent even after an endangerment finding, saying that the administration would prefer that Congress act to limit such pollution through an economy-wide cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Nevertheless, the EPA has begun the early stages of developing permit requirements on carbon dioxide pollution from large emitters such as power plants. The administration also has said it will require automobile fuel economy to increase to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2016, another push to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The EPA's readiness to tackle climate change is expected to give a boost to U.S. arguments at the climate conference opening in Copenhagen this week that the United States is making broad commitments to reduce greenhouse gases.

While the House has approved climate legislation that would cut emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and about 80 percent by mid-century, the Senate has yet to take up the measure amid strong Republican opposition and reluctance by some centrist Democrats.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of the Senate bill, has argued that if Congress doesn't act, the EPA will require greenhouse gas emissions. He has called EPA regulation a "blunt instrument" that would pose a bigger problem for industry than legislation crafted to mitigate some of the costs of shifting away from carbon emitting fossil fuels.

The way was opened for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to cut climate-changing emissions by the Supreme Court in 2007, when the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Act. But the court said the EPA must determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it can regulate them.

[Paul-w]

You have got to be kidding me! I am so sick of this crap. I am so sick of this huge takeover they are trying to push and trying to impoverish the United States for the soul purpose of taking us down.

This is sickening! There's no proof of anything and this is nothing more than an agenda by the elites to line their pocket books even thicker!

I am f**king pissed off at this stupid shit and I cannot believe we are going to sit back and take this anymore. WOW. Just wow.

[agentbluescreen]

Kewl  Gold can start going back up again...

[larsonstdoc]

You have got to be kidding me! I am so sick of this crap. I am so sick of this huge takeover they are trying to push and trying to impoverish the United States for the soul purpose of taking us down.

This is sickening! There's no proof of anything and this is nothing more than an agenda by the elites to line their pocket books even thicker!

I am f**king pissed off at this stupid shit and I cannot believe we are going to sit back and take this anymore. WOW. Just wow.

  Agreed.  This will be the end of any sanity.  It is all by design.  It is time to get the pitchforks!!

         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLrrBs8JBQo

[kushfiend]

i just don't get these commie green bastards that are supposed to be MY countrymen!!! Every day in class I'd hear about green this and green that.  Don't these dumbf**ks realize that all they are going to do is make me pay $300-$400 for an electric bill??  Not to mention that the price of energy costs going up EFFECTS EVERYTHING FROM THE FOOD WE ALL EAT TO THE CARS WE DRIVE

Every single person who attended Copenhagen should be locked up and thrown in a dark dungeon.  They are openly announcing slavery again.  CLIMATE GATE IS BEING BRUSHED ASIDE IN THE MSM!  I SEE IT EVERY DAY MORE AND MORE, FOCUS ONLY ON THE "HACKERS" NOT WHAT THE EMAILS SAID!

I've even seen these sold out bastards on the news try to write off the emails, saying it's not so much a "trick" as a scientific algorythim or some bullshit!!  OMFG HOW MUCH EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED TO CONVICT SOMEONE??

1. NOT COMPLYING WITH F.O.I.A. REQUESTS!

2. BURYING/DELETING SCIENTIFIC DATA!

3. CONSPIRING TO MAKE SURE CONTRADICTORY VIEWS WENT UNPUBLISHED IN ANY SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL!

4. ALTERING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF DATA

and what happens after CLIMATEGATE breaks?  EAST ANGLIA deletes all of their data from the 60's on.  Wow.  just f**king wowwww!!!!!!!1

IS THERE NO JUSTICE?

[Flynn]

A Complete List Of Things Supposedly
Caused By Global Warming


Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated,  Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, African summer frost, aggressive weeds, air pressure changes,  airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaska reshaped, moves,  allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end,  amphibians breeding earlier (or not),  anaphylactic reactions to bee stings,  ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk,   anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Arctic warming (not), Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty,   atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased,  Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water,  bananas grow, barbarisation, beer shortage, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000,  better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird loss accelerating, bird strikes, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds decline (Wales), birds driven north, birds return early, bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blackbirds threatened, Black Hawk down,  blood contaminated, blue mussels return, bluetongue, brain eating amoebae, brains shrink, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain one big city, Britain Siberian,  brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened,  building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks,  butterflies move north, camel deaths,  cancer deaths in England, cannibalism,  caterpillar biomass shift, cave paintings threatened,  childhood insomnia, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest,  cloud increase,  coast beauty spots lost, cockroach migration,  coffee threatened, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), cold wave (India), computer models, conferences, conflict, conflict with Russia,  consumers foot the bill, coral bleaching, coral fish suffer, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , coral reefs twilight,   cost of trillions, cougar attacks, crabgrass menace,  cradle of civilisation threatened, creatures move uphill, crime increase, crocodile sex, crops devastated, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, curriculum change,  cyclones (Australia),   danger to kid's health, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague,  death rate increase (US), deaths to reach 6 million, Dengue hemorrhagic fever, depression, desert advance,  desert retreat,  destruction of the environment,  disappearance of coastal cities, disasters, diseases move north, dog disease, Dolomites collapse, dozen deadly diseases, drought,   ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, early marriages, early spring,  earlier pollen season,  Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down,  Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, earth upside down,  earthquakes, earthquakes redux, El Niño intensification, end of the world as we know it, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis,  English villages lost, equality threatened, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing,  eutrophication, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups,  extinctions (human, civilisation,  logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds,  pikas, polar bears,   possums,  walrus,   toads,  plants, salmon, trout,  wild flowers, woodlice,  a million species, half of all animal and plant species, mountain species,  not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches, salamanders, tropical insects) experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage, fainting,  famine, farmers benefit, farmers go under, farm output boost,  fashion disaster, fever, figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fish bigger, fish catches drop, fish downsize,  fish catches rise, fish deaf, fish get lost, fish head north, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flames stoked, flesh eating disease, flood patterns change, floods,  floods of beaches and cities, flood of migrants, flood preparation for crisis, Florida economic decline, flowers in peril, food poisoning, food prices rise, food prices soar, food security threat (SA), football team migration,  footpath erosion, forest decline,  forest expansion, frog with extra heads, frostbite, frost damage increased,  frosts, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, geese decline in Hampshire, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, giant oysters invade,  giant pythons invade, giant squid migrate, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat,   glacial growth, glacier grows (California), glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds,  golf course to drown, golf Masters wrecked, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop,  great tits cope, greening of the North,  Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, haggis threatened, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome,  harmful algae,  harvest increase,  harvest shrinkage,  hay fever epidemic, health affected, health of children harmed,  health risks, heart disease,  heart attacks and strokes (Australia),  heat waves, hibernation affected,   hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, HIV epidemic, homeless 50 million, hornets, high court debates, human development faces unprecedented reversal, human fertility reduced,  human health risk, human race oblivion, hurricanes,  hurricane reduction, hurricanes fewer, hurricanes not,  hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice age, ice sheet growth,  ice sheet shrinkage, icebergs,  illness and death, inclement weather, India drowning, infrastructure failure (Canada),  industry threatened, infectious diseases,  inflation in China, insect explosion, insurance premium rises, Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, invasion of cats,  invasion of crabgrass, invasion of herons, invasion of jellyfish, invasion of king crabs, invasion of midges,  island disappears, islands sinking, itchier poison ivy, jellyfish explosion, jets fall from sky, jet stream drifts north, Kew Gardens taxed, kidney stones, killer cornflakes, killing us, kitten boom, koalas under threat, krill decline, lake and stream productivity decline, lake empties, lake shrinking and growing, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful,  lawyers' income increased (surprise surprise!),  lawyers want more, legionnaires' surge,  lives saved, Loch Ness monster dead, locust plagues suppressed, lush growth in rain forests,   Malaria,   mammoth dung melt, mango harvest fails, Maple production advanced, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, Meaching (end of the world), Mediterranean rises, megacryometeors, Melanoma, Melanoma decline, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, methane runaway, melting permafrost, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration, migration difficult (birds), migratory birds huge losses, microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, minorities hit, monkeys on the move, Mont Blanc grows, monuments imperiled, moose dying, more bad air days,   more research needed, mortality increased, mountain (Everest) shrinking,  mountaineers fears,  mountains break up, mountains green and flowering,   mountains taller, mortality lower,  Myanmar cyclone, narwhals at risk, National security implications, native wildlife overwhelmed, natural disasters  quadruple, new islands, next ice age, NFL threatened, Nile delta damaged, noctilucent clouds, no effect in India, Northwest Passage opened, nuclear plants bloom, oaks dying,  oaks move north,  ocean acidification, ocean acidification faster, ocean dead zones unleashed, ocean deserts expand, ocean waves speed up, oceans noisier, opera house to be destroyed, outdoor hockey threatened,   ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, Pacific dead zone, penguin chicks frozen, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, phenology shifts,  plankton blooms, plankton destabilised,  plants lose protein, plants march north, plants move uphill,  polar bears aggressive,  polar bears cannibalistic, polar bears deaf,   polar bears drowning,   polar bears eating themselves,   polar tours scrapped, popcorn rise, porpoise astray, profits collapse, prostitution, psychiatric illness,   puffin decline,  radars taken out, railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rape wave, refugees,  reindeer endangered, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rice threatened, rice yields crash,  rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war,   river flow impacted, rivers raised, roads wear out, robins rampant,   rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, rooftop bars, Ross river disease,  ruins ruined,  Russia under pressure, salinity reduction, salinity increase,  Salmonella,  satellites accelerate, school closures, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, seals mating more, sewer bills rise, severe thunderstorms, sex change, sexual promiscuity, shark attacks, sharks booming, sharks moving north, sheep shrink, shop closures, short-nosed dogs endangered,  shrinking ponds, shrinking shrine, ski resorts threatened, skin cancer, slow death, smaller brains, smog,  snowfall increase, snowfall heavy,   soaring food prices, societal collapse, soil change, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, space problem, spectacular orchids, spiders invade Scotland, squid aggressive giants, squid population explosion, squid tamed, squirrels reproduce earlier, stingray invasion, storms wetter, stormwater drains stressed, street crime to increase, subsidence, suicide, swordfish in the Baltic, Tabasco tragedy, taxes, tectonic plate movement, teenage drinking, terrorism, threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tigers eat people, tomatoes rot, tornado outbreak, tourism increase, trade barriers, trade winds weakened, traffic jams,  transportation threatened, tree foliage increase (UK),   tree growth slowed, trees in trouble, trees less colourful,  trees more colourful, trees lush, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, truffle shortage, truffles down, turtles crash, turtle feminised, turtles lay earlier, UFO sightings, UK coastal impact, UK Katrina, uprooted - 6 million, Vampire moths, Venice flooded, violin decline, volcanic eruptions,  walrus pups orphaned,  walrus stampede, war, war between US and Canada, wars over water, wars sparked, wars threaten billions, wasps, water bills double, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry, Western aid cancelled out,  West Nile fever, whales lose weight, whales move north, whales wiped out, wheat yields crushed in Australia,  wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced,  wine - harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California),  wine industry disaster (US),  wine - more English, wine -  England too hot, wine -German boon, wine - no more French ,  wine passé (Napa), wine stronger, winters in Britain colder, winter in Britain dead, witchcraft executions, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World at war, World War 4, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, World in flames, Yellow fever.

and all on 0.006 deg C per year!

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

When i got the above from Rivero, i took it as a joke, but after listening to him the other day,
seems they indeed have pushed this Bovine Excriment.

[Nailer]

Sane the EPA  made the front page news on  MSN



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34311724/ns/us_news-environment

EPA: Greenhouse gases are harmful to humans
Announcement comes as Obama prepares to attend climate conference

The Obama administration has announced that rather than wait for Congress to act, it has authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to move forward on enacting new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions emitted from hundreds of power plants and large industrial facilities.

Environmental Protection Agency's Lisa Jackson talks about the steps the agency is taking towards regulating greenhouses gases. Watch her entire statement.
msnbc tv



updated 7 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency took a major step Monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the environment.

The announcement came as the Obama administration looked to boost its arguments at an international climate conference that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation. The conference opened Monday in Copenhagen.

The EPA said that the scientific evidence surrounding climate change clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be regulated under the Clean Air Act

"These long-overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at news conference.

The action by the EPA, which has been anticipated for months, clearly was timed to add to the momentum toward some sort of agreement on climate change at the Copenhagen conference and try to push Congress to approve climate legislation.

"This is a clear message to Copenhagen of the Obama administration's commitments to address global climate change," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of a climate bill before the Senate. "The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving."

Obama planned to talk with former Vice President Al Gore at the White House on Monday as the president prepares for his appearance on Dec. 18 at the climate summit in Copenhagen. Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work toward combating climate change.

Obama is also meeting on Wednesday with environmental leaders and U.S. business leaders to discuss climate change.

Under a Supreme Court ruling, the finding of endangerment is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from power plants, factories and automobiles under the federal Clean Air Act.


The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had declined to aggressively pursue the issue.

Business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the Clean Air Act, saying it is less flexible and more costly than the cap-and-trade bill being considered before Congress. On Monday, some of those groups questioned the timing of the EPA's announcement, calling it political.

"The implications of today's action by EPA are far-reaching ... individual Americans and consumers and businesses alike will be dramatically affected by this decision," said Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association. Drevna, in a statement, said "it is hardly the time to risk the remainder of the U.S. industrial sector in an attempt to achieve a short-term international public relations victory."

Waiting for Congress to act
Any regulations are also likely to spawn lawsuits and lengthy legal fights.

The EPA and the White House have said regulations on greenhouse gases will not be imminent even after an endangerment finding, saying that the administration would prefer that Congress act to limit such pollution through an economy-wide cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Nevertheless, the EPA has begun the early stages of developing permit requirements on carbon dioxide pollution from large emitters such as power plants. The administration also has said it will require automobile fuel economy to increase to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2016, another push to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The EPA's readiness to tackle climate change is expected to give a boost to U.S. arguments at the climate conference opening in Copenhagen this week that the United States is making broad commitments to reduce greenhouse gases.

While the House has approved climate legislation that would cut emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and about 80 percent by mid-century, the Senate has yet to take up the measure amid strong Republican opposition and reluctance by some centrist Democrats.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of the Senate bill, has argued that if Congress doesn't act, the EPA will require greenhouse gas emissions. He has called EPA regulation a "blunt instrument" that would pose a bigger problem for industry than legislation crafted to mitigate some of the costs of shifting away from carbon emitting fossil fuels.

The way was opened for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to cut climate-changing emissions by the Supreme Court in 2007, when the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Act. But the court said the EPA must determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it can regulate them.

[larsonstdoc]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126013960013179181.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStoriesBy JEFFREY BALL and CHARLES FORELLE

Officials gather in Copenhagen this week for an international climate summit, but business leaders are focusing even more on Washington, where the Obama administration is expected as early as Monday to formally declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant.

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

Many business groups are opposed to EPA efforts to curb a gas as ubiquitous as carbon dioxide.

An EPA endangerment finding "could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project," U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said in a statement. "The devil will be in the details, and we look forward to working with the government to ensure we don't stifle our economic recovery," he said, noting that the group supports federal legislation.





EPA action won't do much to combat climate change, and "is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy," said the National Association of Manufacturers, a trade group that stands as a proxy for U.S. industry.

Dan Riedinger, spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, a power-industry trade group, said the EPA would be less likely than Congress to come up with an "economywide approach" to regulating emissions. The power industry prefers such an approach because it would spread the burden of emission cuts to other industries as well.

Electricity generation, transportation and industry represent the three largest sources of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions.

An EPA spokeswoman declined to comment Sunday on when the agency might finalize its proposed endangerment finding. Congressional Republicans have called on the EPA to withdraw it, saying recently disclosed emails written by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia and their peers call into question the scientific rationale for regulation.

The spokeswoman said that the EPA is confident the basis for its decision will be "very strong," and that when it is published, "we invite the public to review the extensive scientific analysis informing" the decision.

EPA action would give President Barack Obama something to show leaders from other nations when he attends the Copenhagen conference on Dec. 18 and tries to persuade them that the U.S. is serious about cutting its contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions.


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

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

"There is no agreement without money," says Rosário Bento Pais, a top climate negotiator for the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm. "That is clear."

An endangerment finding would allow the EPA to use the federal Clean Air Act to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions, which are produced whenever fossil fuel is burned. Under that law, the EPA could require emitters of as little as 250 tons of carbon dioxide per year to install new technology to curb their emissions starting as soon as 2012.


The EPA has said it will only require permits from big emitters -- facilities that put out 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. But that effort to tailor the regulations to avoid slamming small businesses with new costs is expected to be challenged in court.

Legislators are aware that polls show the public appetite for action that would raise energy prices to protect the environment has fallen precipitously amid the recession.

Congressional legislation also faces plenty of U.S. industry opposition. Under the legislation, which has been passed by the House but is now stuck in the Senate, the federal government would set a cap on the amount of greenhouse gas the economy could emit every year. The government would distribute a set number of emission permits to various industries. Companies that wanted to be able to emit more than their quota could buy extra permits from those that had figured out how to emit less.

Proponents of the cap-and-trade approach say emission-permit trading will encourage industries to find the least-expensive ways to curb greenhouse-gas output. But opponents say it will saddle key industries with high costs not borne by rivals in China or India, and potentially cost the U.S. jobs.


The oil industry has warned that climate legislation could force some U.S. refineries to shut down, because importing gasoline from countries without emission caps could be cheaper than making the gasoline on domestic soil.

Legislators "have decided that coal and electric users don't bear the burden" of emissions constraints for many years, said John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, an industry group. "Early in the program, oil users are the ones who are hammered."

The Iron and Steel Institute, which represents more than 75% of steel made in the U.S., said that successful climate policy -- whether through the EPA or Congress -- must "reduce emissions without altering the competitiveness of American steelmakers."

Journal CommunityDISCUSS
“Only those who stand to benefit financially by denying the impacts and even existence of global warming are the ones still denying it. However the evidence to the contrary is far too convincing. ”
— James Briggs
The issue of how curbing emissions would affect jobs in developed countries is likely to erupt in Copenhagen in the battle over how much rich countries should pony up for cleaner technologies in developing nations.

Estimates of the cost for reducing emissions in developing countries vary widely, but the European Commission said in September that the bill could reach $150 billion annually by 2020. Leaders of the EU's 27 nations have said only that the EU would pay its "fair share" of the total, without committing to an amount.

Yet EU industry lobbies are weighing in against that proposal. It is "not realistic," said Axel Eggert, spokesman for Eurofer, the trade group for European steelmakers. Steelmakers want to "make sure that the financing is not a subsidy for our competitors," he said.

-- Ian Talley and Stephen Power contributed to this article.

[endof]

UPDATE:

President Barack Obama has taken powers to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars, factories and power plants across the United States.

The news dramatically improves the prospects of reaching a new agreement to combat global warming at the climate summit which opened in Copenhagen on Monday.

His administration formally declared that the gases "endanger the public health and welfare of the America people" empowering its Environment Protection Agency to regulate them across the country under the country's Clean Air Act, without having to get a hotly-contested climate bill through the US Congress.
 
Related Articles

    *
      Copenhagen climate summit: World Cup goes green

Lisa Jackson, the agency's administrator, said the move "relied on decades of sound, peer-reviewed, extensively evaluated scientific data" which both "authorised and obligated" it to take reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

She called it "a reasonable and common-sense measure" that would "drive technology innovation for a better economy and protect the environment for a better future without placing an undue burden" on business.

She added: "It also means that we arrive at the climate talks in Copenhagen with a clear demonstration of our commitment to facing this global challenge. We hope that today's announcement serves as another incentive for far-reaching accords"

But Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said that regulations under the Act would pose "a threat to every American family and business".

Late last month President Obama announced that the US was ready to cut emissions by 17 per cent on 2005 levels, boosting the prospects for agreement in Copenhagen. But until now that has been dependent on getting a bill through Congress.

A version of the bill was approved by the House of Representatives last summer, but the administration is struggling to get similar legislation through the Senate in the face of opposition from Republicans and some dissident Democrats from states with big oil, coal and car industries.

The new ruling gives Mr Obama the firepower to meet the target anyway. It also makes it much more likely that he will get the bill through Congress as the House bill would take away the agency's powers to regulate the gases and substitute a more flexible system which industry would greatly prefer.

It will also greatly improve the chances of getting a deal in Copenhagen, since other countries will now know that the US can deliver on any undertakings it makes there.

But Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UN climate change negotiations, said that any agreement made in the Danish capital could still be a “suicide pact” for small low-lying island states that will disappear if sea levels rise. He added that the current target of the negotiations – to limit global warming to 2C (3.6F) – would also still result in floods, droughts and sea level rise.

“What the small island nations are telling us here is anything over 1.5 C increase will be a suicide pact for them because it means their nations disappearing,” he said.

On the opening day of negotiations in Copenhagen, Mr Boer said the threat to such vulnerable countries made it even more important to reach a deal.

“The clock has ticked down to zero. After two years of negotiations, the time has come to deliver,” he said. “Developing countries desperately need tangible immediate action on these crucial issues.”

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Committee on Climate Change, also said vulnerable people will suffer if temperatures rise by even a small amount.

“Some even question the goal of 2C as a ceiling because that would lead to sea level rise on account of thermal expansion alone of 0.4 to 1.4 metres,” he said. “This increase added to the effect melting of snow and ice across the globe, could submerge several small island states and Bangladesh.”

Speaking on behalf of the small island states Dessima Williams, the chief negotiator for Grenada, said the group would not accept a “made for TV” solution.

She called for a legal treaty that would commit rich countries to cutting their carbon emissions by between 25 to 40 per cent.

“We are here to save ourselves from burning and drowning,” she said. “We are here to work towards an ambitious outcome.”

Other vulnerable countries like Nepal and Bangladesh also claimed that 2C will leave millions of people homeless and called on the rich world to provide money to help them adapt as part of any deal.

Achim Steiner, the head of the UN Environment Programme, agreed 2C will put many parts of the world in danger.

He said the world may need to meet again to push for an even tougher target in the future.

“Maybe in three or four year’s time, as the science firms up we may have to accelerate forward and increase the target to keep the world safe,” he said.

But Connie Hedegaard, the president of the negotiations, was optimistic the world will reach a deal that prevents the worst effects of global warming.

She said rich countries are willing to sign up to ambitious targets to cut carbon at the same time as giving poor countries billions of pounds to adapt.

“Let’s mark this meeting in history. Let’s open the door to the low carbon age. Let’s get it done now,” she said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6755201/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Barack-Obama-given-power-to-cut-greenhouse-gases.html


"People of Springfield, heed this warning! Twisted tail! A thousand eyes! Trapped forever! EPA! EPA!

[Dig]

"People of Springfield, heed this warning! Twisted tail! A thousand eyes! Trapped forever! EPA! EPA!"

[Dig]

AMERICA WAKES UP TO THE CLIMATE SCAM

THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX

THE COMPLETE FRAUD

THE GLOBAL CORPORATE ELITE LIES


EPA makes historic climate declaration as American opinion shifts
http://rawstory.com/2009/12/epa-historic-climate-declaration-american-opinion-shifts/
By Stephen C. Webster
Monday, December 7th, 2009 -- 7:59 pm

In a historic declaration, the Environmental Protection Agency said Monday that enough scientific evidence exists to classify greenhouse gasses as harmful to humans.

The decision comes on the same day of a new opinion poll that found Americans who accept the reality of climate change are in a minority for the first time in the last two years.

The EPA's decision, timed to coincide with the opening of the Copenhagen climate summit, is the first significant step U.S. officials have taken toward imposing emissions limits, the Associated Press reported.

"Environmentalists hailed the EPA announcement as a clear indication the United States will take steps to attack climate change even if Congress fails to act," the AP continued. "And they welcomed the timing of the declaration, saying it will help the Obama administration convince delegates at the international climate talks that the U.S. is serious about addressing the problem. Obama will address the conference next week."

However, a a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Monday did not give climate activists good news.

Only 45 percent of the 1,041 adults surveyed on December 2-3 believed global warming is a proven fact and mostly caused by human activity, down from 56 percent in October 2007, the survey found.

By comparison, Americans who believe global warming is caused by natural changes unrelated to man have increased to 22 percent from 20 percent two years ago, and those who believe global warming is a yet unproven theory grew to 31 percent from 23 percent.

Regarding how the United States should tackle global warming, 58 percent of those surveyed said it should cut carbon dioxide emissions unilaterally, down from 66 percent in October 2007.

Those who thought the United States should cut CO2 emissions only if other countries do so as well remained basically unchanged at 17 percent, from 16 percent two years ago.

But those who said carbon emissions should not be cut regardless of what the rest of the world does jumped to 24 percent, from 15 percent two years ago.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that the agency's revised position on greenhouse gasses makes the U.S. "obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act," according to the AP.

The White House on Monday also dismissed as "silly" the notion that global warming science had been compromised by emails exposing a row between top climate scientists in the United Kingdom.

[Monkeypox]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_bi_ge/climate_epa

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration took a major step Monday toward imposing the first federal limits on climate-changing pollution from cars, power plants and factories, declaring there was compelling scientific evidence that global warming from manmade greenhouse gases endangers Americans' health.

The announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency was clearly timed to build momentum toward an agreement at the international conference on climate change that opened Monday in Copenhagen, Denmark. It signaled the administration was prepared to push ahead for significant controls in the U.S. if Congress doesn't act first on its own.

The price could be steep for both industry and consumers. The EPA finding clears the way for rules that eventually could force the sale of more fuel-efficient vehicles and require plants to install costly new equipment — at a cost of billions or even many tens of billions of dollars — or shift to other forms of energy.

No analysis has been conducted by the EPA on costs of such broad regulations, although the agency put the price tag of its proposed climate-related car rules at $60 billion, with an estimated benefit of $250 billion.

Energy prices for many Americans probably would rise, too — though Monday's finding will have no immediate impact since regulations have yet to be written. Supporters of separate legislation in Congress argue they could craft measures that would mitigate some of those costs.

Environmentalists hailed the EPA announcement as a clear indication the United States will take steps to attack climate change even if Congress fails to act. And they welcomed the timing of the declaration, saying it will help the Obama administration convince delegates at the international climate talks that the U.S. is serious about addressing the problem. Obama will address the conference next week.

But business groups said regulating carbon emissions through the EPA under existing clean air law would put new economic burdens on manufacturers, cost jobs and drive up energy prices.

"It will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project," declared Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which in recent months has been particularly critical of the EPA's attempt to address climate change.

The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments for formal rulemaking. That marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had refused to issue the finding, despite a conclusion by EPA scientists that it was warranted.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Monday, "There are no more excuses for delaying," adding that the so-called endangerment analysis from global warming had been under consideration at the agency for three years. After the official finding, she said the agency is now "obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said President Barack Obama "still believes the best way to move forward is through the legislative process" — something Obama has expressed on a number of occasions as he has pressed Congress to shift the nation's energy priorities away from fossil fuels and to reduce climate-changing pollution.

The EPA said scientific evidence clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be reduced, if not by Congress then by the agency responsible for enforcing air pollution.

"These long-overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution," said Jackson.

She rejected claims by climate skeptics that the science of global warming remains in doubt, an argument given additional attention in recent weeks with the disclosure through intercepted e-mails that a British scientist had privately discussed ways to shield certain climate data from public scrutiny.

"The vast body of evidence not only remains unassailable, it has grown even stronger," said Jackson.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a lead author of a climate bill before the Senate, said of the finding: "This is a clear message to Copenhagen of the Obama administration's commitments to address global climate change. ... The message to Congress is crystal clear: Get moving."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., also a co-author, said, "The Senate has a duty to act."

Business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the Clean Air Act, saying it is less flexible and more costly than the cap-and-trade legislation being considered by Congress. Any regulations from the EPA are certain to spawn lawsuits and a lengthy legal fights.

"Such regulations would be intrusive, inefficient and excessively costly, chill job growth and delay business expansion," argued Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, which also has been critical of the climate legislation before Congress.

"The Clean Air Act can complement legislation," said Jackson. In fact, if Congress were to cap greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA probably would be given the responsibility of implementing the law.

The EPA's involvement in reducing climate-changing pollution, stems from a 2007 Supreme Court decision that declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. But the court said the EPA would have to determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it could regulate them.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE Find behind-the-scenes information, blog posts and discussion about the Copenhagen climate conference at http://www.facebook.com/theclimatepool, a Facebook page run by AP and an array of international news agencies. Follow coverage and blogging of the event on Twitter at: http://www.twitter.com/AP_ClimatePool .

[ES]

They just keep pushing this nonsense like climategate never happened. The denial is unbelievable. I hope some more of these criminals get hacked and exposed.

[Dig]

VIDEO: George Hunt UN UNCED Earth Summit 1992 (Population reduction, Bank Scams etc..)



The dark side of the sustainable development movement
George Hunt, a business consultant, was present at the earlier mentioned 1987 Fourth World Wilderness Congress as a member of the staff

 

George Hunt initially wanted to buy a ticket but this proved to be much too expensive ($650). At the conference he noticed it had very little to do with the conventional environment movement and was surprised to see people like Maurice Strong, Edmund de Rothschild (Pilgrims Society), David Rockefeller (Pilgrims Society), and James A. Baker (Pilgrims Society; Cap & Gown; trustee American Institute for Contemporary German Studies; Atlantic Council of the United States; National Security Planning Group; Bohemian Grove; CFR; Carlyle; advisor George W. Bush in his 2000 election). In his two videos, produced in 1989 and 1992, he plays audio recordings of several of the 1987 speakers, including Maurice Strong and Edmund de Rothschild (71). There's not really a reason to label these recordings a hoax (to use UFO community language) and subsequently denounce George Hunt as a fraud. In fact, Hunt could hardly have done a better job at presenting his evidence. However, some of the evidence this person has uncovered is so amazing, that most people will remain skeptical (like me), no matter how much evidence is presented. If what Hunt is claiming is true, then it confirms the overall picture that has been sketched in this article. First take a look at the following Fourth World Wilderness Conference (1987) statement from David Lang (spelling unknown; a Montreal banker, according to Hunt):

"I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process - that would take too long and devour far too much of the funds - to educate the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the earth. We have to take almost an elitist program, [so] that we can see beyond our swollen bellies, and look to the future in timeframes and in results which are not easily understood, or which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some kind of simplistic definition."

[Optimus]

Obama is threatening Congress to take action on emissions or the EPA will take 'command and control' of the economy and destroy it.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=150759.0