"Light Up" For Earth Hour On Saturday - Earth Hour Is A Fraud

The incandescent light bulb is abused by environmentalists – but the alternative will only raise energy consumption (costs associated with manufacture, etc.). More and more, compact fluorescent lamps are considered to be an interim technology, awaiting the arrival of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and Organic Light Emitting Diodes (OLEDs). Image Credit: krisdedecker.typepad.com

"Light Up" For Earth Hour On Saturday - Earth Hour Is A Fraud

Earth Hour, a rolling grassroots movement aimed at tackling Global Warming (read that as the relabeled "climate change") is getting a bunch of press coverage on having governments and individuals turn off their lights to show support for a reduction in greenhouse gasses.

Earth Hour began in Sydney in 2007 (as a reaction to Al Gore's over-reaching movie - An Inconvenient Truth) when Earth Hour founder Andy Ridley convinced 2.2 million people to switch off the lights in their homes, offices and businesses for 60 minutes to make a point about electricity consumption and carbon pollution.

Under the Earth Hour initiative, people and Governments are cowed to switch off their lights and electrical appliances from 8.30 pm to 9.30 pm on March 26, 2011 in the name of Anthropogenic Global Warming (human caused climate change).

The major problem with this Earth Hour promotion is that it is an awareness program in favor of a world solution to a problem that is proving itself to be based upon fraudulent data, data that had been shaped or worse, cherry-picked and/or destroyed to prove a conclusion.

Climategate has shown that when one follows the money, power and influence exerted through and from the United Nations IPCC, that the Scientific Method and the personal freedom of individuals are victims to the powers of entities who wish to CONTROL the world through a socialist agenda.

Since proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) - human caused climate change - had become the coin of the rhelm with political progressives throughout the world upon which to create the justification to enact laws to tax and limit human activity (read that as to CONTROL all humans in their pursuit of rights and happiness), and that the proof of AGW had been held by only four datasets worldwide, leaves the political progressives with only one dataset upon which to promote their agenda.

LED's at Time Warner Center in New York. Image Credit: krisdedecker.typepad.com

This excerpted and edited from the LA Times -

Southern California landmarks to join in “Earth Hour” event
March 26, 2011 6:05 pm

Notable Southern California landmarks such as the glowing pylons at Los Angeles International Airport and the Queen Mary in Long Beach will go dark between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. Saturday night in observance of international "Earth Hour."

Millions of people from more than 100 countries and territories are expected to participate in the event by switching off lights and nonessential appliances in order to conserve energy and demonstrate an awareness of environmental conservation.

At LAX, the 100-foot-tall pylons will glow solid green an hour before the event and then go dark, according to airport officials. The color-changing LAX Gateway pylons were installed in August 2000. Five years later, airport workers installed a new system of LED fixtures that consume 75% less electricity than the previous lamps and burn for 75,000 to 100,000 hours, compared to 3,000 hours for the original lights, according to airport officials.

In Long Beach the Queen Mary's exterior lights will be turned off. The event will be accompanied by entertainment, such as the ship's captain answering historical questions and local competitive cyclists producing energy for a light display. Participants will also receive vendor giveaways. Hotel guests will be asked to turn off their nonessential stateroom lights.

In Santa Monica, the famous Pacific Wheel on the city's pier will go dark. The ferris wheel's emergency lights will remain on.

At the Home Depot Center in Carson, in partnership with Chivas USA of Major League Soccer, will turn off all nonessential lighting of the 27,000-seat soccer stadium, including all lighting in the venue's 42 luxury suites, according to AEG, the company that owns and operates the venue. The Chivas will be hosting the Colorado Rapids. Other AEG facilities throughout the state will also participate, including LA Live, the entertainment hub in downtown Los Angeles.

Earth Hour is organized by World Wide Fund, one of the world's largest independent conservation organizations.
---
This year, Earth Hour is challenging people to go beyond the hour and think of other ways to make a difference after the lights go on. Reference Here>>

If you are among those who know about this fraud that is being perpetrated on governments of the world and do not want to be among the "millions kept in the dark" ... turn on every light for one hour from 8.30 pm to 9.30 pm on March 26 as a revolt against Global Warming alarmists.

Make Earth Hour 2010 shine brightly for freedom of all peoples across the Earth ... for the freedom to pursue their lives with the rights given to them from GOD … not leaders of nations and control-freaks.

Climategate (which came to light in November 2009) has proven that AGW is a fraud so, unfortunately, since Earth Hour was based upon fraudulent data - put forward by the United Nations IPCC, the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, NOAA, and NASA - Earth Hour 2010, as it is intended, is a fraud (suggestion for Earth Hour 2011 - make the gesture for picking up after one's self, clean potable water, planting a tree near a ravaged rain forest, and the like).

So, we at MAXINE say, light up the sky for Earth Hour 2010 and prove that you know the truth ... AGW is a fraud and that climate change on the planet Earth is a normal function of the Earth and Earth processes (volcano eruptions, fires, deforestation, flatulence, chemical reactions of chemicals found on the surface, etc.) in association with the Sun and surrounding planets.

Worldwide fraud and hoax of AGW loses UN's De Boer

Science provides a distinctive view and way of thinking about the world. The study of science has led to an evolving body of knowledge organized as an interrelated set of models, theories, laws, systems, structures and interactions. It is through this body of knowledge that science provides explanations for a variety of phenomena and enables sense to be made of the biological, physical and technological world. An understanding of science and its social and cultural contexts provides a basis for future choices and ethical decisions about local and global applications and implications of science. Caption & Image Credit: University of New South Wales

Worldwide fraud and hoax of AGW loses UN's De Boer

As the Queen song, "Another One Bites The Dust" plays in the background, the effort to control human behavior and activity through the concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)/Climate Change has lost another general. The top U.N. climate change official Yvo de Boer told The Associated Press Thursday that he was resigning after nearly four years.

Actually, he will not be leaving until July 1, but he will not be around to relentlessly pester and bully the nations of the world into thinking they have to sign an agreement to curb their plant food production (CO2 ... the gas plants use to create oxygen through osmosis) when they meet in Mexico (one of the nations with the worst air pollution but not one that is the target of any agreement) next November 2010.

Last November 2009 it was discovered that the information and conclusions that have created this sense of urgency to control changes in our Earth's climate were based on what the world media loves to report as ERRORS, was based on conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, destruction of embarrassing and un-supportive information, an organized resistance to disclosure in the peer review process, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. Simply stated ... a hoax based upon a series of frauds over the last quarter century ... something less that the "Scientific Method".

Over the weekend, Professor Phil Jones, former director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which was where the information the UN based its activity on AGW, in an interview with the BBC conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

A key figure of the Climategate scandal, Professor Jones admitted that there is no evidence the Earth has warmed recently ... and new research suggests existing records aren’t sufficient support for global warming claims.

Yvo de Boer was said to be exhausted after the Copehagen summit. Image Credit: The Telegraph

This excerpted and edited from The Daily Caller -

Top UN climate official resigning
By ARTHUR MAX, The DC - 02/18/10 at 6:05 am

UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer is known to be deeply disappointed with outcome of the last summit in Copenhagen, which drew 120 world leaders but failed to reach more than a vague promise by several countries to limit carbon emissions — and even that deal fell short of consensus.

But he denied to the AP that his decision to quit was a result of frustration with Copenhagen.

“Copenhagen wasn’t what I had hoped it would be,” he acknowledged, but the summit nonetheless prompted governments to submit plans and targets for reining in the emissions primarily blamed for global warming. “I think that’s a pretty solid foundation for the global response that many are looking for,” he said.

De Boer told the AP he believes talks “are on track,” although it was uncertain that a full treaty could be finalized at the next high-level conference in November.

The partial agreement reached in Copenhagen, brokered by President Barack Obama, “was very significant,” he said. But he acknowledged frustration that the deal was merely “noted” rather than formally adopted by all countries.

“We were about an inch away from a formal agreement. It was basically in our grasp, but it didn’t happen,” he said. “So that was a pity.”

The media-savvy former Dutch civil servant and climate negotiator was widely credited with raising the profile of climate issues through his frequent press encounters and his backstage lobbying of world leaders.

But his constant travel and frenetic diplomacy failed to bridge the suspicions and distrust between developing and industrial countries that barred the way to a final agreement at the climate change summit in Copenhagen in December.
----
Deb Boer, 55, was appointed in 2006 to shepherd through an agreement to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which required industrial countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions an average 5 percent.

He said the high point of his efforts was the agreement by developing countries, reached at the 2007 conference in Bali, Indonesia, to join in efforts to contain global warming in return for financial and technical help from the wealthy nations.
----
When he was hired, he said, he told U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, “If you want someone to sit in Bonn and keep his mouth shut then I’m not the right person for the job.”
----
De Boer said he will be a consultant on climate and sustainability issues for KPMG, a global accounting firm, and will be associated with several universities.
Reference Here>>

So the chief pursuer of the AGW HOAX based upon fraud at the United Nations will be paid by KPMG to continue his good work ... great. As it was to be suspicious of the activity of the United Nations, it is now time to be suspicious of the activities of KPMG.

Climategate: Money and the global warming Flat Earthers

Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998. But despite overwhelming signs of global cooling - China's coldest winter for 100 years and record snow levels across Northeast America - allied with temperature records showing a decline - global warming advocates still cling to the notion that the world is cooling because of global warming! [ctrl-click to launch video of Ed Begley defending AGW with Stuart Varney] Caption Credit: PrisonPlanet.com / Image Credit: blahblahblog

Anthropogenic Global Warming Scientists, the new “Flat Earth” society?

Last week, a hacker revealed that a group of powerful, government-backed European scientists are controlling the results of developing global warming theory, and preventing clear debate or the development of opposing scientific evidence to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). It appears that certain more objective scientists run the risk --- if they present solid evidence contrary to the popular global warming theories --- realize they run the risk of being made objects of ridicule and marginalized in efforts to gain monies from Governments for research projects designed to discover facts ... that lead to the truth.

So on one side we have the “flat earther” powerful old-world scientists … and on the other side we have the “world is round” scientific-method based researchers who are continuing to discover facts … and thereby, the truth.

Powerful forces within the scientific community have been purposely shaping information in order to bolster a concept that, at best, is speculative and seems designed to lead to one human activity that these people think is perfectly suitable for their point-of-view ... a one-world Government, based upon a socialist model of CONTROL. This CONTROL is initially focusing on calling us to “Save the Earth From Destruction”, since a fear-based program is the only way to get free people to forsake their rights and their freedoms in the concept of climate stabilization and saving humanity from imminent destruction.

South Park's depiction of Al Gore giving a lecture that will give him greater riches through the selling of "Carbon Credits" based upon a flat Earth, AGW paradigm. [ctrl-click to launch "Al Gore EXPOSED" video]. Image Credit: Malagent

This excerpted and edited National Review Online –

Krauthammer's Take
On the announcement that President Obama will attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen
NRO Staff, Friday, November 27, 2009

Comments From Wednesday's Fox News All-Star Panel:

The global warming science is not junk science, but it's speculative. It's based on incomplete data. It's based on computer models that rest on assumptions — that, in turn, rest on an understanding of how the globe’s climate controls itself — that [are] extremely incomplete.

So its projections are speculative. But it pretends that, of course, that it is the hardest of all sciences and anybody who is skeptical is a denier — using a term used normally about the Holocaust, which is of course an event that actually happened as opposed to projections in global warming, which are speculative science.

So what you see in the [leaked global-warming] emails are people that are on somewhat shaky grounds. It is not as if there is no science at all in this, but there is contradictory evidence, such as the flattening of the rise in temperatures, which they cannot explain.

And their response is either suppression or manipulation or, even worse, the delegitimizing of — the personal attacks on — skeptics in an attempt to write them out of the journals, to get them fired, and all kinds of nasty stuff. … It puts a lot of their research in question.

I think what's interesting about Obama is he is going to be at the U.N. [conference in Copenhagen] to announce the [new] policy about climate change on the basis of — nothing. He is going to be proposing what the House has passed — that he knows is not going to pass in the Senate.

And we are actually a constitutional democracy where the president can't announce a policy unilaterally. It actually has to pass the two houses of the Congress, and our allies abroad know that, and they’re going to look at this announcement he is going to make and think it … extremely strange.
Reference Here>>

The United States has established no formal policy, yet our President, if allowed to do so, will gladly sign away our sovereignty in order to achieve the socialist political objectives of control found in the Copenhagen accords.

Further, scientists and Government forces who choose to use or believe in their conclusions that the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a fact, are no better than previous generations of leaders in their insistence that the Earth is flat. These people should be known from this moment forward as ... "Flat-Earthers"!

From The Free Dictionary:

1) flat-earth·er (flatûrther)
n.

One who stubbornly adheres to outmoded or discredited ideas: "If you don't accept the ideas derived from Adam Smith ... then you are [considered] a flat-earther" (James Fallows).
[From the long-discredited belief that the earth is flat.]

2) flat-earther
n.
Informal - a person who does not accept or is out of touch with the realities of modern life.

UPDATE - From Atlanta Journal Constitution, ajc blog:

The focus on the story has turned from the emails the scientists exchanged to the computer code their center was using to produce its data sets, which have been an integral part of the IPCC’s reports. Declan McCullagh at CBS News reports some of the findings so far:

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: “I feel for this guy. He’s obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources.”

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU’s Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” and “APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.” Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: “Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend – so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!”

At Pajamas Media, which has been producing some of the most in-depth coverage of this story, Charlie Martin examines the code further and concludes:

To put this in the context of what else we know from the CRU data dump:

1. They didn’t want to release their data or code, and they particularly weren’t interested in releasing any intermediate steps that would help someone else

2. They clearly have some history of massaging the data — hell, practically water-boarding the data — to get it to fit their other results. Results they can no longer even replicate on their own systems.

3. They had successfully managed to restrict peer review to what we might call the “RealClimate clique” — the small group of true believers they knew could be trusted to say the right things.

As a result, it looks like they found themselves trapped. They had the big research organizations, the big grants — and when they found themselves challenged, they discovered they’d built their conclusions on fine beach sand.

But the tide was coming in.

Even if the CRU crew are only guilty of promising more than they could deliver, that’s still a hugely important turn of events in the climate-change debate — and reason enough to put the policy debate on pause while this new information is sorted out.

It is time for the Flat Earth global warming scientists who were gaming the system for more and more money, and thereby, more and more prestige and power to get their "A" (for anthropogenic) in the global warming science out of the equation. In fact, they should take their Anthropogenic and pretty much put it where the data don't shine!

Finally, on a more humorous note, check out this video created for Minnesotans for Global Warming by the folks at JibJab.com.

LA Conservative Examiner>>

O.C.D. In The D.N.C.?

Platters a plenty … as long as they are biodegradable, organic, locally grown, and have all the right and approved colors. Image Credit: sandwichmart.com

O.C.D. In The D.N.C.?

The fanatic level of control exhibited by the planners and leaders of the Democrat Party in the run-up to their convention in Denver is beyond belief ... almost obsessive. One is left to assume that this is exactly the level of control they would like to exert over ALL of our lives if they are given the chance.

As a natural rollout of events which began as “scare everyone” tactics initiated by the claim that Global Warming/Climate Change is created by human beings, the leaders are implementing and holding everyone (who will be attending the convention in Denver) to rules that set the “GREEN” bar very high.

Hundreds of free bikes will be available for anyone looking for an alternative to automobiles during the Democratic convention in Denver. From left, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, Director of Bikes Belong Tim Blumenthal, convention organizer Parry Burnap and Dan Oftedahl of Humana, which will provide the free bikes, announced the initiative in early May. Image Credit: Associated Press/Humana

From the strict policies and handling procedures regarding disposable food utensils, to the descriptions of the very colors of acceptable food items served, to strict definitions of what can be worn by service workers ... to the manufacturing composition of balloons to be used for the celebration, to an argument of whether to allow bottled water or not ... this would all be very humorous if this were a parody ... but, unfortunately, it's not.

It is widely assumed that Republicans want to control peoples’ lives, although Republicans staunchly support limiting government and maximizing self-determination. The truth is, the major control initiative over the last few decades comes down to the abortion issue. There, Republicans really only want to protect the unborn human by allowing every baby to be “brought” to term and have a life.

The Democrats, through this extreme approach to green initiatives during their 2008 convention, are making an interesting statement to Americans of all parties. This Democrat Party wants to be able to control every aspect of the lives of all citizens. The D.N.C. discomfort with many matters of self-determination by convention attendees is weirdly controlling ... and smacks of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD).

Ms. Robinson says all the signs and placards will be made from post-consumer recycled or biodegradable materials. It will all be recycled after the event. Confetti and banners lay on the floor at the end of the 2004 convention in Boston. Image Credit: Associated Press

This found, excerpted, and edited from the Wall Street Journal and the Denver Post -

The Greenest Show on Earth: Democrats Gear Up for Denver
From Organic Fanny Packs to 'Pure' Trash, Party Planners Face Logistical Nightmare
By STEPHANIE SIMON - June 25, 2008; Page A1

As the Mile High City gears up to host a Democratic bash for 50,000, organizers are discovering the perils of trying to stage a political spectacle that's also politically correct.

Consider the fanny packs.

The host committee for the Democratic National Convention wanted 15,000 fanny packs for volunteers. But they had to be made of organic cotton. By unionized labor. In the USA.

Official merchandiser Bob DeMasse scoured the country. His weary conclusion: "That just doesn't exist."

Ditto for the baseball caps. "We have a union cap or an organic cap," Mr. DeMasse says. "But we don't have a union-organic offering."
----
Convention organizers hired the first-ever Director of Greening, longtime environmental activist Andrea Robinson.
----
Ms. Robinson suspected modern-day delegates would prefer air conditioning. So she quickly modified the mayor's goal: She'd supervise "the most sustainable political convention in modern American history."
----
To test whether celebratory balloons advertised as biodegradable actually will decompose, Ms. Robinson buried samples in a steaming compost heap.

She hired an Official Carbon Adviser, who will measure the greenhouse-gas emissions of every placard, every plane trip, every appetizer prepared and every coffee cup tossed.

The Democrats hope to pay penance for those emissions by investing in renewable energy projects.

Perhaps Ms. Robinson's most audacious goal is to reuse, recycle or compost at least 85% of all waste generated during the convention.
----
To police the four-day event Aug. 25-28, she's assembling (via paperless online signup) a trash brigade. Decked out in green shirts, 900 volunteers will hover at waste-disposal stations to make sure delegates put each scrap of trash in the proper bin. Lest a fork slip into the wrong container unnoticed, volunteers will paw through every bag before it is hauled away.

"That's the only way to make sure it's pure," Ms. Robinson says.
----
Here, a delegate eats a hamburger on the floor of the 2004 convention in Boston. Democrats' catering guidelines discourage fried food and push for organic or locally-grown ingredients. At least 50% of each meal should be made up of fruits and/or vegetables. Image Credit: Getty Images

No fried food. And, on the theory that nutritious food is more vibrant, each meal should include "at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white." (Garnishes don't count.)

At least 70% of ingredients should be organic or grown locally, to minimize emissions from fuel burned during transportation.

"One would think," says Mr. Matt Burns, a spokesman for the Republican convention, "that the Democrats in Denver have bigger fish to bake -- they have ruled out frying already -- than mandating color-coordinated pretzel platters."

Democrats say the point is to build habits that will endure long after the convention. To that end, the city has staged "greening workshops" attended by hundreds of caterers, restaurant owners and hotel managers. "It's the new patriotism," Mayor Hickenlooper says.
---
Joanne Katz, who runs the Denver caterer Three Tomatoes, will take one for the green team by removing her fried goat-cheese won tons with chipotle pepper caramel sauce from the menu. But she questions whether some of the guidelines will have the desired earth-saving effects.

Compostable utensils, she says, are often shipped from Asia on fuel-guzzling cargo ships. As for the plates: "Is it better to drive across town to have china delivered to an event and then use hot water to wash it, or is it better to use petroleum-based disposables?" she asks.
----
But it's almost inevitable that principles, politics and profit will conflict.

To wit: Coors Brewing Co., in Golden, Colo., will donate biofuel made from beer waste to power the convention's fleet of flex-fuel vehicles. A green star for the convention -- but it has rankled die-hard liberals, who boycotted Coors in the 1960s and '70s to protest hiring practices that they said discriminated against blacks, Latinos, women and gays. Heirs to the Coors fortune have long been active in conservative causes and Republican politics.
----
No matter, grumbles Anna Flynn, a longtime union member from Denver who objected to the donation. "Any way you put it, it's still Coors," she says.
----
Watching the greening frenzy from afar, Fred L. Smith Jr., president of the libertarian Washington think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, suggested the Democrats could really shrink their footprint by staging a virtual-reality convention: "Just have everyone stay at home with their laptops, sitting in their pajamas, interacting through their avatars."

Ms. Robinson, the greening director, says big showy conventions are part of the American political tradition, and thus worth a few emissions here and there. Also, she hates to be a killjoy.

True, she did try (unsuccessfully) to get bottled water banned from the convention hall. But remember those balloons? She checked the compost heap last week -- and found them still intact.
----
So will the fanny packs -- made in the USA of undyed, organic fabric. Mr. DeMasse vows to get a union shop to print the logo, but he says the ink will be petroleum based. Unless, that is, he decides to get the logo embroidered -- with biodegradable thread.
Reference Here>>

There are always veggies left in bins after the weekend farmers’ market. You just can’t eat ‘em all. After a couple of days grace, the remains are off to the compost heap. Today, it’s a nice selection! Image Credit: Tiny Farm Blog

And This –

Caterers find eco-standards tough to chew
By Douglas Brown - The Denver Post - 05/18/2008 11:33:44 PM MDT

Fried shrimp on a bed of jasmine rice and a side of mango salad, all served on a styrofoam plate. Bottled water to wash it all down.

These trendy catering treats are unlikely to appear on the menu at parties sponsored by the Denver 2008 Host Committee during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

Fried foods are forbidden at the committee's 22 or so events, as is liquid served in individual plastic containers. Plates must be reusable, like china, recyclable or compostable. The food should be local, organic or both.

And caterers must provide foods in "at least three of the following five colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white," garnishes not included, according to a Request for Proposals, or RFP, distributed last week.

The shrimp-and-mango ensemble? All it's got is white, brown and orange, so it may not have the nutritional balance that generally comes from a multihued menu.

"Blue could be a challenge," joked Ed Janos, owner of Cook's Fresh Market in Denver. "All I can think of are blueberries."
----
"I think it's a great idea for our community and our environment. The question is, how practical is it?" asks Nick Agro, the owner of Whirled Peas Catering in Commerce City. "We all want to source locally, but we're in Colorado. The growing season is short. It's dry here. And I question the feasibility of that."

Agro's biggest worry is price. Using organic and local products hikes the costs.

"There is going to be sticker shock when those bids start coming in," he says. "I'll cook anything, but I've had clients who have approached me about all-organic menus, and then they see the organic stuff pretty much doubles your price."

The document, which applies only to the host committee's parties, came after months of work that involved discussions with caterers and event planners along the Front Range, says Parry Burnap, Denver's "greening" director.
----
"We are hoping that everything we are doing for greening (the convention) has some legacy value," she says.

The RFP, for example, will likely live on after the convention in a brochure the city will distribute widely to help guide local businesses interested in improving their green practices.
----
"It takes some creativity because some of these things are more expensive," she says. "But we're at the front end of a market shift."
----
Burnap acknowledged that figuring out what is most green can be difficult.
----
"One we are talking about now is, is it better to compost or to recycle? If you are using a cup for a beverage, is it better to be (plastic) and back in the materials stream, or compostable, biodegradable waste and go into the waste stream or compost? There are no definitive answers."

Composting for the convention hasn't been entirely figured out yet, she says.
----
The committee is working with other groups to develop a carbon-footprint "calculator" that will measure the environmental impact of each event and suggest an "offset" — a fee — that will go toward a fund helping to match carbon losses with carbon gains.

"That's a fun one," Burnap says. "If these event planners will calculate and offset, it will start to get the money flowing into the Colorado Carbon Fund, a fund that will reinvest in renewable energy here in Colorado."
Reference Here>>

Say hello to the green exchange, spearheaded by a leading cast of energy and environmental brokers -investors- who are launching a new exchange for trading credits that offset the global warming greenhouse gas emissions. Image Credit: triplepundit.com

So who really profits from such demanded activity?

It is time to re-think what we really wish for when we are deciding to change things up in the structure of our country.

The Democrats, through their own controlling management styles and behaviors, are showing all of the citizens here in the United States how a Democrat Party headed up by a Barack Obama presidency will be. Personal freedoms and choices will be reduced and/or eliminated.

We are already hearing it in the speeches, as Obama preaches that we all should be driving smaller cars while willingly paying continually increasing prices for fuel (no problem, they would like to see $10.00 a gallon gas if it were up to them), wearing sweaters instead of expecting warm homes, etc. It is a short Democrat drive to an America that can quickly feel like a third world nation given the expectations of our Democrat Party.

While in Denver, attending the "second coming" and coronation of the party's new leader, here’s hoping you enjoy your confetti-colored appetizer with your biodegradable fork. I hope the plate holding the meal of the day does not disintegrate, or fold in your lap!

Truth? Fiction? A Sense Or Nonsense Film Premier

“An Inconvenient Truth ... Or Convenient Fiction?” is an entertaining, fact-based look at the climate change issue featuring Dr. Steven Hayward, PRI Director of Environmental Studies and F.K. Weyerhauser, Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Image Credit: Pacific Research Institute

Truth? Fiction? A Sense Or Nonsense Film Premier

Today, the film premier of "An Inconvenient Truth … Or Convenient Fiction?" is being presented by the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco at the Embarcadero Center Cinema - 1 Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA 94111.

The film will be premiered at NO COST with the Reception to start at 7:00 pm, with the Screening to begin at 7:30 pm.

Further, two more movie premieres are scheduled for:

April 18, 2007 Movie screening – Washington, D.C.

April 24, 2007 Movie screening – New York City

The movie is the work of Dr. Steven Hayward, PRI Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, American Enterprise Institute F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow. Image Credit: Pacific Research Institute

To provide an additional insight to the work of Dr. Steven Hayward, here is an assay about the alarmist focus being brought to the issue of climate change, and more specifically, the hysteria that is intention of Al Gore's recent Oscar winning film, "An Inconvenient Truth".

This from an opinion essay posted at the Pacific Research Institute -

Gore on the Rocks
by Steven F. Hayward - March 21, 2007

Consensus is reached: Gore’s global-warming alarmism is overblown.

As international celebrity and film star Al Gore prepared to testify about global warming on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, it was already apparent that the hot air may be leaking out of the global-warming balloon.

After a year of concentrated effort that includes a multimillion-dollar p.r. campaign on top of An Inconvenient Truth and slavish media coverage parroting the climate-alarmist line, recent polls show that public opinion has barely budged. Only about a third of Americans, according to a recent Gallup survey, are agitated about climate change, and even people who say the environment is their most important issue rank climate change behind air and water quality in importance.

Meanwhile a backlash in the scientific community has begun. Last week, New York Times veteran science reporter William Broad filed a devastating article about scientists who are “alarmed” at Gore’s alarmism; Gore’s account of global warming goes far beyond the evidence. The dissents from Gore’s extremism, Broad explained, “come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists” who have “no political ax to grind.” It appears Gore refused to be interviewed directly for the article; he responded to e-mail questions only.

This backlash has been quietly building for a while. In November, Mike Hulme, director of Britain’s Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, expressed his unease about climate alarmism to the BBC:

I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric. It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the [catastrophe] skeptics. How the wheel turns. Why is it not just campaigners, but politicians and scientists too, who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging which surrounds science’s predictions? To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science.

Then in December, Kevin Vranes of the University of Colorado, by no means a climate skeptic, commented on a widely read science blog about his sense of the mood of the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, where Gore had made his standard climate presentation. “To sum the state of the climate science world in one word, as I see it right now, it is this: tension,” Vranes wrote. “What I am starting to hear is internal backlash. . . None of this is to say that the risk of climate change is being questioned or downplayed by our community; it’s not. It is to say that I think some people feel that we’ve created a monster by limiting the ability of people in our community to question results that say ‘climate change is right here!’”

Gore and other climate extremists have been hammering away at “consensus” science for years now — especially the assessments produced by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). So it is a highly inconvenient truth that the latest IPCC scientific assessment undermines many of Gore’s most spectacular claims. The IPCC says the worst-case sea-level rise this century would be 23 inches; Gore portrays 20 feet or more in his horror film. Ditto for Gore’s claims about hurricanes and melting ice caps; the new IPCC fails to bolster Gore’s alarmism. Already climate alarmists are starting to mutter under their breath that the IPCC is now “too conservative,” but having built up the IPCC as the gold standard of “consensus” science, the alarmists are in the awkward position of being hoist by their own petard. It could be an inconvenient moment for Gore on Wednesday if someone asks him why he is so far outside the scientific consensus on so many aspects of the issue.

A new anti-alarmist documentary from Britain’s iconoclastic Channel Four, The Great Global Warming Swindle, is attracting Internet viewers by the millions. And the most significant blow to climate alarmism came last week in New York, where in a formal debate MIT’s Richard Lindzen and author Michael Crichton decisively defeated the alarmists in an audience vote. You know there is something fundamentally weak about the case for climate catastrophe when you see an alarmist attributing the skeptics’ victory to Crichton’s height rather than the substance of the arguments.

The biggest blow to the climate catastrophists is not any scientific problem, but the hypocrisy of Gore and his Hollywood cheering section, whose profligate energy use cannot be mitigated in the popular mind through “carbon offsets,” even if such offsets worked as advertised. Liberals in the 1960s and 1970s never comprehended how damaging “limousine liberalism” was to their cause. They seem even more oblivious to the self-inflicted wounds of “Gulfstream liberalism.” Whatever the intricacies of climate science, middle-class citizens understand that Gore wants them to use less energy and pay more for it, while he and his Hollywood pals use as much as they want and buy their way out of guilt, like a medieval indulgence. In the companion book to An Inconvenient Truth, Gore writes that “a good way to reduce the amount of energy you use is simply to buy less. Before making a purchase, ask yourself if you really need it.” Gore decided that he does need it — for all four of his homes and his pool house.

The ultimate sign that climate change is more about politics than science is the repeated “go-slow” statements of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. If climate change is really the greatest threat in mankind’s history, with the catastrophic tipping point less than 10 years away, why go slow in crafting legislation to save the planet? Perhaps Pelosi and other congressional Democrats have paid attention to the overwhelming consensus of economists — one climate consensus that Gore resolutely ignores — that serious greenhouse-gas emission cuts fail every conceivable cost-benefit test. Faced with the climate-policy equivalent of HillaryCare, Pelosi would prefer to save her majority rather than save the planet.
Reference Here>>

We are told at MAXINE, that DVD's and clips of the movie will be made available at the Pacific Research Institute website and that it is expected to be posted on YouTube. When it becomes available at YouTube ... it will be posted here.

UPDATE: Video
(ht: Power Line)

Equality Shows Itself In Many Forms

"What are you lookin'at?" --- The Arctic habitat of polar bears is under threat as climate change - [thank GOD this caption did not go with the less provable phrase, Global Warming, which has a politically monied connotation and edge to it]- causes ice to melt. Image Credit: Joseph Napaaqtuq Sage/AP

Equality Shows Itself In Many Forms

Here is an item that might warm your heart and cause the brain cells to spin.

The following story goes into detail as to how some scientists are offered "cash" to dispute the United Nations supported climate study.

At MAXINE, the first thing that leaps to mind is an educational system infrastructure where scientists and educators are awarded grants to "study" the cause and effect of climate and change by bureaucracies and politicians who are able to use government monies to influence and sustain the power they naturally have. Government money is collected, lobbied for by interested parties, assigned to niche programs, and fed to educational research and study programs.

So what is wrong with a little "equal" time and influence in the development of a study or message ... after all, who pays the scientists at the capitalist system-hating United Nations and what is in "IT" for them? The ego, prestige, and political control exerted through international agreements like --- Kyoto, do ya' think?

Fair & Balanced is what we like to see at MAXINE!

Excerpts from The Guardian (UK) –

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
Ian Sample, science correspondent - The Guardian - Friday February 2, 2007

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.
----
"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."
----
Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."

On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.
Read All>>

So there you have it, the authoritative and balanced voice of Greenpeace states "The AEI ... functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."

At this moment, the UN has lost on the debate as to who isn't on the take!

Have we (the world) already forgotten the unimaginable torts and betrayal found in the "Oil-For-Food" program negotiated and managed by the United Nations over this last decade?

Isn't the funding by the UN of a scientific report, that promotes an international agreement, that the United Nations would be tasked in managing, just a little suspect?

At MAXINE, we are just askin' questions.

Additional background information about Kyoto and a reaction from China about the report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).