While a two decade pattern of proven scientific data has directly contradicted the global warming alarmist view, some scientists say that we just haven’t waited long enough.

International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming trend. – The Australian

In the most non-nonsensical of  statements, the Whitehouse said that whatever is going on with non-rising temperatures requires explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in carbon emissions.

Oddly, the Obama administration’s own statement may say more than they intended. If carbon emissions are rising at some epic scale and global temperatures aren’t rising then the cause-and-effect models that global warming leaders like Al Gore have been using .. are fundamentally false.

The funds will help the 60,000 farmers spray pesticides in an attempt to halt the spread of coffee rust which kills plants. The rust has affected coffee plantations throughout Central America.

In his statement President Molina said they are concerned production could drop by 40 percent and that they have already lost 100,000 jobs with concerns the problem, if not stemmed will affect millions of residents. Coffee growers are attributing climate change and a general increase in temperature the past two years to the increased rust growth.

Honduras and Costa Rica declared national emergencies last month. In Panama the fungus has affected at least 60 percent of the crop this year.

Watch out coffee drinkers. Soon your pot may be empty!

Read more at CBS News.

Christie Hefner, spokesperson for the Center for American Progress, was on the air with pseudo-Republican host Joe Scarborough to share her amazingly obtuse view that climate change is responsible for Chicago’s spike in gun violence.

Climate change – a catch-all term much harder to dispute than “global warming” – has been blamed for almost all of the world’s ills by those on the fringe left. Hefner’s diatribe, however, found a new and baffling way to target Americans for their supposed disrespect of the environment.

Citing some “contributing factors” for the violence, she said “there is a dramatic increase in gun violence when it is warmer and we are having this climate change effect that is driving that.”

Embroiled in a culture of violence and suffering under corrupt leadership, Chicago has plenty of causes for its deadly reputation. A normal fluctuation in global temperature is not one of them, despite Hefner’s emphatic contention.

For his part, Scarborough seemed to realize her point was sufficiently controversial and used the opportunity to take a jab at conservative writers.

Telling her “conservative bloggers across America thank you” for the commentary fodder, he couldn’t resist adding that she “made a lot of people in the basements of their mother’s homes very happy.”

For all the left’s hand-wringing over a perceived bias at Fox News, there is absolutely no comparison to the blatant political prejudice found in the mainstream media. By comparison, I suppose a network daring to actually expose the conservative viewpoint to its audience would seem biased.

For those of you who remember the early 1970’s they were predicting another ice age, the Earth was cooling and we must prepare ourselves for the coming colder temperatures was on the so-called expert’s lips. Then, all of a sudden, it turned into global warming, because the Earth was warming up, so said the same experts that said that the new ice age was coming. Now because the temperature fluctuates, and so the so-called experts do not want to look like idiots, they just call it climate change, so they can cover all bases. Well, I have news for these so-called experts, there is no such thing as manmade climate change, it cools and warms because that is the way the Earth functions.

Has anyone heard of the year without a summer, well in 1816 there was no summer, in July and August of that year there was still ice on the rivers of New York and Pennsylvania, as well as frost around the world. Funny thing, there were no cars or buses or jet planes or anything else that the experts today are blaming climate change on, it was a natural thing then, just like it is a natural thing today. Moreover, it is people like Al Gore that use climate change in order to scare people, just so he can make billions of dollars off it. Mean while Gore is flying around in private jets, riding in big gas guzzling SUV’s and has five homes, which each one uses enough electricity to power ten smaller homes. Does the word hypocrite come to mind, it sure does to me.

Another woman was asked the same question, she said she is expecting her free healthcare, again I was sitting there shaking my head, free healthcare, there is no such thing. The new healthcare bill, known as Obama-care is nothing but two-thousand pages of new taxes, if that woman thinks her healthcare is going to be free, she is in for a rude awakening. Wait until she tries to see a doctor, if she is lucky enough to find one, she is probably going to have to wait three weeks for an appointment. People need to realize, just because you have an insurance card that does not mean you will have access to a doctor any time you want one.

Obama-care was supposed to cost 980 billion dollars over ten years, the latest estimate is 2.6 trillion dollars and who knows what the true cost is going to be. Already premiums are going up when we were promised that they would not, companies have started to lay-off people or cut them to part-time work when we were told that it would create jobs. It seems to me that the Government needs to keep their hands off of the weather and healthcare, because they obviously have no clue what they are doing.

So I asked myself, “are people in America really that stupid” and the answer came back, at least 51% of the people are, because 51% of the people voted to re-elect Obama.

This is one man’s opinion.

(the following video contains profanity)

Scientists predicted periods of glaciation back in the 1970s…

With the scorching heat and the infamous derecho that left D.C. in the dark on June 29, it seems perfectly logical for folks in the Washington area to blame “global warming” as we all bake in the 100 degree heat. In fact, The Washington Post conducted a poll that showed that a majority of Americans believe that world temperatures are rising and that it can be remedied by government action to decrease energy consumption.

However, the reason why this story was buried at the bottom of the page A13 today may well be because a whopping 7 out of 10 of those poll opposed hiking taxes on gasoline and other fossil fuels.

What’s more, the second to last paragraph shows that nearly half of Americans “perceive that President Obama wants a great deal or quite a bit of government action on global warming.”  This comes on top of the public’s overall aversion to Obama’s health care industry overhaul.  The American people know the president’s prescriptions would be heavy on taxes, and they don’t like it.

The Post buried the lede like an ostrich buries its head in the sand.

Sustainable Living: So simple a caveman can do it!

It’s unfortunate The Derecho Project — the largest urban global warming mitigation experiment in history — has proven to be an abject failure. Really a shame, too since the project’s design was almost perfect.

The sample was composed of liberal environmentalists in Maryland, D.C. and Arlington who should have been eager to personally have a role in reducing the nation’s carbon footprint.

Final selection for participation in The Derecho Project was entirely random: if a tree fell and knocked out a family’s power, they instantly became part of the sample. No lengthy interviews, affirmative action hurdles or concerns about income disparities since the threat of climate change demands immediate action.

It was a golden opportunity for “green voters” and anyone with an authentic Ken Salazar 10–gallon hat to put their lifestyle where their affectations are. It’s no longer enough to read the Chevy Volt review in the Consumer Reports Auto issue and dream of becoming a climate warrior.

Over one million Maryland, District and Northern Virginia residents were saved the trouble of traveling to the Amazon to sample carbon–neutral living at its finest. This eminently sustainable lifestyle was right here and didn’t involve an encounter with touchy–feely TSA guards. But what did progressives do when they were finally on the front lines of the battle against climate change?

These green exemplars didn’t behave any better than warmist deniers. They huddled in the nearest Starbucks and whined on their Facebook pages about the inhuman hardships they were suffering, all the while estimating how long it would be until the truffles defrost.

If these had been conservatives instead of “environmentally conscious Democrats” they could have turned a quick profit by selling carbon offsets until power was restored. (Then used the money to buy a gasoline generator in preparation for the next Act of Pepco.)

The eagerness of these progressives to re–embrace the electric power grid made them no different from the conservative control group that continued to use electricity blissfully unaware of how their selfish lifestyle threatens to submerge the Solomon Islands beneath the Pacific.

Where were the hardy greens recharging their iPads with solar panels, cooling their house with wind power, enjoying a siesta to adapt their body clocks to new temperature realities and using methane gas from their compost heap to cook dinner?

These examples were nowhere to be found. MD, VA and DC progressives weren’t any more prepared for sustainable living than your average Wal-Mart shopper. Instead we read about extension cords from houses with power snaking across driveways, alleys and streets to reach those without power. Which sounds a lot more like a PWC trailer park than it does Takoma Park.

Having sampled for a week the carbon–neutral lifestyle their environmental policies would condemn third–world residents to for a lifetime, progressives are now screaming for vengeance on any and all power companies.

The WaPost quotes Montgomery County Council President Roger Berliner (D–Tumbrel) demanding Pepco be hit with large fines. “You get to $20 million, you get to $30 million, to $40 million, then you start getting people’s attention,” Berliner said as he confused a quasi–judicial proceeding with an auction.

Large fines sound good and make for a great copy point in a re–election brochure, but fines alone won’t bring true accountability, because a fine doesn’t hold those at the top personally accountable.

The top executives don’t pay fines. The money comes out of stockholder dividends, which in turn penalizes investors — who may have been out of power themselves — and pension plans. The executives have to answer hostile questions during hearings and may hear rumblings in board meetings, but that’s about it.

Real accountability only comes when the executive feels your pain. My solution is any time more than 500 customers lose power, regardless of the reason, regulators flip a switch and all Pepco’s top executives lose power, too.

The executive’s electricity returns after the last customer rejoins the grid.

Finally, am I the only conservative bothered by the media’s use of the term “derecho?” What happened to “severe thunderstorms?” When I was a boy in Oklahoma — one of the largest consumers of thunderstorms and tornadoes in the nation — weather poodles never used this word.

But now its suddenly “derecho” this and “derecho” that. Could it be because “derecho” is also the Spanish word for “right turn?” Is this yet another mainstream media attempt to persuade the public to subconsciously associate conservatives (the “right wing”) with disaster and privation?

How about using the German word for environmentalist? If we’re going foreign, “umweltschützer” not only has that continental flair, but just saying it sounds like thunder in the distance.

Egypt’s presidential election results lean towards victory for Mohammed Morsi, the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood candidate. Thanks at least in part to vocal White House support for the “Arab Spring”, which ushered the Muslim Brotherhood to Egypt’s presidency, Egypt is now likely to be more inclined towards acting offensively towards Israel.

Russia’s General Staff announced Russian Black Sea fleet warships may head for Syria, saying: “The Mediterranean Sea is a zone of the Black Sea Fleet responsibility. Hence, warships may go there in the case it is necessary to protect the Russian logistics base in Tartous, Syria”. Several warships, including large landing ships are ready for deployment. Russia supports Syria, an active agent for radical Ismanists in Iran, who also just happen to support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Russia exerts new influence in the Middle East while Russia’s President Vladimir Putin plays the White House like a fiddle.

The Euro survived over the weekend after a close call in Greek elections. Early market euphoria on Monday diminished when persistent uncertainty over the situation in Spain, Italy and other eurozone countries resurfaced. Despite Greece’s election result easing fears that the single currency will disintegrate, indications that Greece will run out of money in mid-July stalled initial market optimism. Multiple countries in Europe are now in economic decline after decades of following Socialist policies.

In France, Socialist President Francois Hollande was given a mandate to follow through with his tax-and-spend agenda when France’s Socialists won control of parliament on Sunday. Hollande now has the majority he needs to combat France’s debt crisis by following the very formula that created a debt crisis in France, Greece, Spain, Italy and the rest of the eurozone.

Meanwhile, in an address to the UN sustainability conference in Rio, Great Britain’s Prince Charles issued warnings about climate change. In a pre-recorded speech the Prince declared: “Catastrophic consequences of carrying on with ‘business-as-usual’ are bearing down on us faster than we think, already dragging many millions more people into poverty and dangerously weakening global food, water and energy security for the future”. The Prince then went on to say: “We do not have nearly enough knowledge on which to base the decisions that will be the best for the long term.” So, which is it? Either “we do not have nearly enough knowledge on which to base the decisions that will be the best for the long term” or we know enough to say “many millions more people” have to worry about poverty, food, water and energy security. You can’t have it both ways, “your majesty”.

In America, Al Gore cashed in on the hysteria he and his fellow climate change propagandists created when New York city Comptroller John Liu OK’d a $16.56 million contract with Generation Investment Management, the former vice president’s environmentally friendly investment firm. Generation Investment Management will help manage New York City pension funds to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Given the track record of green energy capital investments, New York City pension funds are going to be another candidate for a taxpayer funded federal bailout. As with any investment management company, Generation Investment Management will earn their fees no matter what happens to the funds they invest. Apparently it pays to be a global warming alarmist. Perhaps Prince Charles fears the British Monarchy faces pending austerity measures and is just trying to get on the global warming gravy train.

Over the past three and a half years while current world events were taking shape, the White House has been spending money it does not have ala Socialist Europe. All the while enacting another big government socialist “entitlement” program to “nudge” Americans towards European style government dependency.

They championed bureaucratic violations of the free exercise of religion, using the presidential bully pulpit and complicit media lapdogs to convince uninformed voters that it was really a Republican attack on women’s healthcare.

Drones and unmanned airplanes began spying on private property in America’s heartland to ensure American Citizens are complicit with stifling new draconian EPA regulations. An EPA that is now attempting to redefine ditches as bodies of water in order to grant itself additional regulatory power.

Exceeding the Oval Office’s Constitutional and statutory authority to give work visas to a hand picked group of illegal aliens was deemed more important than creating a business friendly, jobs creating economic environment for American Citizens and legal immigrants.

This coming from an administration that pledged in 2008 that it would cut the federal deficit in half by the end of its first term. Instead, the size of the federal government, federal spending and the deficit are all at record high levels. The U.S. national debt has increased by over $5 trillion in less than four years, and after surviving WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, the economic disaster that was Jimmy Carter’s presidency and the global financial crash of 2008, the United States of America’s credit rating has been downgraded.

Insinuating his name into the online biographies of former Presidents and releasing a photo-montage of himself in his “private moments” became priorities, as did attending a record number of fund raising events and playing 100 rounds (and counting) of golf. Never mind that David Axelrod, his 2012 re-election campaign chief, called former President George W. Bush “out of touch” for playing golf while the country struggled with a bad economy.

That’s what his deep-pocketed out of touch with reality millionaire and billionaire Hollywood elite friends expect from their “cool” friend in the White House. To be truly “cool”, one must be seen as being above it all.

America and the world will be better off once the current Chief Executive of the United States begins spending his days playing golf full time as a former government employee.

God Save the Queen.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/fundraise-and-fore-obamas-answer-to-world-events/

The International Conference on Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty, sponsored by American Freedom Alliance, concluded Monday in Los Angeles CA.

The chief question posed at the Conference’s opening: Is Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty the West’s next ideological war?

John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN gave Sunday morning’s Keynote Speech. Ambassador Bolton spoke from first hand experience, sharing front line knowledge accumulated through years of engagement in international diplomacy. He not only gave definition to the term “the Global Governance Movement”, he also described its agenda, which is to subvert national sovereignty in favor of a supranational authority through the invention and initiation of international laws and norms.

After his speech, Ambassador Bolton welcomed Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institution, John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkley, Steven Groves, the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at the Heritage Institute’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, and Michael Shaw, guiding attorney for Freedom Advocates.org to the stage. The five elaborated intelligently on the consequences of increasing subservience by sovereign nations to the ideology of Global Governance. Both the political makeup and the ideological activism of the UN were indicted.

Following morning breakout sessions focused on:

• Non-governmental organizations as purveyors of Global Governance
• The Green Movement, Agenda 21, Global Warming alarmism and Global Governance
• Who will control the Internet and who will control the seas

The afternoon was kicked off by a Keynote Speech by President Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. President Klaus spoke directly of the prospects of Global Governance and its European variant, the European Union. Drawing upon his experience as a leader of a former Soviet bloc country, President Klaus warned against the threat of independent sovereign states surrendering control to an un-elected, unaccountable extra-national governing body in a distant capitol.

Larry Greenfield, National Executive Director of the Jewish Institution for National Security Affairs, invited Robert O’Brien, Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of Arent Fox LLP, Donald Kochan, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Elan Journo, a fellow in foreign policy at the Ayn Rand Institute into a discussion about the politicization of international law and its impact on national sovereignty. Global and international law were identified as both threats to and the means by which national sovereignty is undermined.

Subsequent to afternoon breakout sessions focusing on:

• The demonization/diminishment of the United States and Israel as a chief Global Governance strategy
• Law-fare, international humanitarian law and their role in undermining sovereignty
• The role of Islam in fostering and encouraging Global Governance

The Honorable John Howard, Australia’s 25^th Prime Minister gave the day’s concluding Keynote Speech. The former Prime Minister discussed the concept of the nation state and why it still matters to countries that enjoy governance by popularly elected representative governments.

Sunday’s last panel, featuring President Klaus, Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel, John Yoo and John Fonte discussed whether or not liberal democracies have the strength and will to defend their national sovereignty. The endurance of strong constitutions and distinct cultural identities were viewed as key elements in an ongoing uphill struggle by sovereign nation-states against the intrusions of Global Governance. Panelists considered these elements necessary to fending off the introduction and implementation of transnational ambitions by proponents of Global Governance.

The Conference reconvened Monday morning with a spirited discussion concerned with using the political process and judicial system to thwart and defeat Global Governance activism. A distinctly academic intellectual discussion about whether Constitutional Law was robust enough to prevent the political branches of government from violating the Constitution through treaties whose provisions conflict with constitutional guarantees was initiated by Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA School of Law. Professor Volokh gave an extensive portrayal of why the introduction of Sharia Law into the American judicial system is not threatening U.S. Constitutional rule of law. His observations were challenged by Larry Greenfield, Steven Groves and by John Yoo. Professor Volokh’s defense of his position was based primarily on viewing individual situations and circumstances as singular, isolated potential constitutional violations easily rationalized away by equating Islam’s ambitions to those of other, more benign religious institutions found in America. This approach was resounding rejected by Stephen Coughlin, a fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, who successfully portrayed the fallacy of ignoring the global dominance agenda openly preached and taught by proponents of Islamic global dominance under Sharia Law. Mr. Coughlin’s remarks received applause from Conference attendees.

After an address by Professor Mike Farris of Patrick Henry University on how Global Governance threatens the nuclear family through international laws and treaties, the Conference concluded with a reading of and discussion about the Conference Declaration.

The Declaration of Los Angeles: Sovereignty, Democracy and Individual Rights are Indivisible.

We, the undersigned, do hereby append our signatures to the statement below and declare:

THAT national sovereignty, constitutional democracy and the protection of individual rights are indivisible.

THAT constitutional democratic representative government is the most successful political system ever devised by the human mind.

THAT democratic self-government has only existed—and can only exist—within the sovereign liberal democratic nation state in which the people rule themselves.

THAT the principles of liberty, national independence and democratic self-government as articulated in Britain’s establishment of parliamentary democracy, the founding of the American republic, the establishment of the state of Israel, the achievement of dominion status in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the traditional national sovereignty of European democracies, and the continuing growth of liberal democracy in Asia, Latin America and Africa, are superior to any forms of global governance.

THAT the assertion of constitutional government’s obsolescence and decline is utterly false.

THAT while international cooperation should be encouraged and international treaties respected, no supranational authority which claims jurisdiction over liberal democratic states without the consent of the governed should be accepted.

THAT non-governmental organizations which purport to represent an international constituency do not have the legal or political authority to speak for the citizens of liberal democratic nation states, only democratically elected representatives have such legitimate democratic authority.

THAT the constitutions of our respective nations remain the supreme and inalienable law of our lands and if ever a conflict arises between our respective constitutions and any form of supranational authority (such as interpretations of international law, rulings of the United Nations, judgements of international courts, etc.), our Constitutions and constitutional principles will always prevail.

THAT we call on leaders of democratic nation states to reject the demands of transnational advocates to subsume domestic law to international law and stand together with us in upholding the principles of national sovereignty while rejecting the claims and arguments of global governance advocates.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/global-governance-vs-national-sovereignty/

As relative proof for her contention on alternative forms of transportation, Parker cites data that shows there had been a noticeable decline in ozone concentration in Atlanta, GA during the 1996 Olympic games, and in Beijing, China, during the Olympics in 2008. The Olympic Committee restricts the use of motor vehicles for the duration of the games, so there was less car exhaust in those areas at those times. As for the dietary changes, there is a more convoluted equation that includes the amount of oil-based products used in agriculture, and the negative effects they have on the environment.

Now, it is difficult to argue against the idea that eating less red meat and being more active are intelligent choices for health-conscious Americans. However, taking the additional step of suggesting to doctors that encouraging these behaviors may have the additional side-effect of combating Global Warming is troublesome at best. Readers of AFP Journal did reply to this article, and pointed out some perceived flaws in the theory, primarily on the science Parker chose to back her thesis. One part of the editorial response to the readers’ feedback is rather telling.

3. Scientific process: When Dr. Parker first proposed this article, we challenged the author to justify how this information could be of use to the office-based physician, in terms of improving practice and patient outcomes. The author replied with a detailed explanation about how physicians can counsel their patients in ways that would help their health, as well as be good for the environment – a double benefit. These included eating less red meat and using bicycles for exercise and transportation. Although we were aware that the issue of global warming is controversial, we did not think that these particular recommendations, which are consistent with current national guidelines on healthy diet and physical activity, would be considered controversial.

As is standard for every clinical review article, the manuscript was independently assessed by two medical editors and three external reviewers. The reviews were supportive of the article’s basic concept, and provided helpful recommendations to strengthen and increase its relevance to the practicing family physician.

To provide additional perspective on this topic, we solicited an accompanying editorial. It described the Healthier Hospitals Initiative, and also said: “the American Medical Association (AMA), in concert with the American Nurses Association and the American Public Health Association, has strongly supported educating health professionals about the impacts of climate change. The AMA is a major participant in the Climate and Health Literacy Consortium, which has developed free standard PowerPoint presentations for hospital administrators and clinical staff.”

Finally, Dr. Parker is codirector of the Program on Global Sustainability and Health and director of the Global Environmental Change and Sustainability major and minor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and is an expert in the field. We mention this to indicate that this article was not published without due deliberation and discourse.

In writing, and life, context is everything. Parker is a researcher with an agenda, and a rather severe bias. Her entire career is based on proving links between the environment and people’s health. This article is just a small part of her work. Before trying to tell our doctors to encourage us to live healthier to save the planet, she wrote a book telling us directly. And it’s not hard to figure out why she might target the petroleum industry in particular, albeit indirectly, through the agriculture industry. Parker is also a proponent of the Peak Oil theory – that we are approaching a point of critical mass where petroleum use versus supply is concerned. Due to being over-reliant on oil, society will reach a point where shortages in that resource will start a domino effect, particularly in agriculture, that will lead to famines and radical inflation. But, that is yet another short-sighted theory from the world of environmentalists, primarily because it gives little or no consideration to one thing that the petroleum industry takes into account when making projections about the worldwide oil supply. It does not take into account the fact that industry in general is continually searching for and implementing technologies that increase fuel efficiency. The irony of this shouldn’t be lost on most conservatives, since a great deal of that research was essentially forced on the automobile industry in particular by the environmentalists themselves, in the form of governmental regulations.

So what do we take away from all of this, as conservatives? This should be considered a warning shot. While it’s unlikely that Parker’s research and writings will manage to make many waves with anyone that doesn’t already agree with her anyway, it would be foolish to not consider this a harbinger of things to come. Combine this with the current advertising campaigns featuring children with breathing problems promoting EPA initiatives on the Hill, and it is obvious that environmentalists are moving closer to the reality of the situation. No matter how much they want to say that they want to save the planet, that simply isn’t the case. We can’t save something that doesn’t need saving. The planet will still be here long after we’re gone, unless we disappear because the planet itself is destroyed in some cosmic event.

What environmentalists really are trying to save is our ability to live comfortably on this planet. Whether or not Global Warming is actually occurring, and whether or not it is being caused by our current use of fossil fuels are matters for scientists interested in dealing with pure theory. Their findings are irrelevant, because we do not have the means at our disposal to make radical changes anyway. Green technology research has not reached the point where it can give us viable replacements for our current fuel needs. The best that we can do until viable replacements become mass-marketable is to continue focusing on increasing fuel efficiency, and decreasing carbon emissions through improved filtration technology. Cars built today do not cause anywhere near the amount of pollution as those built in the 1970′s and earlier. Arguably, the only thing standing in the way of scientists focusing on applying the technology that accomplished that in the automobile industry to other high-carbon emission industries is the fascination with finding the next best fuel.

So, if your doctor starts trying to sell you on the idea of eating less red meat, and riding bicycles to work as your own little way to save the planet, please do set that physician straight. If you choose to do it, make sure the doctor knows it’s because you want to improve your own health, and that’s all. Sorry, but no one is going to save the world by choosing salad over steak, or pedaling over driving.

As the media begins their opposition research on the likely GOP candidate, video footage, previous news reports and Massachusetts legislation are coming to light in which Romney clearly voices his commitment to the climate change stance that human beings are making the earth warmer.

In June 2012 while on the campaign trail, a reporter caught Romney with a sound bite. “I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he said.

Is Romney really a liberal? Not exactly.

Romney is a business man, and a highly successful one at that. While at Bain & Company and Bain Capital, he made millions of dollars helping clients invest, reorganize and take advantage of tax breaks and government initiatives to grow their businesses. Many of the government initiatives, both in the U.S. and abroad, involve trading carbon credits.

What are the initiatives of Bain?

“Experts agree that climate change and environmental degradation must be tackled on a global scale.”

Though not controversial for a consulting firm to be interested in conserving energy, the Bain Company seems to have a particular affinity for carbon credit trading, which would have occurred on the Chicago Climate Exchange, had the Cap and Trade bill passed last year.” — Examiner.com

Whether or not Romney believes in global warming is really of no consequence. Of all the issues on which Romney has changed his opinion, global warming is not among them. He is an extremely intelligent man. He surely understands that his reputation with his clients is at stake should he flip flop on this issue.

The republican party “regulars” like Senator John McCain and Governor Jeb Bush seem to be propping Romney up as the inevitable nominee. Have they given thought to his ability to win, knowing he has a history of telling voters what they want to hear but doing something quite different once elected or worse, once hired?

With the help of the mainstream media outlets, the DNC will have a large arsenal of media material exposing Romney’s affinity for carbon credits and human-caused climate change.

How will he spin it?

“When you put a moderate republican against a real democrat, the real democrat wins every time.” — Ann Coulter

Doubtful.

For months I have begged, pleaded, Facebook’d and Tweeted to debate moderators from nearly every debate thus far to PLEASE ask the question, “Do you or your investments stand to make significant financial gains through climate change legislation?” Not one moderator has bitten. Heck, not one REPORTER on the campaign trail has bothered to ask anything remotely resembling a question about Romney’s climate change beliefs and how it relates to his work at Bain.

The truth is, voters need to know the answer… before the GOP nomination process is complete. As noted just last summer, Romney has never backed off his assertion that human beings are creating global warming and that world leaders need to do something about it.

This conversation is particularly important this week as the World Economic Forum converges in Davos, Switzerland. Bain & Company is “proud to be a strategic partner and active member of the World Economic Forum, an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas.” (www.bain.com)

Bain & Company is quite clear on their opinions of climate change and carbon emissions. In one post entitled “The green edge: Why carbon competitiveness matters,” Bain writers attempt to convince potential clients to “gain a lead over industry rivals by reducing your company’s exposure to carbon.”

Bain offers strategies to overcome the inevitable carbon regulations imposed by governments worldwide.

“As governments around the globe regulate the emission of greenhouse gases with increasing severity in the next two decades, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will become a financial liability, not just at the industry level but also at the company level. Carbon regulation will change the competitive landscape of many industries but will also fundamentally change the competitive standing of individual companies within the industry.”

The cozy relationship between the WEF and Bain & Company should be explored. Romney should be questioned, especially considering what is easily found with a few clicks on the WEF website.

“The World Economic Forum engages business, government and experts in partnerships to create the low-carbon economy. The World Economic Forum provides a neutral platform to develop universal carbon emissions reporting.”

Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com outlines in detail Romney’s love affair with CO2 emission standards, Obama’s “Climate Change Guru” Holdren and hiring climate change activists.

Voters deserve to know what Romney’s opinions and plans are when it comes to submitting the United States to international climate activists’ demands on carbon. Will he stand up for the sovereignty of America and against global regulations? Could this be the arrow that finally plants firmly in the heel of the otherwise infallible Romney?

Two major news headlines came out yesterday, Dec. 11, 2011, that when read separately do not lead the readers to see the complete picture of how one is directly connected to the other. Headline 1, from Business Standard was titled, Canada quits Kyoto Protocol, becomes first nation to do so. The second headline is from Fox News.com titled, >U.N. Climate Conference Reaches Hard-Fought Agreement.

In the first headline from Business Standard we see the following explanation about Canada dropping out of the original Kyoto Protocol, which is explained here from the United Nations Kyoto Protocol/Climate Change homepage as:

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions .These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012
The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so.
(emphasis mine)

As the above headline states, Canada has now refused to abide by any further mandates by the globalists in the U.N. that were inserted into the original Kyoto protocol. Canada’s conservative P.M., Stephan Harper and their Environmental Minister, Peter Kent released the following statements as to why they will no longer allow the U.N. Climate Change manipulators to basically charge Canada for carbon emissions, siphon off that wealth to other countries, while the two largest emitters, China and the United States are not covered under the newest U.N Climate Change mandates that were established just two days ago at the U.N. Climate Change Conference held in Durban, S. Africa.( now known as the Durban Platform)

“We are invoking Canada’s legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto,” Environment Minister Peter Kent said, two days after a marathon UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa, at which 194 nations agreed to work on a new roadmap to curb global carbon emissions. Before this week, the Kyoto Protocol covered less than 30% of global emissions. Now it covers less than 13% — and that number is only shrinking. The Kyoto Protocol does not cover the world’s two largest emitters – the United States and China – and therefore will not work” he said.

As the original Kyoto Protocol was shown to be pretty much a lopsided failure, as is usually the case when people try to get many different nations to agree on one set of rules, it has now been proven to be just the initial step in allowing the U.N. Climate Change plutocracy to take massive amounts of wealth from one country and give it to another country based on very shady and cloudy Global Warming theory-based mandates. We see this proven by several of the U.N. Durban conference attendee statements after the headlines hit the news announcing, U.N. Climate Change Conference Reaches Hard-Fought Agreement. From the above-linked Fox News article we see the following tidbits: (emphasis mine)

The proposed Durban Platform (COP17) offered answers to problems that have bedeviled global warming negotiations for years about sharing the responsibility for controlling carbon emissions and helping the world’s poorest and most climate-vulnerable nations cope with changing forces of nature.
Sunday’s deal also sets up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year for poor countries. Other documents in the package lay out rules for monitoring and verifying emissions reductions, protecting forests, transferring clean technologies to developing countries and scores of technical issues.

While the debate raged on, India objected to being included in the Durban Platform mandates under the guise that “developing nations” of the past 20 years should not pay for 200 years of Global warming caused by industrialized nations. If that is to be considered fair, how about “developing nations” compensating industrial nations for developing the very technology that reduces carbon reductions in the first place? India’s Environmental Minister, Jayanthi Natarajan did have the most compelling comment of the conference: “How do I give a blank check and give a legally binding agreement to sign away the rights of 1.2 billion people?”

This is the main problem with the U.N. being given the power to take wealth and technology from one nation to give it to the nation of their choice, under the guise of being World Climate Change Czars. This is also being driven by a conglomerate of Socialists that seem to want Americans to ignore just what that Socialism has done recently to the European Union countries. Canada has taken the lead in pulling out of this One World Government scheme that is hiding behind the initials U.N.

It would be wise for the U.S to pull out of this recently announced Durban Platform/Kyoto Protocol redo, and take a firm stand against this unfair attempt at redistributing America’s wealth and technology under the guise of saving the planet from the evil carbon emissions that have in fact, allowed America to help feed and develop other nations for over 200 years. Unless of course, the Globalists at the U.N. would like to discuss the other nations being mandated to pay America back for her centuries of contributions to carbon emission reductions, clean-air technology, food production, electricity generation etc. America’s system of capitalism has allowed the rest of the world to benefit from it for a long time now. Is that something we should bend over and let the U.N. Climate Change plutocrats and fear-mongers penalize us for?

Footnote: Actual commitments from the last minute “negotiations” at the Durban Platform conference have been slow to hit the news. Relative updates will be posted as they develop, including a final summary of just what, if anything this conference accomplished.

Update: Ed Morrissey over at hotair.com summed it up nicely:

So the “agreement” is a non-binding pledge to meet again and make another agreement in, oh, three or four years, and that agreement won’t have to take effect for another five years after that. The only commitments in the near future for the Durban agreement is some voluntary reduction goals that emerging nations won’t bother to meet and industrial nations will ignore. Just like … Kyoto.

Recently a batch of e-mails from “global warming scientists” have come to light on the eve of the latest round of UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa. Over 5,000 e-mails have been uncovered, and three themes emerge from them:

1. Climate research scientists are taking measures to conceal rather than freely disseminate data and discussions.
2. Climate research scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a scientific inquiry.
3. Climate research scientists admit to each other that much of the climate change “science” is weak and dependent on manipulation of facts and data.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”  &nbsp[emphasis mine]

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

The storm surrounding the leaked e-mails underlines the need for climate researchers to be more open about their research. But the researchers cannot be open. One University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit e-mail discusses not including too much “optimistic stuff” into studies about the extent of man-made global warming. To try to counter the e-mails, environmental public opinion expert Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, says, “the timing of the (e-mail) release really does show the tactics that opponents of regulation at all costs pursue in the face of this meeting.”

American taxpayers, through “assessed” dues, account for 22% of the United Nation’s (U.N.) regular operating budget. China, for comparison, contributes 3% of the U.N. budget.