By Elmer Beauregard

If you haven't figured it out by now, I am a Tea Party guy. I go to all the rallies and even have had booths at the rallies, I love the Tea Party movement. Lately however there seems to be some confusion about what the Tea Party stands for. Politicians are either trying to capture some of its energy or trying to besmirch it. So to clarify what I think the Tea Party is all about, I made this list.

Top Ten Things That Define The Tea Party

10. The Tea Party is all about Freedom, personal and otherwise
9. The Tea Party is True Grassroots, not top down authority
8. The Tea Party is for Protecting our Borders
7. The Tea Party is Against Big Government and the Nanny State
6. The Tea Party is Against Racism in all forms
5. The Tea Party is Against Globalism and the New World Order
4. The Tea Party is Against The Military Industrial Complex / War
3. The Tea Party Is Against Carbon Taxes and Global Warming Hype
2. The Tea Party is Anti-Federal Reserve and International Banks
1. The Tea Party is Anti-Tax

By Elmer Beauregard

The east coast has a few warm days and they are calling it the hottest year on record.

They can say that its the warmest year on record because they are cooking the books. They are measuring "worldwide" temperature from less and less weather stations which are mostly in heavily populated areas which tend to be warmer.

If you Google "2010 hottest year on record" you will get thousand of articles. This ties into my first Law of Global Warming which I call "The Chicken Little Syndrome" which states:

After an unusual warm spell, some people think that means the globe will burn up, so they run around screaming "The Globe Is Warming! The Globe Is Warming!"

This inevitably always leads to my second law of Global Warming or "God Is In Control":

Whenever the mainstream media comes out and says that Global Warming is for real, we get hit with unusually cold weather.

Let's not forget the now infamous January 1996 Newsweek Global Warming Cover Story that came out during the blizzard of the century. Newsweek later blamed the blizzard on Global Warming. This put a big dent in the Anti-Global Warming movement, and they were forced to start calling it "Climate Change".

Infowars.com

"The Obama Deception was getting more and more popular, and the establishment doesn't like the fact that it exposes the Left-Right paradigm and identifies Obama as a puppet," said Alex Jones.

By Elmer Beauregard

Nobody can dispute that there has been some global cooling in this last decade. Even though the land temperature charts aren't reliable, because the number of weather stations keeps changing and the stations are all at major airports or in parking lots. If the IPCC had their way I'm sure they would measure the entire earth's temperature from one weather station at LAX, just like they measure the entire planet's CO2 level from one station on top of a volcano in Hawaii.

Even with all the incoming data being skewed to show warming, it still shows some cooling over the last decade while CO2 is increasing.

Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com

The Chinese system has nothing to do with "war" and everything to do with political oppression

When Senator Joe Lieberman attempted to justify draconian legislation that would provide President Obama with a figurative kill switch to shut down parts of the Internet, he cited the Chinese system of Internet policing as model which America should move towards.

Given the fact that Lieberman seeks to mimic the Chinese system as the goal of his Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, should it concern us that the Chinese government routinely orders Twitter and Facebook-like services to "purge sites of politically "sensitive" words and expressions," as the Financial Times reports today?

"Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too," Lieberman told CNN's Candy Crowley last month.

However, China's "war" is not against foreign terrorists or hackers, it's against people who dare to use the Internet to express dissent against government atrocities or corruption. China's system of Internet policing is about crushing freedom of speech and has nothing to do with legitimate security concerns as Lieberman well knows.

It's a system concentrated around state oppression of any individual or group that seeks to use the Internet to draw attention to political causes frowned upon by the authorities.

Rest of the article.

After Lord Monckton's lengthy rebuttal yesterday to John Abraham's 83 minute critique, Professor Abraham has decided to remove 10 minutes of his presentation.

From wattsupwiththat.com

"Latest news - sent to me by two readers of Anthony's outstanding blog - is that Abraham, inferentially on orders from the Trustees of his university acting on advice from their lawyers, has (without telling me) re-recorded his entire 83-minute talk to take out the very many direct accusations of "misrepresentation", "complete fabrication", "sleight of hand" etc. etc. that he had hurled at me in the original version of his talk. For instance, he now seems to have appreciated his unwisdom in having accused me of having "misrepresented" the work of scientists I had not even cited in the first place.

Taking out his direct libels has reduced the length of his talk by 10 minutes. To my own lawyers, Abraham's retreat will be of interest, because it is in effect an admission that his talk is libelous, and that he and his university know it is libelous. Though his new version corrects some of the stupider and more egregious errors in the original, many crass errors remain, including errors of simple arithmetic that are surely disfiguring in a "scientist" presuming to correct mine."

Anchored by Andrea Canning - Original Air Date: Monday July 12, 2010

ABC News Global Warming Debate Part 1:

Susan Ferrechio , Washington Examiner

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., plans to bring a comprehensive energy and climate bill to the Senate floor by the end of the month that will include a cap on carbon emissions produced by the nation's utilities.

Reid announced his plans after huddling with President Obama about the Senate's July agenda and said he wants to introduce the bill, which has not yet been written, the week of July 26.

Reid was vague on details, but signaled he wants the bill to require the nation's electricity providers to pay a price for emitting carbon, which the EPA says will lead to global warming.

Read more at the Washington Examiner.

Thanks to Climate Realists

Christopher Monckton has issued an extensive and detailed critique and refutation of a widely circulated 83-minute personal attack on him by one J.P. Abraham, a lecturer in fluid mechanics at the University of St. Thomas, Minnesota.

Professor Abraham's 83-minute lecture with 115 slides purported to demolish a talk about climate change that Lord Monckton had given in St. Paul, Minnesota, in October 2009. More than 2.5 million people have seen Monckton's talk on YouTube, making it one of the most popular viewings on the web.

In June 2010, John Abraham posted up an attack on the internet via the servers of the University of St. Thomas. Within a week, Monckton's response letter with its near-500 questions was in Abraham's hands, to which he has not responded as challenged.

Monckton publicly accuses Abraham of -

Bad faith in having "furtively" spent eight months preparing his savage personal attack behind Monckton's back, entirely contrary to accepted academic practice;

Malice in having made dozens of serious allegations about Monckton when he knew the allegations he had made were false in every material particular, or had no reason to believe the allegations were true;

Appealing to a false authority on the subject of the climate that, as a lecturer in fluid mechanics, he did not possess (Monckton demonstrates Abraham appears at times incompetent even in arithmetic);

Academic dishonesty in having repeatedly made up statements that Monckton had not made, having put those statements to other scientists, having obtained hostile responses from those scientists, and having included those hostile responses in his attack as though they were responses to what Monckton had said; and

Lying repeatedly by misstating what Monckton had said and then attacking those misstatements; by falsely and repeatedly alleging that Monckton had misrepresented scientists' results when Monckton had either accurately represented the results or not cited the scientists he was alleged to have misrepresented at all; by unjustifiably and repeatedly impugning Monckton's integrity, qualifications, experience, and competence in a manner that he knew to be inaccurate; and by repeatedly taking Monckton's words out of their context and making a willful nonsense of them.

Download Monckton's critique.

by Stefan Theil, Newsweek

Why the environment is no longer a surefire political winner.

Just three years ago the politics of global warming was enjoying its golden moment. The release in 2006 of Al Gore's Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, had riveted global audiences with its predictions of New York and Miami under 20 feet of water. Within 12 months, leading politicians with real power were on board. Germany's Angela Merkel, dubbed the "climate chancellor" by her country's press, arranged a Greenland photo op with a melting iceberg and promised to cut Europe's emissions by 20 percent by 2020. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who called climate change a scourge equal to fascism, offered 60 percent by 2050. In December 2007, the world got its very first green leader. Harnessing the issue of climate change, Kevin Rudd became prime minister of Australia, ready to take on what he called "the biggest political, economic, and moral challenge of our times." Now, almost everywhere, green politics has fallen from its lofty heights.

Following two of the harshest winters on record in the Northern Hemisphere--not to mention an epic economic crisis--voters no longer consider global warming a priority. Just 42 percent of Germans now worry about climate change, down from 62 percent in 2006. In Australia, only 53 percent still consider it a pressing issue, down from 75 percent in 2007. Americans rank climate change dead last of 21 problems that concern them most, according to a January Pew poll. Last month Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, blasting climate change as a "sideshow" to global economic issues, canceled the meeting of environment ministers that has preceded the G8 or G20 summit every year but one since 1994. Merkel has slashed green-development aid in the latest round of budget cuts, while in Washington, Barack Obama seems to have cooled on his plan to cap emissions. In perhaps the most striking momentum reversal for environmental politicians, last month Rudd became the first leader to be destroyed by his green policies. Flip-flopping over planned emissions cuts as the opposition exploited Australian voters' flagging support for climate measures, he was finally ousted by party rebels.

Read the rest of the article.

By Patrick J. Michaels, WSJ

Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews.

Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released suggesting some of the world's leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data to paint what scientist Keith Briffa called "a nice, tidy story" of climate history. The scandal became known as Climategate.

Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, "nothing to see here." Last week "The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review," commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.

Read the rest of the article.

By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, Canada Free Press

There were two British investigations into the behavior of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) exposed in leaked emails. Both reports provide no answers, no explanations and are only telling for what they did not ask or do and how they were manipulated. The blatant level of cover up is frightening. These are acts by people who believe they are unaccountable because they have carried out the greatest scam in history with impunity. The degree of cover up in both cases is an arrogant in-your-face statement that we are the power and are not answerable to anyone. Their cover up almost belittles the ones they are investigating.

Read the rest of the article.

Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com

Top elitist and Harvard Professor Kenneth Rogoff has shamefully called for the BP oil spill disaster to be exploited in order to create political momentum behind a carbon tax, even going to the lengths of embracing the nightmare scenario of hurricanes pushing the oil onshore as a way to create political momentum behind Obama's dreaded "green economy".

In an opinion piece for the Korea Times, Rogoff sensationally warns that failure to exploit the tragedy for political ends would represent a "lost opportunity," a startling display of mercenary indiscretion, and a shining example of what we warned about from the very beginning, that elitists would waste little time in pointing to heart-rendering images of oil-covered birds and dead wildlife as part of a crass stunt to push their consumption tax agenda.

Read the rest of the article.

By David Derbyshire, DailyMail

The scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' scandal got his job back yesterday, despite being criticised by the official inquiry for being secretive and unhelpful.

Professor Phil Jones was suspended as head of the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia last year after leaked emails appeared to show his team manipulated data and blocked Freedom of Information requests.

But he was reinstated after a six-month inquiry cleared him and colleagues of wrongdoing and concluded their 'rigour and honesty' was not in doubt.
The university said the £200,000 official review should 'lay to rest the conspiracy theories, untruths and misunderstandings that have circulated' since the stolen emails were published online.

But sceptics condemned the report as a whitewash and said it left many questions unanswered.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292703/Climategate-scientist-Phil-Jones-STILL-gets-job-back.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0t6pHRpgv

By Roger F. Gay, mensnewsdaily.com

As CNN explains it; "An independent report released Wednesday into the leaked "Climategate" e-mails found no evidence to question the "rigor and honesty" of scientists involved." That seems to be the general conclusion offered by Muir Russell, chairman of the select group of political insiders who conducted the review.

The review focused on "the behaviors of the scientists in the climatic research unit in the University of East Anglia," which was at the center of the Climategate scandal. Russell provided a carefully worded public statement on the review.

"Those behaviors have been commented on in the light of a release - an improper release of emails in the autumn of 2009, not long before the Copenhagen conference. We went through this very carefully and we concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists. And that's a comment about the processes that they went through to produce their work, to handle their data, to have their work peer-reviewed, and so on. A lot of what they do makes a big impact on the advice that goes to policy-makers, both domestically and internationally, and we concluded similarly that these behaviors that were the subject of criticism had not affected the impact on the policy advice. What we did however conclude was that they had not shown sufficient openness in the way in which they responded to requests for information about what they were doing, about the data they were processing, about the stations they were analyzing, and so on. And we've made a number of recommendations both for them and for the University of East Anglia in terms of how it manages its freedom of information process, and how it manages its risk process."

It's a bit of a brain-sneezer to imply that the researchers operated generally as good and proper scientists in the way data was handled, their work was produced and reviewed, and then state that they were deficient in providing information essential to the processes. If the data can't be confirmed and the details of work aren't explained, it's not science. A series of unsupportable statements promoting an idea isn't science, it's a marketing campaign.

Read the rest of the article.

By Elmer Beauregard

I was checking out the blogoshere and the latest on Michael Mann and how he has been cleared of all wrong doing. I noticed that they are now admitting he did hide the decline, but now their saying that its no big deal.

An End to Climategate? Penn State Clears Michael Mann
Wyatt Andrews, CBS News

Tree data showing global temps going down didn't mesh with actual recorded temperatures, so pains were taken, (most of the time disclosed, but sometimes not) to use actual temp recordings and "hide the decline" from trees. Sometimes, on the so called hockey stick charts that show global temps as a flat line and then a sharp upward spike are indeed mixing tree ring data and actual temps.

The five key leaked emails from UEA's Climatic Research Unit
Fred Pearce, guardian.co.uk

Jones and Mike Mann had been adding real temperatures to the end longer graphs of temperature estimates based on tree rings. The only thing being "hidden" was tree ring data that did not match reality.

This last statement is remarkable because it shows that what is being done in the realm of "Climate Science" is not science at all but rather politics.

By Jeremy A. Kaplan, FoxNews.com

Michael Mann, the author of a notorious scientific study that is a tent pole of global warming public policy, has been found innocent of charges of improper conduct.

Once again.

Mann's seminal work was a 1998 climate study that showed a sharp, hockey-stick-shaped increase in the world's temperatures based on an analysis of age rings in trees. Despite ongoing criticism, the study formed the backbone of global warming theories -- until leaked e-mails from top climate scientists cast fresh doubt on Mann's methodology and integrity, notably "the trick" he used to make his data so compelling.

A group of six of Mann's Penn State colleagues found him innocent of 3 out of 4 charges on February 3, but the investigative panel requested a deeper, more thorough look into whether his conduct deviated from standard scientific practice.

So the panel asked Mann five questions, spoke with his boss, and interviewed three other climate scientists. Case closed.

Rest of the article.

By Elmer Beauregard

This weeks issue of Nature Magazine features an article on the Climategate controversy. Although they didn't mention M4GW, they did mention our video "Hide the Decline" and the threatened lawsuit from Michael Mann.

Mann has grown weary of dealing with the various groups that are criticizing him. "In reality, these groups are guilty over and over again of defamation, slander and libel, but that is far more difficult to fight legally," Mann says. "Even if you were to prevail, you would have invested potentially several years of your career, and frankly those of us who love doing science are not willing to do that."

We weren't quoted but they did include an image from our second video "Hide the Decline II". The thing that I found interesting from this article is now "Global Warming" Scientists seem to be more interested in the polls about what people believe than what the temperature is doing.

Instead of graphs tracking global temperature these charts are tracking if people "believe" in Global Warming or not and what kind of support there is for carbon taxes.

The article says nothing about what the scientist were caught saying in their emails and if they were fraudulent or not, but rather about how to do damage control. They want to "humanize climate scientists" to regain the public's trust. Here's an idea stop lying to us!

I had to chuckle upon reading this paragraph:

Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist who studies public perceptions of climate change at Stanford University in California, has also seen a slight erosion in public belief in global warming over recent years, although he stresses that overall support remains high. He thinks that the cool weather of 2008 helps to explain why the population changed its opinion. "The way they decide whether climate change is happening is by sticking their finger out the window," he says. "If we get another hot year, those numbers will go up again."

He's saying the unwashed masses are stupid for not believing in global warming because its cold, basically repeating the same old mantra "weather is not the climate". But then he goes on to say that a hot year would make people believe in Global Warming again and that is a good thing.

So let's see, if we have a cold year that doesn't disprove global warming but if we have a hot year that proves global warming? And they wonder why people don't trust them.

Oh and that Hockey Stick Chart that Michael Mann was going to sue over, he himself is starting to downplay it.

Found this at the Orange County Register

Environmental issues dominated the last portion of the questioning, with Feinstein asking about the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency and the ability of citizens to sue companies for contributing to pollution and global warming. Normally, citizens can only bring cases if they have been personally "injured," but environmental injury is a gray area.

"Do you believe it's possible for citizens to demonstrate that environmental harms have injured them for constitutional purposes?" Feinstein asked.

"The answer is yes, much depending on what Congress does," Kagan replied.

By Elmer Beauregard

The number of Scientist who still believe in global warming continues to drop.

There used to be 2,500 scientists who said they believed in man-made global warming, now in a new study done by the The National Academy of Sciences, that number is down to only 1,372. And of that number 3% now don't believe in man-made Global Warming anymore.

Of course this number pails in comparison to the 31,000 scientist who have signed a petition saying they don't believe in man-made global warming.

Let's see 97% of 1,372 is 1,330 who still believe in the myth, compared to 31,487 who don't. So only 1 out 24 scientists still believes in man-made global warming

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones, Prison Planet.com

Mounting evidence shows disaster was deliberately contrived either through conscious negligence or outright sabotage and is being allowed to worsen.

There can now be no doubt whatsoever that the BP oil spill was purposefully contrived, either through deliberate negligence or outright sabotage, and is now being used to further the Obama administration's political agenda. Criminal investigations into the government and BP's role in the disaster need to be launched by state authorities in Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi immediately, while local authorities also need to call emergency legislative sessions in order to take over emergency response efforts from the feds before the crisis gets much worse.

Rest of the article.

By Elmer Beauregard

The Good: Obama Did Not Mention Global Warming Once. He didn't say anything about a consensus or overwhelming evidence, we seem to be winning on this issue

The Bad: He still calls the energy bill a "Climate" bill. Even though Global Warming is a dead issue Obama is still going to tax us for emitting CO2.

The Good: No Mention of "Peak Oil". It's hard to say we're running out of oil when its covering most of the Gulf of Mexico (from one well). Just like its hard to believe in Global Warming when your freezing to death.

The Bad: Obama did say that there is no more oil on dry land. Excuse me, what about ANWR?

& The Ugly: Said he will have to tax energy! Sure Obama is going to make BP pay for their misdeeds, but BP will also benefit greatly from the new energy bill. BP is a huge player in "Green" energy, so what they lose on the oil spill side they will more than make up for on the Cap & Trade side. Plus, when gas goes to $5 a gallon BP will double their profits without lifting a finger. And who is going to pay for all this? The American people.

By Elmer Beauregard

It turns out drilling for oil in water a mile deep isn't such a good idea after all, and ANWR is being looked at again as place to drill. But the same old arguments against drilling in ANWR are also coming up again.

The main reason for not drilling in ANWR is that it is too "Environmentally Sensitive", but I think that the Gulf is way more environmentally sensitive than ANWR. Here is a list of things that we wouldn't have to worry about if we drilled in ANWR.

Things that the gulf's environment has that ANWR doesn't have.
Fish, Shrimp, Turtles, Birds, Swamps, Beaches, Trees, Oceans, Gulf Streams

Things that ANWR's environment has that the Gulf doesn't.
Permafrost

By Bradley Fikes, nctimes.com

Turns out the award given to a 4th grader on her science report about global warming was a hoax.

Read more about it here.

note: keep in mind apparently everyone (including the girl, her family, and the school) have been scammed. The story was NOT a fake although the surrounding circumstances were, we later discovered. I don't know how this would help a skeptic or a true believers cause.