Apparently in China; population control is keeping things "green." Of course this story in China Daily does not underscore the wicked ways by which population control is implemented.

COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC).

"Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture," said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.

Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.

Meanwhile, she said studies have also shown that family planning programs are more efficient in helping cut emissions, citing research by Thomas Wire of London School of Economics that states: "Each $7 spent on basic family planning would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one ton" whereas it would cost $13 for reduced deforestation, $24 to use wind technology, $51 for solar power, $93 for introducing hybrid cars and $131 electric vehicles.

She admitted that China's population program is not without consequences, as the country is entering the aging society fast and facing the problem of gender imbalance.

"I'm not saying that what we have done is 100 percent right, but I'm sure we are going in the right direction and now 1.3 billion people have benefited," she said.

She said some 85 percent of the Chinese women in reproductive age use contraceptives, the highest rate in the world. This has been achieved largely through education and improvement of people's lives, she said.

This holistic approach that integrates policy on population and development, a strategy promoting sustainable development of population, resources and environment should serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation, she said.

So China is doing its part to curb greenhouse gases --by controlling its population? The only problem here is that China was controlling its population long before the whole Climate Change / Global Warming issue was even cooked up. I suppose now China feels that it can be a little more open with what it has done. Hey, "1.3 billion people have benefited," said Zhao Baige.

The Chinese must be paying attention to the Obama administration. The Obama administration came out with a number to represent how many jobs were saved by the Stimulus Package. Now the Chinese are claiming 1.3 billion people benefited from government enforced population control. China's 1.3 billion number is just as absurd as Obama's "jobs saved" numbers. It's like claiming you can calculate how much rain didn't fall in any given area!

The question still remains; how many people has the Chinese government killed and will kill in their quest for population control? The Chinese government will kill as many people as they choose, the only difference is that they are not going to be "called out" on human rights issues because they are killing people for the environment.

Population control is "A O.K." so long as the environment is the goal. Besides, China never claimed to uphold any human rights standard, so they can do whatever they want right?

Morality by consensus is a scary thing; especially if you were born in China!

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Get a load of this article from the Times Online (Times of London). Now there are U.K. scientists trying to prop up the faulty science of Global Warming. Remember it's Global Warming not Climate Change. The Climate changes constantly; always has, always will. The name change is a ploy to throw people off. It's like "Brakes for Less," it was "Brake Depot." A couple lawsuits later and they change the name to throw people off. Referring to Global Warming as Climate Change is designed to through you off.

The Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furore over stolen e-mails.

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.

This is absurd! Why is it that we have 1,700 scientists signing a petition. Does that make the science sound? Does that make the data provided by Phil Jones correct? The answer is NO!

It doesn't matter how many "Top Scientists" sign a petition. Why not release the raw data? You could have avoided spamming scientists' mail boxes, and the truth would have come out.

This whole Global Warming movement is so transparently a politically driven fraud. I hope this petition becomes more widely known.

I would like to start my own petition. Hey, East Anglia University. Release the raw data and site the sources. I'm going to send my own email to the East Anglia University asking them to release the raw data which resulted in the Global Warming "science."

Please direct any queries regarding Freedom of Information, Data Protection and Copyright to:

Dave Palmer
Information Policy and Compliance Manager
The Library
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ

Tel. (01603) 59 3523

Email. foi@uea.ac.uk

If you want to get something done, you can't rely on this guy. Why don't we send inquiries to the admissions office? This might force some sort of response.

Admissions enquiries: 01603 591515; admissions@uea.ac.uk

Let's see what happens...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I find it interesting that the BBC is one of the only major news sources to report on what is really going on in Copenhagen. I also find it interesting that there is more talk of money changing hands, than there is about temperatures, or the climate.

Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen has described the UN climate summit in Copenhagen as an "opportunity the world cannot afford to miss".

The African Union has threatened to walk out of the talks if industrialised countries do not agree to help poor states pay for the transition to cleaner economies.

Any agreement made at Copenhagen is intended to supplant the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which expires in 2012.

Connie Hedegaard, conference president and Denmark's former climate minister, said: "This is our chance. If we miss it, it could take years before we got a new and better one. If we ever do."

To stress the importance of the summit, 56 newspapers in 45 countries published the same editorial on Monday, warning that climate change will "ravage our planet" unless action is agreed, the London-based Guardian reported.

Connie Hedegaard seems worried that this might be the only chance to get developed nations to sign on to a treaty. If what the IPCC is saying about climate change is true, wouldn't the need for action become more evident as time passes? Why is it that this might be the only chance to do this? It just doesn't add up.

The African Union said it will walk away unless it gets money; money from the "rich" nations. This is starting to sound more like a money grab to me.

I didn't realize money was going to "clean" the planet, It's green, but not that way.

Check out the list of "key players" in Copenhagen; from the BBC's website. There is some interesting information there. Get a load of this!

LUMUMBA STANISLAUS-KAW DI-APING

Role: Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of Sudan to the United Nations in New York and chair of the Group 77 and China
Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping

Copenhagen outlook:

Will not settle for a politically-binding agreement. Says it is crucial for developing nations to come away with a legally-binding treaty.

Developing nations need funding for mitigation and adaptation efforts. He says the financial contributions by rich countries has to be an amount significant enough to lead to "rapid, sustainable development and industrialisation of developing countries, in particular Africa".

What he says: "A weaker (Kyoto) deal is a deal that is at the cost of our existence."

This guy sounds really worried about the climate.

What a crock! I wonder when the U.S. media is going to catch on to this? Hopefully followed by the American people.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

This is outrageous! The EPA is expected to name CO2 as a pollutant. You've got to be kidding me.

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently nobody at the EPA got the memo about the forged climate data leading to the whole Man Made Global Warming theory.

It's funny how this always ends up the same way. It's just like the scientists looking for the "missing link." Every time there is a new feather-winged lizard or half-ape half-human hybrid it's found to be a hoax. The reason; scientists pushing this B.S. are not scientists at all, they are trying to push their ideology. Science is not the goal when you fake your results.

The difference here is that the "feather-winged lizard forgers" and "ape-human-hybrid bone gluers" don't have an effect on anyone's bottom line --the Climate-Gate Scientists do. What would people think if we were passing legislation based on those fake feather-winged lizards, or any other hoax?

So remember to hold your breath! You don't want to contribute to Global Warming do you?...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

CNN is reporting that the White House is going on the offensive when it comes to Health Care Reform. My question is; since when is this news?

As the Senate debate over health care reform gets underway, the administration is planning to "push back on the distortions and misinformation... being circulated by interest groups and opponents." The new offensive includes a video featuring Vice President Joe Biden and the presidents of the American Nurses Association and the American Association of Family Physicians.

(Who do Americans trust more on health care reform, asks Biden in the video: doctors and nurses, or "special interests"?)

Sorry Joe, doctors and nurses are NOT the ones who will make the health care decisions under the proposed legislation. The Health Care Commissioner is going to determine what care is cost effective. Nice try Joe Biden...

I didn't see any "special interest groups" at any of the town hall meetings. When people throw around the term "special interest group" it's meaningless. Why would one use such an ambiguous term anyway --why not just name some groups outright? Could it be that the special interest groups are straw men?

I have special interests. I call it --looking out for my (and my family's) best interest! I don't believe that surrendering my health care choices to government bureaucrats would be in my family's best interest!

There is a simple reason that the White House is going on the offensive when it comes to health care reform. A majority of educated Americans (educated on the issue of health care) don't want a government run system. Those who do support a government run system do so out of ignorance. That is why the health care reform push is so strong, and nearly all from the government. The Obama administration knows that the longer health care reform is debated in public, the more the American people dislike their plans.

It's simple, where is the ground swell for the health care overhaul? I have yet to see any grass roots support for government run health care reform. Sure you have large gatherings of union employees, but there is no "real" ground swell. Nobody is running around saying, increase my taxes, and take away my health care choices! In essence that is what's going to happen if this legislation passes.

Remember last week the announcement that women under 40 should not get mammograms.

To calculate an individual's estimated risk, see the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool at http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/ on the Internet.

Go ahead and click the link above. You will go to area of the National Cancer Institute's site where they have the "Risk Calculator." Anyone who doesn't think that these statistics will be used in government health care decision making is very naive.

I had a relative ask, "Jeff what do you think about the findings? Do you think the age of 40 is really accurate?" My response was simple. Ask any women in her 30s who was diagnosed with breast cancer. Family history means nothing for the first person in a blood line who is diagnosed with cancer! If family history is factored when trying to determine risk; Family history is also factored when trying to exclude risk "avoid unnecessary testing."

Rationing is a serious issue. For anything finite rationing must take place. There is rationing in the current health care system. Currently rationing is based on an individual's ability to pay (and their insurance) if they have any. The proposed government run system would rely on government funds and statistical data to determine who is "worthy" of care. There will not be enough government money to cover everyone, so you must have rationing. The difference, if the government can't afford your procedure, you don't get it. You also might not be able to pay for the procedure --even if you have the money. Remember the "Health Care Commissioner?" The commissioner is going to determine which procedures are effective for all areas of health care, public and private!

To say that there will be no rationing is a flat-out lie. Are government funds infinite?

There is no need for misinformation when the proposed legislation is NO GOOD!

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.