EPA's Jackson sets up greenhouse gestapo in ruling to regulate carbon dioxide as 'pollution'

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson (AP photo Manuel Balce Ceneta)

At a press conference yesterday EPA administrator Lisa Jackson pulled one right out of an old Gestapo playbook when she announced that going forward her EPA would begin to regulate carbon dioxide as "pollution" and a "threat" to public health.

It was a power grab usually reserved only for despot dictators in Banana Republics and earns the moniker: Greenhouse Gestapo.

A power grab that will affect every man, woman and child in America by putting a single government bureaucracy in control of virtually every aspect  of life in these United States of America.  (No, you won't find those exact words in her speech. To include such truth would imply transparency and honesty from this administration, something that ten months into it's first year has been as scarce as Nancy Pelosi at a Tea Party.)

Until yesterday, the date, December 7th had but one overriding meaning in American history. Marking the treacherous surprise attack by the Japanese navy on the U.S. Pacific Fleet based at Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Today forward however, December 7th will forever have dual meaning as a date that saw a second treachery perpetrated upon the American people.

Jackson laid the groundwork of her attack in her opening paragraph:

The scientific community, the business community and the policy world have spent decades studying greenhouse gas pollution and climate change. Scientists in the U.S. and around the world have tracked in the last century – and in particular the last three decades – alarming increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in our skies. That increase is deteriorating the natural balance in our atmosphere and changing our climate.

If you've been getting your news only from the entrenched media for the past few years you think nothing of the above statement.  For you are already dutifully brainwashed to believe the sky is falling, humans are causing it, and if we don't re-align the entire planetary economic system, mankind is doomed. 

If, however, you're prone to critical thinking and a natural skeptic, you're blood is boiling about now.

Jackson's use of the phrase "spent decades studying" (global warming) is quite ironic considering that it was just three short decades ago the same scientific community was shouting the calamity of the coming new ICE AGE  . 
 

Below is Fraulein Jackson's actual "finding" as printed on  the EPA website:

On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
· Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
· Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

Short, simple, to the point.  The Administraton finds it so, therefore it must be so, and all you simpletons need to just fall in line and start practicing your goose step.  We'll tell you what kind of car you can have, where you can set your thermostat, how hot you can keep your water.  In short,  if it involves energy the Environmental Protection Agency is now going to control it.

On the EPA's own website  is a section dedicated to explaining Jackson's "endangerment finding".   Volume 2: Validity of Observed and Measured Data states in part:

In light of these comments, EPA has re-examined the scientific literature, which finds that the anthropogenic emissions are the root cause of the increase in CO2 concentrations over the past century. As stated in CCSP (2007) “The cause of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt.” There are many ways in which scientists determine the emissions associated with particular sources and activities. These are explained in detail in Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fourth Assessment Report (Denman et al., 2007),

Yes, you read it right. To validate her sweeping finding, Jackson and her EPA ignores all dissenting comments and rests her case on the data provided by none other than the IPCC.

The very same IPCC that drew many of it's conclusions from data submitted by the now famous Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University.  Home to leaked emails and manipulated data .

So rather than do the prudent "scientific" thing and postpone a finding until the validity of the data that went into the IPCC report can be independently verified by ALL in the scientific community, (not just the lemmings on board for the millions in grant money), Jackson launched a pre-emptive attack.

To make matters worse, Jackson evidently doesn't even remember her own words.  In a memo from this May  she states:

On March 9, President Obama issued a Memorandum on Scientific Integrity underscoring that the “public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions.” The public health and environmental laws that Congress has enacted depend on rigorous adherence to the best available science. That is why, when I became Administrator, I pledged to uphold values of scientific integrity every day.

So much for trusting the process and the integrity of science.

And if you still don't think it's about social policy over true science, follow this link where Ms. Lisa Dilling, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder is lamenting way back in 2005 that a workshop sponsored by the US Climate Change Science Program didn't spend enough time on "developing methods to support climate change policy making". (For all you lay people out there, that's finding ways to sell "climate change"  to a skeptical public.)
Ms. Dilling evidently became so concerned about the lack of said methodology that she took it upon herself to co-edit an entire book entitled "Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social policy".

From said book, a glimpse into the mindset of climate propganda:

"Near the end of the 1980's, with the successful negotiations of the Montreal Protocol, the general public saw a resolution of the ozone problem coming, just in time for its sister issue, climate change, to emerge as a celebrity problem. Prior claims-making about global warming occasioned only sporadic interest in different public arenas. Now the issue was put on the map by the "greenhouse summer" of 1988 with its severe heat and drought over much of North America. The oil industry then took a hit with the Exxon Valdez oil spill in early 1989. So strong was the public concern about the environment from the mid-1980's onward that Dunlap and Scarce (1991: 652) speak of a "miracle" of public opinion."

Imagine that, so called "scientists" referencing the "miracle" of disassociated events to further the selling of a social agenda.  Now that's a process the public will have to find trustworthy.

Adding insult to injury Dilling bemoans in other parts of her book how weather is too often used by opponents to downplay the need for climate change policy.  Translation:  When weather supports doomsday, play the hell out of it, when it doesn't, defer to the larger, overall "climate" and decry that  any one incident (cooler temperatures, milder hurricane seasons, Antarctic ice actually growing, etc.etc) is NOT indicative of a problem with the models.

The book blurb from the  University website says it all:

The need for effective communication, public outreach, and education to increase support for policy, collective action and behavior change is ever present, and is perhaps most pressing in the context of anthropogenic climate change.

So if you still think the farce currently underway in Copenhagen is still about "climate change" and not instead the largest shakedown in history, please, go back under your rock. 

But the crazy doesn't stop there.

National Conservative Politics Examiner Kathy Shaidle is reporting that Google might actually be purging  query results with the search term "climategate".

San Francisco Environmental Policy Examiner, Thomas Fuller has an interesting take on this mess and touches on the far-reaching consequences of the EPA decision .

And the coup de grace comes from the Telegraph.co.uk  informing us that the Cirque de Copenhagen requires 140 private planes over 1200 limousines and will spew out more "polluting" carbon dioxide than a mid-size city. 

Now that's hypocrisy all humanity can understand.