The Science Deliberately Excluded and/or Misrepresented From IPCC Report on Climate Change

The United Nations environmental program, established in 1972 and the Intergovernmental Panel on  Climate Change (IPCC), established in 1988, created one of the greatest deceptions--of which there are many--in modern history.  All of the mainstream media outlets, including NPR (or maybe especially NPR) are on board.

What's the deception?  The U.N. asserts that anthropogenic carbon dioxide influences atmospheric CO2 levels which in turn raises global temperatures, however, evidence from ice cores clearly shows the opposite: that increased CO2 levels follow increased temperatures by a few centuries, approximately 400 years. In other words, CO2 levels respond to changes in temperature, and not the way the IPCC summary --for policy makers and press--on  climate change claims.

Links

The Great Man Made Global Warming Swindle May Finally Come to an End.

Will Anthropogenic Global Warming Change to Anthropogenic Chilling?

Climate Change Reconsidered II Biological Impacts

The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science

Read more...

Talk About False Advertising: Just Say No to no!no!

While the FDA is busy attacking legitimate companies like Blue Diamond for making truthful claims about walnuts, based on hard science, companies like PhotoMedex-Radiancy [PHMD], manufacturer of no!no! Hair Removal System engages in an extraordinarily heavy campaign of national television and Internet advertising to promote the sale of this product, making false claims, supposedly supported by science and research in order to rob decent people of their time and money.

“As Radiancy documents submitted in court show, Radiancy deliberately engaged in a massive advertising campaign based on bogus claims lacking any scientific basis, including knowingly false claims that the no!no! "provides an effect similar to what lasers accomplish in the dermatologist office"; produces "laser-like results"; is "like laser and IPL [intense pulsed light] treatments, the heat gradually disrupts the hair growth cycle." Mimicking medical laser claims, Radiancy claimed that the no!no! Hair provided "up to 94% reduction in hair re-growth", allowed users to "get rid of unwanted hair and keep it gone" and "have a life of freedom from hair." As Radiancy admitted in papers filed with the court shortly before the settlement, it has dropped all such claims as a result of Tria's lawsuit.

In these hard-to-avoid infomercials, the aforementioned company declares that no!no! not only slows down hair regrowth, it actually helps keep it from growing back. It asserts that the use of their product results in “up to 94% less hair regrowth with no pain, no mess, no stress,” when it's an outright lie. Not only that, according to thousands of customer complaints, they refuse to honor their 60-day return policy unless the customer has the wherewithal to devote all of their time and effort to the refund, or the customer threatens with legal action.

Now, the manufacturer has not submitted these so-called "studies" about the use and efficacy of its product to the FDA and despite the fact that these blatantly unsupported claims are designed to mislead and deceive consumers into buying this expensive and ineffective, and even potentially dangerous product, the FDA ignores them.

In fact, a blinded, controlled, prospective clinical study by the Department of Ophthalmology, Dermatology, Otolaryngology, out of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, found that the no!no! Hair Removal System is no more effective than shaving with a razor.

“CONCLUSIONS: Relative to shaving, the hot-wire (no!no!) device does not produce lessened hair density, decreased hair re-growth rate, greater duration of effect, nor induce changes in hair thickness and color. We conclude that the hot-wire device does not offer any benefit as compared to shaving.

Read more...

Global Warming: A Pollution Ponzi Scheme?

Global Warming Doomsday Called Off gives very good scientific information on the subject, seldom found.


Over the last few years, how many times have you  heard the following questions: Are the temperatures we're experiencing unusual? Is the climate becoming more variable or extreme? What role does human activity play in the current global warming trend? Does global warming even exist?

Well, in answer to the last question, if it does exist, it's probably not anthropogenic (man-caused) according to Glaciologist Jorgen Peder Steffensen, curator of the Neils Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics, and scads of other scientists who up until recently, were under a gag-order.  As Steffensen said, those who came to the "global warming is man-made" conclusion, conducted an extremely poor experiment.  They started observing meteorology at the coldest spot in the last 10,000 years - only 140 years ago - so, of course, the 20th century temperature spike looks like an anomaly.  Moreover, when you start following the money (carbon trading: potential multi-trillion dollar business), it becomes all too clear as to why the "global warming is man-made" conclusion was constructed.

Steffensen, extracted ice core samples from Greenland, which bear the fingerprints of climactic conditions over the last 120,000 years. From that sample, the temperature data revealed longer periods with much higher temperatures than we experience today. The coldest point occurred 140 years ago in what they call the "little ice age". Other core samples, from Greenland and elsewhere around the globe, in addition to using other methods such as carbon-14 dating from organic matter from peat bugs and tree-rings confirm the pattern. In other words, major fluctuations in climate are normal, and the recent warming may be a natural consequence of leaving the little ice age in 1875, the lowest point we've had over the last 10,000 years.

Former senior official of the United Nations and billionaire industrialist, otherwise known as the Godfather of the international environmental movement, Maurice Strong,  who played a major role in organizing the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden in 1972, thus launching the "Green movement" is the "wizard behind the curtain" regarding the global warming scam.

He organized the U.N. sponsored conferences, including Kyoto, Japan in 1997 (Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, aimed at fighting global warming) and he was instrumental in establishing the IPCC  (International Panel on Climate Change). In 2005, Strong stepped down from his UN post because he was involved in the food for oil scandal. Evidence later showed that Strong, in 1997, while working for Kofi Annan, endorsed a check for $988,885, made out to “Mr. M. Strong,” issued by a Jordanian bank.   Strong is also one of the nine directors on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)which describes itself as “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”  Climate scientist, Dr. Benjamin Santer, supposedly Strong's right-hand man, altered a crucial United Nations report on climate change to convey the misleading impression that there is a "discernible human influence on climate".

And we can't forget Al Gore, appointed poster boy and expert on global warming. Not only is Gore a partner in  Hara Software, who helps companies manage their "carbon footprints," and who admittedly stands to rake in between 10% to 50% of the trillion dollar business its supposed to become in the next few years, but he and David Blood (former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management) co-founded Generation Investment Management (GIM), in 2004 “to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating global warming”.

In November 2009, Gore minimized the significance of the so-called "Climategate" scandal that grew out of confirmed reports that the top scientists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in England, possessor of the world's largest temperature-data set, had secretly and repeatedly manipulated scientific evidence in order to conceal or destroy data that contradicted their claims.

Links:

The Hockey Stick Illusion

Read more...

Politics of Our Predatory Student Loan Shark System

What if every American high school student - no matter how intelligent, and/or talented and who couldn't afford to pay the astronomical cost of higher education - decides that the intractable, insurmountable and ever increasing debt that the student loan industry, by law, can impose upon them, is not worth the aggravation and risk? What would our society look like in ten years? Twenty years? One hundred years?

According to Alan Michael Collinge, author of The Student Loan Scam: The Most Oppressive Debt in U.S. History - and How We Can Fight Back.” and creator of the website Student Loan Justice, in the 1970’s, all the consumer protections were on the table for student loans. Then, gradually, stories about numerous individuals borrowing large amounts of money to finance their education, subsequently, declaring bankruptcy, started spreading.

Congress used these stories as an excuse, to first restrict, and then remove all bankruptcy protection, statute of limitations, and the right of students to refinance their debt at better terms for the life of the loan. Student lenders are exempt from Truth in Lending Laws and most Fair Debt Collection Practices. After all was said and done, it turned out that less than 1% of federally guaranteed loans were discharged through bankruptcy at the time these stories started to spread. The “student loan” crisis was "only in the imagination of the student loan industry."

Debt is extremely lucrative for this industry. It is reported that the default rate for student loans is approximately 5%, when in actuality, it is closer to 20-30%. What they don’t tell you is that the 5% rate of default is only calculated on the first two years after a student graduates. It’s far more profitable for some of the bigger lenders for students to default on their loans because (Sallie Mae, Nelnet) not only do these large entities own lending companies but they own collection companies in addition to serving as the guarantor function as well.

For example, in the case of Sallie Mae, they can default a loan and be paid near book value from the board of education and then come back for a much bigger chunk, considering the inflated amount after penalties, fees and outrageous default rates are applied. Some of these "sharks" are defaulting loans without even trying to collect on the debt. Even the federal government makes money from delinquent debt, recovering about $1.20 for every dollar it pays out in default claims.

Under President Reagan, grants were transformed into loans, which allowed banks to enter the mix in order to profit. This lending system enables universities and colleges to raise tuition at double the consumer index rather than plow through the laborious task of appealing to the state and federal government. This system not only shifts the burden of cost from the state to the students, but enables banks to profit enormously at the student’s expense. In addition our taxpayer dollars go toward paying subsidies to private lenders like Sallie Mae, public enemy #1, who started out as a government sponsored entity and then privatized in 1995, forming one of the most powerful lobbies on Capital Hill.

As federal grant aid has decreased over the last eight years, federal aid to providers of costlier and riskier private student loans increased. Fast forward to November 2008, and a "shark" bailout is on the table. The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) expressed their "gratitude and support" for the proposed bailout to "aid banks and organizations that issue federal student loans," encouraging an extension of the financial backing to non-federal loans, as well.

Fortunately, President Obama, who experienced, first hand, the stranglehold of student loan debt, created the Access and Completion Incentive Fund, which will help low-income students graduate from college, and is part of a larger package of reforms including the elimination of the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFEL)--that is, the program in which the federal government guarantees and subsidizes student loans made by banks and other for-profit companies.

Thomas Jefferson recognized the importance of an educated citizenry in a working democracy. He believed in a "natural aristocracy" of virtue, ability and talent over the "tinsel aristocracy" of inherited wealth and privilege. He believed the state should fund education in order to foster, encourage and stimulate the talent and intelligence across all socioeconomic lines. Jefferson would be appalled at the idea of our government allowing banks to exploit our young people - our nation's future - for profit.

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson

If our usurious student loan shark system, and the massive wealth it generates at the expense of American students is exposed, the "tinsel aristocracy" will prevail at our colleges and universities, while much greater minds and talents abandon ideas of furthering their education, which in turn, will guarantee the fall of the American "empire".

A few victims tell their story:

My student loan was originally with Sallie Mae. In 2007 I supposedly went into default. Sallie Mae presented me with paperwork to sign and said my loand was in default. They garnished my wages for $340 a month about a year ago. It was not until I got my 1098 this year showing how much interest I paid and I began to dig deeply into my student loan that I saw that Sallie Mae turned the loan over to General Revenue Corp which is a collection agency OWNED BY SALLIE MAE. This is wrong.
Secondly, I determined they are charging me 26% interest!

I have written to the US dept of education and they tell me the loan must stay at the original interest rate unless a court changes the rate. There was never any court involved. They are also charging me close to $5,000 in collection fees! I understand from the Dept of Education they can charge fees BUT how can they justify that amount of fees when there was not attorney involved - nothing.

Basically Sallie Mae dumped me to General Credit (again Sallie mae owns them) and now I am paying HUGE interest AND my loans will never be paid off. When they tossed me into default my credit was DESTROYED. I also read you can rehabilitate but you have to pay 9 consecutive payments and you CANNOT include the wage attachment - how can I afford that? I am sending documentation to Sallie Mae, General Credit, my former senator (VP Joseph Biden, my Congressman Mike Castle and Senator Carper) What they have done to me is illegal.

John t
Bear, Delaware
U.S.A.

As a co-signer on a loan for my nephew, I believe that Sallie Mae has violated the terms of the loan by repeatedly issuing forebearances on the loan (which causes significant increases on the balance due to the additional interest) without seeking my consent, and without providing me with any proper notification at all.

[...]

Sallie Mae has boldly stated that they do not need my consent to alter the terms of the loan, and they keep trying to insist that they sent me notification of the forebearances, even though they have the correct address for me, and I have not moved since the loan has been in repayment.

They have managed to send me threating letters when my nephew has failed to make payments on the loan, but somehow the forebearance notices never did come.

Larry
Sherman Oaks, California
U.S.A.

[...] Now i'm being sued by sallie mae for not making my payments. i faxed a forbearance paper to stop my loans going into colllections but the collections company told me it was a third party loan sent out by sallie mae and that i couldn;t put it in forbearance.

i need help with advice before i go to court. i wish everyone else who has problems with both sallie mae and itt get together and get a class action law suit against them. or if anyone can help me i would greatly appreciate it. thanks

kristen
brightin, Michigan
U.S.A.

[...] It has been two years since I left Brooks. My loans are now deffered and already up to $41,000 because of interest. I feel that I was very misled and deceived by Brooks College and their sales staff. Now I have learned that the school is shut down because of all the lawsuits against it. I have many friends that I met through brooks that are suffering from the same situation with their student loans. We need justice with this non-accredited college!

Noel
Encinitas, California
U.S.A.

It has been two years since I left Brooks. My loans are now deffered and already up to $41,000 because of interest. I feel that I was very misled and deceived by Brooks College and their sales staff. Now I have learned that the school is shut down because of all the lawsuits against it. I have many friends that I met through brooks that are suffering from the same situation with their student loans. We need justice with this non-accredited college!

Noel
Encinitas, California
U.S.A.

Read more...

Protect Yourself from Credit Protection Plans!

Credit card "credit protection plans" - an insurance plan that is supposed to cover your minimum payments should the customer lose his job, is admitted to the hospital, becomes disabled or dies - are the biggest rip-off going, yet they get very little bad press, more than likely, because of their "affiliation" with the big credit card companies. "Affiliation", more than likely, means the credit protection plan is just another division of your bankcard company, although they will do their very best to make you believe otherwise. After asking several times, in several different ways I finally found out my parent's credit card "credit protection plan" was with the same bank that issued their credit card, Bank of America.

Having worked for a bank card company at one time, I know a good percentage of customer inquiries are from customers who signed up for credit card protection plans who were not aware of being enrolled until they saw the charge on their statement. This has happened to me several times. I will have to call, cancel the service and have them credit the charge back to my account. I did not agree to enrollment because why would I want to add, what would be the equivalent of 10%, to my APR for absolutely no reason? No matter what the credit protection plan advertises, the eligibility requirements are so restrictive, the chances of the customer collecting are slim to none.

I also have personal experience with the so called "benefits" advertised by these plans...

After discovering a $69 charge on her credit card statement for a "credit protection plan", my mother knew nothing about, but had been paying on since 2003, we inquired to see if - since they could not reverse the charges - we could cash in on the benefits considering my mother (71-years old) had just been released from the hospital less than one month ago. We were told we had only 30 days from the time she was admitted to the hospital to request, collect the necessary proof, and then submit the forms. So, after paying a couple of thousand dollars, at least, my mother and father (77-years old) never collected a penny, even though they have been hospitalized repeatedly over the last five years.

One could definitely argue my parents should have paid closer attention to their credit card bill, but in their defense, with as much as they've gone through; it's amazing their bills were paid at all. I'm sure even if my mother knowingly enrolled in 2003, she was sold a bill of goods.

The sad truth is the credit card industry targets the elderly because they know they are the most vulnerable. Even if one takes the time to read the "mouse print", barely readable with 20/20 eyesight, there are so many loopholes that allow the bank to deny claims under credit protection policy, that there is no way to comprehend what would be covered. We need protection plans protecting us from "credit card protection plans"!

Credit insurance -- This "perk" preys on fear and is as necessary as a bee suit in Alaska. For an exorbitant premium, the insurer agrees to make minimum payments on your debt should you become unable to. You'll pay $13 a month to get a credit protection plan for a $2,000 balance. The laws of probability -- and the FTC -- are on your side anyway. And they're free.

Here are a few of examples of the millions of people scammed by credit protection.

Assad of Miami FL (02/12/08) says, "I have been paying for credit protection on this credit card in case of an emergency. Last year I lost my job in part because I was sick. I called and emailed washington mutual about my problem so said they would send me paperwork to activated the credit protection plan I have been paying every month. They never sent me anything and sent me to a collection company. This is after almost $50.00 they charged me every month for the credit protection..."

FIA card services added what they called a credit protection plan to my closed account that took a 3k bal to 7 k since 2002 with no purchases. This company is a scam! They do not even have a credit protection department, I have called over 20 times trying to get this problem solved....

I called FIA Card Services on 9/11/07 to transfer balances to their FIA Card Services Account/Sovereign Bank Card account. I got my first statement end December 07. In fact I have been out of home at the time I received the statement and I saw this statement first week January. I immediately called and made a phone payment. Approximately two weeks after I made the payment, I noticed an amount of $ 61.77 on the statement against credit protection Plan. Then, I called FIA Card Services who directed me to the Credit Protection Plan Customer Services Rep who informed me that I have committed myself for a Credit Protection plan and began explaining benefits of Credit Protection Plan (“If you die or lose your job you are being protected”) which words I am hearing for the first time. I requested him to kindly cancel the Plan which he did without any hesitation. When I asked to be reimbursed, I was told that this is not possible, because 30 days have lapsed since the enrollment in November 07....

I was charged for protection plan monthly that i did not authorized or trial on.

I am steaming mad about being lied to or treated unfairly...I received the bill I noticed that my min payment was for 168.00..and 44.00 was going to go to some program called 'credit protection plan'....I immediately questioned this, called the 800 number on my bill..it was really weird because there was no Bank of America greeting it was pretty generic and did not identify the company I had to call at least two times to verify I actually dialed the correct number....

When I signed up for my First Equity Credit Card I also signed up for their credit protection plan as well. It stated that by signing up for the plan it would cover my monthly bill for me in the case of disabilty from my job, that was one of about 10 different situations. Well I called the company to activate it and it was. 1 month later I recieved my bill with no credits paid towards it late fees and they still charge me for my credit protection coverage. I paid anywhere from $35 to $55 a month for this coverage and for it not work for me...

Please let everyone know...If someone calls during your dinner to sell you a Citibank Credit Protection Plan- JUST HANG UP! It is not the cardholders credit that they are protecting. It is another corporate ploy to exploit those who can least afford it...

After receiving my mastercard...statement (closing date 11/08/2001) I noticed a very high charge for credit card protection (insurance) for $100.99...

In addition, Federal law limits every credit card customer to a maximum of $50 liability for unauthorized use of his or her credit card. Every credit card bank must have procedures in place for disputing unauthorized charges.

Read more...