The globally accepted myth of man made climate change has as its major source of supposed evidence the UN reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC. They state in their reports that they created a computer model of Earth’s atmosphere allowing variation of several key components and then ran those models with ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gasses, particularly carbon dioxide. They say that they then collected actual climate data from sources around the globe showing actual surface temperatures, temperatures aloft, and ocean temperatures and that these actual data correlated with the output of the models. The results? Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing a swift and significant rise in Earth’s average temperatures and that this trend will continue to the point of being disastrous if we don’t work to drastically limit carbon dioxide emissions immediately.

Well, besides the fact that CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, despite the fact that CO2 is only 33 parts per million in our atmosphere, despite the fact that there has been a slight temperature decrease every year since 1997, the IPCC insists that recent records validate their model’s predictions. They don’t and the reason is their model is seriously flawed and was grossly misused and manipulated to give a set of desired output data.

Since climate modeling was a major component in their research the computer model needs a bit of scrutiny to determine the validity of its creation, usage, and resulting accuracy, or lack thereof. A computer model is a program that simulates all aspects, or at very least all major aspects, of an environment or situation and allows for the manipulation of important aspects to determine the change caused by these variations for the purpose of predicting the future characteristics or to train people in the changes caused by these variables. One example of a computer model is a flight simulator program. Would be pilots are able to learn the basics of piloting by studying the effect of their actions on a reliable, consistant set of data that reacts like an airplane would according to changing input. To be able to expect reliable output from computer models, the program needs to be as close to identical to the real life environment being modeled as is possible. All known aspects of the environment must be closely replicated in the modeling software or the model is just that much more inaccurate and incapable of giving reliable results. If a flight simulating program left out the ability to adjust engine power, a major subject in flight training, your piloting skills learned from the program would be severely lacking to the point of being dangerous, even deadly. Likewise, if a model of Earth’s atmosphere were to ignore the fact that precipitation exists, and thereby ignore all of precipitation’s effects, you could not reasonably expect an accurate depiction of Earth’s actual atmosphere. Also, if a model includes assumptions or beliefs that are not substantiated in reality or accepted theory, the output is corrupted and is not usable. A model should, by definition, be just that, an accurate, all inclusive, reliable duplicate of that which is to be modeled. The less a model exactly portrays reality, the less it can be expected to give valid output. If properly designed, the output of a model should reflect real observable data when real data is input. This verifies the ability of the program to accurately model the climate and changes caused by varying the input data.

The climate model created by the IPCC disregarded many aspects of Earth’s climate, such as the existance and effect of precipitation, the existance of CO2 sinks such as the oceans, and the energy output fluctuation of the sun and its effects. The IPCC model also made assumptions that could not be documented in historical records or by scientific practices, and used other cause/effect mechanisms that they knew to be false such as programming their model to create a larger temperature rise with increase in altitude than at the surface which has been known to be the opposite for decades. They also assumed that certain aerosols acted as greenhouse gasses in trapping certain frequencies of sunlight in the atmosphere when they have been proven to actually reflect those wavelengths back into space. They also completely ignored the fluctuation of solar energy that occurs with the cycles of sunspot activity. They disregarded H2O doubling where two water molecules combine to effect the atmosphere in a radically different manner, they disregarded the fact that CO2 tends to absorb pollutants such as carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide, and they puposely reversed the cause/effect action of warming air temperatures and the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Needless to say, the climate model used to bolster the claims of man made climate change was not, in any sense of the definition, a valid model of Earth’s climatology, and is, therefore, useless in predicting not just present climate conditions, but especially future predictions of Earth’s climate status and the cause thereof. To achieve some type of correlation between modeled and observed data, charts of recorded temperatures and rates of rise were edited, some data was removed, data from different locations were cherry picked for their compliance, and a lot of techno-babble was used to confuse others while attempting to retain the semblence of scientifically deduced results.

Many of the scientists and technicians who collected actual observed data for use in the IPCC study, and those who made contributions to the model’s creation, have expressed great dismay and outright indignation at the results and interpretative reports issued by the IPCC and have publicly come out in direct opposition to the IPCC, the theory of man made climate change, and have called into question the motives, methods, and capabilities of those doing the analysis and writing the reports for the IPCC.

All other factors aside, the old computer addage of, "garbage in garbage out" certainly seems to apply to the IPCC climate model itself and thus to the results and their interpretation, and certainly lends creedence to those experts who disagree with the theory of man made climate change who happen outnumber the climate change proponents by a factor of over 15 to 1.

The UN, in response to the outcry from scientists worldwide, implemented a "control" or validation factor into their research by creating a second panel of scientists to analyze the same data used by the first panel and come to an independent conclusion. This panel, the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change, or the NIPCC, was not told of the results of the first panel and were not given any specific mission except to study the data and form a conclusion. Their result was that there is not enough understanding of the workings of the climate, not enough empirical data, too many assumptions, and a model that is incomplete and seriously flawed to be able to reach any kind of reliable decision on whether man is the cause of any change in the climate, or, even if he is, if it is a detrimental effect to Earth and its inhabitants. In short, they just can’t make any valid conclusions because the science is lacking. When told of the IPCC’s results and conclusions, the NIPCC issued an opinion that 1. The IPCC, being a government subsidized organization, were pre-disposed to prove that climate change is both man made and disastrous in nature, 2. That in order to come to the conclusions they did, the IPCC had to have engaged in non-scientific, unethical practices of manipulation and fabrication of data, and 3. The IPCC can not and should not be considered an authority on climatology or its causes. You will not, though, see this second panel’s results being promoted or widely publicized because they don’t support the agenda of the UN for global dominance and power.

The UN, the IPCC group of publishing scientists, and those who have promoted so many extreme social changes and financial expenditures in the name of an unprovable, apocolyptic theory should all be publicly exposed and prosecuted for their incompetance and reckless imposition of harm and needless life and social changes on the world population, and stripped of whatever authority they exercise.

Glenn Flowers

As early as 1954 the state of California realized that automobile emissions were the source of air quality deterioration. By the early 60s automotive engineers and the Department of Motor Vehicles had enough research results to implement emission controls on all vehicles, new and used. Their goal was to achieve substantial reductions in targeted pollutants with the ideal result being auto exhaust that consisted of only carbon dioxide and water vapor, both proven to be naturally occurring and non-toxic. Of course, this ideal result could not be attained, but it was the goal California would strive for. The targeted pollutants which were the culprits in formation of smog and suspects in the depletion of the ozone layer were carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), total photochemical oxidants (TPO), total suspended particles (TSP), hydrocarbons (HC), and lead (Pb). Eventually the hydrocarbons were dropped from the list, oxidants (TPO) was replaced by ground level ozone, and suspended particles (TSP) was replaced with a particulate matter (PM) standard.

What you don’t see in any of the standards for auto pollution control is a requirement to reduce carbon dioxide. In fact, at that time, carbon dioxide emission was listed as one of the favorable results being sought by the state as a method of cleaning the atmosphere of existing ozone and carbon monoxide. The climate experts throughout the state were of the opinion, and had demonstrated in repeated laboratory trials, that carbon dioxide was not only non-toxic and non-polluting, but was beneficial to the atmosphere, plant life, and climate. Since that time the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen from .0025 to .0033 percent, or 25 parts per million to 33 parts per million.

Today, the majority of climatologists agree that some small part of that rise is probably due to manmade causes, but the majority of that rise has been caused by the cyclic warming of the interglacial period we have been in for near 10,000 years. Yes, I said they agree that the rise in CO2 is caused by climate warming, not the other way around.

So why is the climate warming? Well, if you consider that around 10,000 years ago there were ice sheets three miles thick reaching all the way to the equator from both the arctic and antarctic poles, the only choice the climate had to go, temperature wise, was warmer. We are still in the interglacial warming period, but most scientists believe we are reaching the peak of global warming. In fact, for the past 12 years there has been a levelling off and even a slight decrease in average worldwide temperatures.

Over 33,000 scientists agree that a slight increase in temperature and CO2 is far and away a more desirable scenario than would be a plunge in temperature and the slide into the next glacial period. Even if an ice age were not imminent, it is a fact that all life on Earth benefits when the temperature is slightly warmer and CO2 levels slightly higher than the calculated averages of the past several million years. In 1816, the year following the eruption of Mt. Tambora, global temperatures fell dramatically causing crop killing freezes in May and June, lake and river ice as far south as Pennsylvania in July and August, and was known as the "Year Without a Summer". Agricultural failures led to starvation and a lowered state of immunity which resulted in death from disease.

Those folks who suffered through that year could have done with a bit more heat and CO2. Humans as a species have always prospered in warmer regions and periods as opposed to colder temperatures.

The climate change scare mongers claim a rise in CO2 is causing warming of the atmosphere in the range of about 0.4 to 1.5*C per century. What a puny heat wave that is. That won’t even cause you to break a sweat. They claim that rise is causing the ice sheets at the poles to melt. Satellite measurements show, though, that the ice sheets this year are already 12% larger than at this time last year. Polar bear populations have grown approximately 18% in the past decade, pollock has increased approximately 7% despite their status as the most commercially fished, and sea level continues to rise at a rate of 1-4 centimeters per year at specific locations. In other locations around the world sea level has actually dropped as much as 8-10 centimeters. NOAA scientists say that plate tectonics and wind have more effect on world wide sea level fluctuations than the melting of ice sheets would, if they were actually melting.

The bottom line to all this is we, as a nation and internationally as well, are being duped and forced into making drastic, VERY expensive, long term changes in almost every aspect of our lives in an attempt to prevent a slate of supposed disastrous, man made changes in Earth’s climate that are exagerated and fabricated and over which man has no control. Legislation of all kinds demand investment and research into unproven, high cost energy replacements, financial and even criminal penalties for causing CO2 emissions, industrial limitations on emissions of future production items, the forced banning of the production and usage of inexpensive, readily available, proven energy resources, and the enrichment of the fat cat proponents of such false climate change scare tactics to the detriment of every individual wage earner or business owner.

The Eath’s climate is a highly complex, ever changing machanism driven entirely by the heat from the sun. It has many, many subtle and evident subsystems which act to cool excessive heat and warm extreme cooling. No scientist who believes in the scientific method admits to understanding the vast workings of Earth’s climate, and they all agree that consensus of even 200 trillion scientists is not a method for validating or disproving anything. Only experimentation of a hypothesis with reproducable results, and validation of those results by observation of actual climate conditions can be used as valid reason for action. In other words, we don’t know enough about how the climate works to justify the extreme financial and social upheaval being demanded by a group of scientists, environmental extremists, and politicians who have a great deal to gain from such drastic changes. It is just not ethical to cause such harm and suffering over what amounts to fables and myths. We must vote in a totally new Congress and convince the new members to reverse the policies and legislation enacted in an attempt to control the climate.

Ask almost anyone from any background if there is any value to human life and they will think it is a trick question. Press them for an honest answer and you will get something akin to, "Of course human life is valuable," or "Human life is the most valuable thing on Earth,". I believe that the overwhelming majority of people on Earth are of the same belief. There are, of course, those fringe elements in the world, who hold human life as less than the most valuable, while some see it as the least most precious. The current manifestation of radical Islam, Hitler’s Nazis and their final solution, and crazed, sociopathic murderers all see no value to some portion of humanity. But in our world today is a minority group of well educated, highly dedicated people who, in their beliefs and actions, are more dangerous to the existance of humanity than all these other groups combined. This group is the hard core environmentalists. The environmental purists believe that nature, in its most virgin form, is the only thing of value in existence. They see man not as a part of nature, but as a cancerous disease and destroyer of Earth and its non-human occupants. Their core values are such that, unlike Hitler whose murderous crimes targeted the Jews and gypsies of the world, and unlike Islam who see infidels as deserving to die, these environment/nature worshippers seek nothing less than the total eradication of all humankind as the ultimate goal and they are hard at work in everyway they can conceive to see that goal achieved.

Some may say that I am exagerating in my conclusions and that environmentalists just want to reduce pollution and global climate change to insure we don’t ruin our home planet. To those I submit the following, quoted statements…

"Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line – about a billion years ago, or half of that – we quit the contract and became a cancer. We are a plague upon ourselves and upon Earth.

It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." ---David M. Graber, biologist with the National Park Service, reviewing The End of Nature by Bill McKibben for the Los Angeles Times Book Review, October 22, 1989.

"Phasing out of the human race will solve every problem on Earth, social and environmental." ---Dave Foreman, founder of Earth First

More like these can be found at … http://www.pushback.com/environment/ecofreakquotes.html

It is the belief in nature, not mankind, as the supremely valuable entity which makes these people dangerous. And it is these people who, under the guise of higher education and expertise, have made the environmental movement the political and social beheamoth it has become. They are responsible for the creation of the EPA, the animal rights movement, the global warming/climate change farce, the push to find alternative sources of energy, and the majority of reasons for the decline and hatred of western civilization in the world. One of the ways they seek to dominate and control mankind is through collectivism, destroying the rights of individuals and making all humankind reponsible for everything detrimental to nature, even if the harm is imagined or fabricated. Collectivivsm is the core for ideologies such as Marxism, the Nazis, and radical Islam. Only humankind as a whole is worthy of life. Individuals are there only for the benefit of all humanity. Any advance or progress by a group of individuals is wrong if the whole of humanity is not included in the benefits of that advancement. If the hardcore environmentalists had their way, which is the case most times today, mankind would de-evolve back to its fundamental, non-technical beginnings and would exist as cave dwelling, hunter gatherers who are at the mercy of their environment.

What they don’t want to admit is that the ability to adapt, humans being the ultimate success stories at adaptation, is built into even the first humans and has naturally evolved into what we are today. It is no more or less natural than the rise of mammals after the jurassic, the survival of the shark and alligator, and the multiple instances of mass extinction of myriads of species by nature itself. Man is naturally inquisitive and that leads to him seeking a better and easier way of life. It is called human nature, and there is no evil in its ideals.

The environmental movement is at the core of the majority of modern man’s social and economic ailments. Their methods are subtle and constitute social terrorism. Only the total annihilation of the environmental movement will insure man’s progress in social, economic, humanitarian, and technological endeavors. We don’t require the guidance of radicals to teach us that we need to do our best at what we attempt. Mankind already has that sense of self-preservation built in and will follow it if allowed the individual liberty to do so.

Glenn Flowers

I know you are a very smart person and, therefore, can not truly believe the policies you are forcing on the people of America are in their best interests. Therefore, you must be aware that these policies are harming Americans but are oursuing their implementation, by decree, in spite of that harm. That is in violation of the oath of office you swore to and in violation of the Constitution.

Are you aware that you and Sen. Harry Reid have become the two most hated politicians in the USA? You have to be. Even your democratic constituents are crying out for you to allow drilling of our natural resources that are currently blocked by a law Congress passed. You fellow representitives even see the need for this action yet you continue to act as a dictatorial madwoman, bending and breaking House rules, and making them up as you see fit to prevent even the debate over your energy non-policies.

You and Mr. Reid are personally responsible for considerably lowering the standard of living of the people, causing the evaporation of savings and investments accumulated by the people, the high prices of everything that has any link to petroleum including food, transportation, electrical power, health care, and corporate viability. If it is found that any of the people who have perished in the heatwave in Texas had to forego paying power bills to buy food and gasoline, a very good case for you being criminall responsible for those lives lost could, and should be made.

You are acting in a manner that is directly opposite to what you swore to in your oath and that is a crime. You have caused serious, if not irreperable harm to the people and commerce of the USA. That is a crime. It is possible that you have caused the untimely deaths of people and that is a crime. I predict that as soon as you are no longer in office that prosecution will be sought against you and Mr. Reid. So why not make it easier on yourself and especially the American people and come down of your throne and do the will of the People. EVERYONE knows what that is.

This is meant to address those who are apalled by the profiling of mid-eastern and Arab looking people at our airports and other transit centers, by those who have the responsibility of keeping us safe. I admit, their methods of administering this policy have much to be disdained and need to be more clearly delineated. But the reason why the US should single out mid-eastern and Arab people for special consideration should be obvious. Or have you forgotten one glaring truth.

These people have openly declared war on us, branding us the "Great Satan", attacking our cities, training in paramilitary camps to blow themselves up to kill Americans and then doing it for real. They have warned us that "Jihad" is being waged and western civilization is the enemy to be destroyed at all costs.

Not North Korea, Communist China, nor Castro's Cuba has that degree of hate for our nation. Not even Hitler hated us that much. He wanted to rule us, not destroy us. The only comparison in history to the hate these Arab extremists have for us was the attitude of the Japanese warlords before WWII, and this attitude was held not only against the US, but against any non Japanese society. Anytime one society proclaims itself superior to all they end up defeated and ruled over by the ones they claimed superiority over. Never has there been an exception to that, and we should not allow one now.

Let it be known that I am not talking about all Moslims or Arabs. As in most situations a radical minority is responsible for the war we are forced to engage in. From my experience those of the Moslim faith and middle-eastern background for the most part are peace loving, tolerant people who want nothing more than to worship their god as they see fit. This applies especially to those who have immigrated to countries having religious liberties. They have learned that tolerance of others is more righteous than a percieved jihad.

The small, radical minority is what we are at war against, and this not by choice. With their roots firmly planted in Saudi, Arabia, these radical assasins read what they wish into their holy scripture and teach that to their children in schools far from the reach of the Saudi government. There is no amount of diplomacy, no degree of understanding or tolerance that could sway these extreme Moslims from their holy endeavor. They don't want to co-exist or be touchy feely with us, they want us dead. All of us. Or at the very least they want to impose Alla and his law on us. Their state shall be under Moslim law, and soon, the Moslim law WILL BE the state. They know no other way and will fight and kill all who oppose them.

So, are we insensitive when we suspect Arab looking men acting strangely of being terrorists? Is being "politically incorrect" and profiling mid-eastern people as possible enemies so terrible? Not if you are savvy and want to survive. After all, even a peaceful dove knows what a hawk looks like. We must, if we have any hope of succeeding in our efforts to survive, identify our enemy and concentrate our resources on their destruction, not on maintaining an appearance of, so called, fairness. To not do so is a battle surrendered.

Eventually, after we give them every opportunity to live together peacefully, after they take every open hand we extend and use it against us, we will necessarily overpower and destroy them. However, we can not afford to rebuild this enemy as we have in the past. This war will require total anihillation of the enemy and their supporters, because that is what they want for us.

The reasons we have such an unresponsive, corrupt congress are…

1. 40-50% of voters don’t even vote.
2. While giving very low approval ratings, (11% or lower) voters have a habit of re-electing their incumbent members 96.5% of the time since 1980, and 92% before that.
3. Too many voters from both sides choose to believe the divisive lies told by elected officials meant to keep us from uniting with a majority of votes, and blame the other party’s voters, resort to name calling, and divide the People.
4. Many voters are single-issue minded. This makes them easy to manipulate and more likely not to vote.

We must STOP THE REPEAT OFFENDERS by not re-electing any of the incumbent members of Congress. It is OUR fault, Democrat and Republican voters, that these crooks have had 20 and 30 years in Congress to do their dirty work and become so arrogant. The longer we put this off, the longer it will take and the more painful it will be on us when we do decide to retake our government.

I have written on the need to purge Congress by voting out all incumbents, and, more recently, about the Article Five Convention and Congress’ ignoring of their duty to call for a convention. It is our duty as Americans to vote out the incumbents and vote in a new congress. We are the only ones who can do that.

These two tools, the vote of the People, and a convention for states to propose ammendments, are all we, the People have to influence government. It is obvious that Congress will continue to ignore their duty no matter by how many states request an Article Five Convention as they have for over 200 years. So, it becomes even more imperative to use our vote in the most drastic method we can to cause the drastic change needed. It was accomplished in 1938 resulting in a 60% turnover in members of Congress. We can do even better with the current attitude of the American voters. We must do better or lose our rights and our nation.

Voting out the incumbent congress members does not require any voter to change their party or belief, it does not require any new process. It only requires us to not re-elect any current member of Congress every two years for the next six years. Once Congress is purged of those who have made a life out of fleecing America, the new members will be more likely to actually call for a convention when the states ask for one. This will allow the states and their voters to undo a lot of what has been done by Congress. This will, again, bring the differences between the various parties into play, but with a congress that is receptive and new to the world of politics, in other words, still relatively uncorrupted.

Tell everyone you know to vote them ALL out.  Make it clear it is crucial to our nation to get a new breed of representitive who is ready to do our business in Washington. These are the items all Americans have in common, disgust with government, love for America, and the ability to vote in new members to replace the lifers.

Voters, REVOLT ! ! Vote ALL the bums out ! ! It's the only way we have.

Glenn Flowers

I have dedicated my time on-line to finding a legal, non-violent way to force Congress to actually represent the will of the people who elected them. I concentrated specifically on the admonition in the Declaration of Independence that it was our duty to throw out an unjust government and re-establish it to suit our ideas of what government should be. I figured there had to be a process or law spelled out somewhere to provide the ability to perform such an act. The only obvious methods I found initially, were by voting for candidates that we agreed with and voting out incumbents, and by expressing our displeasure with them by writing or otherwise communicating with them.

After more searching, I have found the tool that was expressly meant to allow for a more direct and personal control of government written into the Constitution. It is Article Five of the Constitution, written by Alexander Hamilton and called the "Ammendment Article". It states…

This allows for states to have a say in what the Constitution is and to have a way to change it. Even though it says Congress shall call for a convention when 2/3rds of the state legislatures apply for it, the Congress has ignored 576 applications by all fifty states since the Constitution was ratified. All sorts of different reasons have been used by Congress, but the truth is they just don’t want to let anyone else, including the people, to have the power to ammend the Constitution. Eighteen lawsuits by different people, companies, politicians, etc., have been filed and all have been dismissed for one reason or another, or Congress has found a way to immunize themselves against the court decisions. In the most recent case in front of the Supreme Court of the United States, Walker v. the Members of Congress, 2006, the attorney for Congress, agreed to by all members, refused to reply to a writ specifying the reasons for the lawsuit, thereby affirming the writ as true, and constituting a confession of guilt by the defendants. The Court ruled that Walker had no standing to bring a suit against Congress but did not explain why. It also stated that the refusal to reply to the writ would be recorded and any future court that ruled in favor of a plaintiff could use the refusal as a sentencable action. In other words, every member of Congress plead guilty to two federal crimes. One being, that they failed to uphold and abide by the Constitution, and two, that they violated their Oath of Office by not enforcing the Constitution. The court dismissed the lawsuit but entered the non-response to the writ as offenses confessed into the record for future sentencing.

Congress came away believing they had won because the court dismissed the suit and they had not been thrown in jail. As a result, they are of the belief that only they can ammend the Constitution, and that they can ignore it anyway they see fit.

The court dismissed the suit because they found Walker was not entitled to file such a suit. I believe that ruling was because Walker was not a member of a state legislature and that is what Art. Five addresses. But, even though it dismissed the suit, it obviously agreed that the refusal to respond to the writ was an admission of criminal activity in that it entered it into the record.

Congress, in their false sense of superiority over the people, have, at every opportunity, have acted to limit or completely deny the voters the right to control their activities and our government. The only method for the people to remain the authority is to VOTE OUT EVERY INCUMBENT MEMBER OF CONGRESS and start new.

Let everyone of us, no matter how good we believe our elected officials are, no matter what party we belong to, have the will to do what was done in 1938, vote out the majority, if not the entirity, of Congress and vote in those who seek to do the right thing, that being, represent their constituents.

For more info on Article Five and the fight to force Congress to hold a convention go to the Friends of Article V Convention website…

http://www.foavc.org/

Glenn Flowers

That is, word for word, Article Five of the Constitution. This article was the tool given to the People to allow them to ammend the Constitution or to replace it or the entire goverment if they found it necessary. It states that if two thirds of the states file applications for a convention, Congress must hold a convention for the purposes of the states. The applications from the states do not have to be all for the same reasons, and regardless of the reasons it is mandatory that Congress hold the convention . 

Since 1789, there have been 576 applications filed by fifty states in the attempt to keep Congress in check, repeal income taxes, and propose ammendments, yet there has never been a single convention held. Why? Because Congress has simply refused to recognize the applications and ignore their duty to hold a convention. This has prevented the people from having any over Congress except at the voting booth. See a complete list of applications for conventions filed by state, date, and reasons here…

http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Articles/Table_Summarizing_State_Applications.htm

See the listings, summaries, and legal questions about eighteen actions taken from 1803 to 2006 against Congress by states, individuals, companies, and politicians, including an appeal to the Supreme Court, trying to force an Art 5 convention by Congress. None have ever succeeded.

http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/FAQ.htm#Q8.4

http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/The%20Final%20Irony.htm

The founder of the Friends of Art V Convention website is Bill Walker, the plaintiff in the two most recent suits against Congress. There are videos and audio files, PDFs and charts and tables documenting the entire battle over the rights of the people to govern themselves. It is fascinating and very educational, not to mention the inspiration gained by Walker’s tenacity and patriotism.