Global Cooling?

I’m so confused. First it was Cooling (1970’s), the Warming (1980s-early 2000’s) then “Climate Change” “Warming” (last few years).

Now it’s back to Cooling?

Just as all the little environmental dictators get together to have an Apocalyptic Warming Conference where they all agree that they should run everyone and everything and make everyone poor and only they’ll be rich. It’s for your own good. 🙂

They call the Conference by the telling name of COP 21. COP, Freaudian slip? 🙂

Ice-4-382335

SCIENTISTS claim we are in for a decade-long freeze as the sun slows down solar activity by up to 60 per cent.

A team of European researchers have unveiled a scientific model showing that the Earth is likely to experience a “mini ice age” from 2030 to 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity.

Their findings will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 we could be facing increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles.

However, at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said fluctuations an 11-year cycle of solar activity the sun goes through would be responsible for a freeze, the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s.

From 1645 to 1715 global temperatures dropped due to low solar activity so much that the planet experienced a 70-year ice age known as Maunder Minimum which saw the River Thames in London completely frozen. 

The researchers have now developed a “double dynamo “model that can better predict when the next freeze will be.

Based on current cycles, they predict solar activity dwindling for ten years from 2030.

Professor Zharkova said two magnetic waves will cancel each other out in about 2030, leading to a drop in sun spots and solar flares of about 60 per cent.

Sunspots are dark concentrations of magnetic field flux on the surface that reduce surface temperature in that area, while solar flares are burst of radiation and solar energy that fire out across the solar system, but the Earth’s atmosphere protects us from the otherwise devastating effects.

She said: “In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other, peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. 

“We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum.

“Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the Sun’s northern and southern hemispheres. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 per cent.”

Research colleagues Simon Shepherd of Bradford University, Helen Popova of Lomonosov Moscow State University and Sergei Zarkhov of the University of Hull used magnetic field observations from 1976 to 2008 at the Wilcox Solar Observatory at Stanford University.

A Royal Astronomical Society spokesman said: “It is 172 years since a scientist first spotted that the Sun’s activity varies over a cycle lasting around 10 to 12 years. 

The theory is likely to infuriate environmentalists who fear the globe is heating up.

I HOPE SO. 🙂

“But every cycle is a little different and none of the models of causes to date have fully explained fluctuations.”

The “double dynamo” theory appears to support claims of researchers who argue Earth will soon experience major global cooling due to lower solar activity as the sun goes into a sustained period of hibernation.

Environmentalists meanwhile claim global temperatures will increase over the period unless we drastically reduce carbon emissions.

DO AS WE SAY OR YOU’RE ALL DOOMED! 🙂

The Pol on the website so far:

Do you think the world will get hotter or colder from 2030?

Yes, by the sound of it we are in for a very long winter   43%

No, I believe that the Earth is gradually heating up and we are responsible so have to cut carbon   3%

I think it could go either way and will carry on fluctuating   26%

Why worry, it is out of our hands   24%

Even if there is a mini ice age after it will keep warming in the long run  4%

Since the people ain’t buying it’s up to the Politicians to force them to, after all that’s how Science works. 🙂

 

 

 

Follow The Money

Environmentalists like to claim skeptics are making money off hampering global warming regulations, but those same activists are making a lot of money promoting global warming alarmism.

A recent video from The Guardian claims that there is little money or power to be gained from environmental activism. The money behind activism pales in comparison to those of their fossil fuel-financed opposition, according to the video. The video even claims that “most of the money in solar and wind power comes from savings to the consumer.”

In the case of Al Gore, prominently featured in the video, the former vice president has levied his global warming activism from a net worth of $700,000 in 2000 into an estimated net worth of $172.5 million by 2015. He’s not alone in his financial endeavor.

Funding of science, in this particular case, climate change science, is dominated by the federal government. We assert that this will cause recipients of [government] grants to publish findings that are in-line with government policy preferences (i.e., don’t bite the hand that feeds you),” Chip Knappenberger, the assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email.

After a while, the scientific literature becomes dominated by these types of research findings which then produces a biased knowledge base,” Knappenberger said. “This knowledge base is then ‘assessed’ by intergovernmental and federal science committees (i.e., IPCC, USGCRP) to produce authoritative reports that supposedly represent the scientific ‘consensus,’ which is then tapped by the federal government in determining policy and setting regulations, such as the CPP [Clean Power Plan].”

A Cycle of Financial and Political Incest. One feeds the other.

Studies that receive financial support from the public sector don’t have to disclose it as a conflict of interest, even when that support is in the millions of dollars. Recent studies that the Environmental Protection Agency is using to support the scientific case for its Clean Power Plan saw the EPA itself give $31.2 million, $9.5 million, and $3.65 million in public funds to lead authors according to EPA public disclosures.

The author who received $3.65 million, Charles Driscoll, even admitted to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the result of his study was predetermined, saying “in doing this study we wanted to bring attention to the additional benefits from carbon controls.”

Universities typically received about 50 percent of the money that their researchers get in public funds if their research finds positive results, making them deeply dependent upon federal funding and likely to encourage studies which will come to conclusions that the government wants.

Even counting only private money, environmental groups massively outspend their opposition. Opposition to global warming activism only raises $46 million annually across 91 conservative think tanks according to analysis by Forbes. That’s almost 6 times less than Greenpeace’s 2011 budget of $260 million, and Greenpeace is only one of many environmental groups. The undeniable truth is that global warming activists raise and spend far more money than their opponents.

And money talks and Bullshit Science walks away with “consensus”.

Attempts by governments to encourage solar and wind power have created incentives for corruption that even environmentalists acknowledge. The push to encourage “green” systems has already led to serious corruption, such as the Solyndra scandal, which “crowds out” investment dollars that could be better spent on more workable solutions. (Libertarian Republic)

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA.

THE NARRATIVE IS THE NARRATIVE.

The End. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Extortion From Junk Science

Extortion: In the run-up to the Paris climate talks, poorer nations are agitating for greater reparations from developed nations to pay for their climate “damage.” It’s further confirmation the warming scare is just a shakedown.

Evidence that man’s use of fossil fuels is causing the planet to warm is a shaky proposition, and that’s being charitable. In fact, Earth isn’t even warming. Temperatures have not increased in any appreciable way in almost two decades.

Yet, according to media reports, some poor countries say they’re victims of weather disasters, their residents becoming refugees escaping catastrophe. These nations want the U.S. and other wealthy countries to cough up more than the $100 billion a year that’s already been pledged to them to mitigate global warming.

More specifically, they’re asking for “additional compensation for weather-related disasters as well as a ‘displacement coordination facility’ for refugees,” says USA Today. “And they want all this to be legally binding as part of the larger anticipated Paris accord.”

Of course they do. They know a good racket when then see one. These countries refuse to liberalize their economies based on the successful model that America and other prosperous nations have provided, yet they want what capitalist economies have. Rather than create wealth of their own, they, with the help of Westerners working to tear down free-market capitalism, prefer to appropriate that produced by others.

We’ve noted that the global warming scare is driven by a religious fervor — and has in fact become a faith for some — as well as an urge to destroy capitalism.

There are also elements who want to use climate change as a nightstick to punish developed nations for having successful economies. It’s a way to redistribute wealth on an international rather than national basis.

In the late 1980s — almost 30 years ago — a former Canadian environment minister admitted to the Calgary Herald that it doesn’t “matter if the science of global warming is all phony.” What matters is that climate change provides “the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said. (Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change)

“When everything is evidence of the thing you want to believe, it might be time to stop pretending you’re all about science.”–Ann Althouse

The environment? It’s a convenient facade to hide a political agenda. Anyone who gets in the way is tarred as a denier of science and menace to nature.

Consequently, the threat of being bullied creates fear and allows the scam to move ahead with minimal resistance. The climate talks set for December will just let those behind the warming scare pretend not to do exactly what they are doing.

Almost two years ago (2009), Roy Spencer, a climate scientist with unimpeachable credentials who has never taken research dollars from an oil company, noted on his blog that “the main reason the models produce so much warming depends upon uncertain assumptions regarding how clouds will respond to warming.”

The models, according to Spencer, don’t follow the path of nature but instead use the assumptions the researchers plug in.

“One would think that understanding how the real world works would be a primary concern of climate researchers, but it is not,” wrote Spencer.

“Rather than trying to understand how nature works, climate modelers spend most of their time trying to get the models to better mimic average weather patterns on the Earth and how those patterns change with the seasons.”

More recently, a study found that models have been unable to accurately predict past climate.

“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study, told the scientific journal Nature Geoscience.

“There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models,” said Dickens, a professor of earth science at Rice University.

Like carmakers, the scientists keep rolling out new models. One that has “a more realistic simulation of the way clouds work” has emerged from Japan, says Patrick Michaels, a former president of the American Association of State Climatologists who now is a fellow at George Mason University.

This “more sophisticated climate model,” Michaels wrote recently on the Cato Institute’s @liberty blog, reduces the amount of expected warming by 25% from earlier models.

The old wisdom that feeding junk into a computer will cause it to spit out junk explains why the public has been hectored about a nonexistent global warming threat for almost 20 years.

Researchers need to be more careful about what they load into their models. Until then, we have no choice but to respectfully consider their work and the political activism that goes with it to be junk science. (IBD)

Agree with me or else!socialism

those dame dirty nukes!

The Hook

Warming: The U.N.’s climate chief is scheduled to visit Australia, where she’ll be welcomed by an advisor of the prime minister who isn’t mincing words in explaining to his countrymen what their guest is all about.

Mind you they used Orwellian tactics to change it from “Global Warming” to the non-descript “Climate Change” to avoid the embarrassments of things like it snowing on their conferences or Flagstaff,AZ getting hit with snow in early May.

Maurice Newman, chairman of Prime Minister Tony Abbot’s Business Advisory Council, doesn’t seem too thrilled about the visit from Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Writing in the Australian, Newman said the “climate catastrophists” are “opposed to capitalism and freedom” and aim to establish a “new world order under the control” of the United Nations.

The British Telegraph reports that Newman’s critics describe him as a “whacko.” But he is correct: The goal of those who want the world to believe that man’s carbon dioxide emissions are dangerously changing the climate is to pull down capitalism. And that’s not us saying it. Figueres herself has admitted this.

“This is the first time” in history, she said earlier this year, that there’s a chance “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

See The Watermelon analysis.

https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/just-say-no-to-watermelons/

Watermelon Environmentalist: Behind all the acronyms and the jargon, they say, is a conspiracy to promote a nakedly political aim – anti-big business; anti-free market; pro-tax increases. In short, green on the outside but red on the inside…

Newman points this out in his op-ed, warning fellow Australians that “the real agenda is concentrated political authority.” Global warming? It’s merely “the hook.”

He also notes that Figueres “is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.”

Newman courts even more criticism when he boldly states that in Figueres’ “authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or disagreement.”

He adds: “Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travelers.”

Such comments will surely get him removed from many cocktail party invitation lists, but the price for being right is often stiff.

Newman also noted that those he describes as “eco-catastrophists”:

• “Won’t let up” and “have captured the U.N. and are extremely well funded.”

• “Will keep mobilizing public opinion using fear and appeals to morality.”

• “Have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media to push the scriptures regardless of evidence.”

Newman could have mentioned, as well, that while many who are aligned with Figueres are motivated, as she is, by a raging desire to quash capitalism, the fight against man-made global warming and climate change has become a religious crusade for more than a few.

Count another U.N. climate chief among them. The freshly resigned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said earlier this year that “the protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems, is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.” His religion.

University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse made a similar remark a year later. “When everything is evidence of the thing you want to believe, it might be time to stop pretending you’re all about science,” she wrote.

The global warming/climate change debate should not be driven by religion or a loathing toward free-market economies. It should be about science.

On that count, the skeptics and doubters have the advantage. As Newman reminds us, “95% of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error.”

Newman did his countrymen a favor by alerting them to Figueres and those who hold similar if not identical beliefs, and push the same false agenda. Now they need to do their part and heed his warning.

James Lovelock, the scientist who brought us the Gaia theory that Earth is a living being.

On MSNBC three years ago, he said that environmentalists have created a “green religion” that “is now taking over from the Christian religion.” He admitted then: “We don’t know what the climate is doing.”

We don’t know what the climate is doing because it doesn’t ask our permission or respond much to our input. To think otherwise is to believe in a fairy tale.
Or a Politically motivated “religion” disguised as “concern” and “science” as most Liberal things are. It’s also the endorsed religion of the Left. This holy writ and holy mantra is Politically Correct and any heretic who strays from the truth must be put down.

Now that’s Science, for you. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Global Warming Revealed

The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

“We shouldn’t have stupid cars that use liquid fossil fuels”

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

“When we went from the horse and buggy to the internal combustion engine, there was no alarm clock. This transformation is larger than anything we’ve ever done, and an alarm clock is ticking in our faces.”

It’s not much different than having children. You can rear them in an antagonistic environment or in a facilitative one with a good combination of love and discipline. It’s about supporting them, and recognizing achievements and contributions, but also saying, “that’s fantastic but it’s not enough, here’s the next thing.” Honestly, what was my best training for this job? Being a mother.

She’s Big Mother! 🙂

The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.

Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming “the economic development model” because she’s really never seen it work. “If you look at Ms. Figueres’ Wikipedia page,” notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.

“I’m hoping to accelerate what I call the push and pull process,” Figueres told the AP in a phone interview Tuesday from her agency’s secretariat in Bonn, Germany.

Governments act as a pull factor by shaping the policies that promote green technology and help renewable energy sources like solar and wind power compete with the fossil fuels that scientists say contribute to global warming through the release of greenhouse gases.

“But the companies, particularly these very, very high-powered companies that … have the ear of many of the decision-makers and the opinion leaders of different countries, they can act as a push factor,” Figueres said.

Now that’s science at it’s finest!

But like the typically arrogant, narcissistic Liberals she believes she’s some kind of Messiah that will save the world from itself and only the amoral would oppose her.

Slate.com asked her: Some say tackling climate change is utopian?

Would you have said “utopian speech” to Martin Luther King? When you have a vision of where you need to go, it sounds utopian. But when you get to the tipping point, your understanding switches. We’re going to get to the point where we ask how the hell we put up with high carbon for so many years. You thank your lucky stars, because you are seeing this transformation in your lifetime. You are going to tell your children and your grandchildren you saw this whole thing in front of your eyes. (IBD, Slate.com)

She is the light in the Darkness, not the Darkness in the light, so you better do as she says or else.

The Science is Settled. The debate is over. Get over it OR ELSE! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 

 

A Message to Global Warming Alarmists

I was laughing my ass of by the end of this one. 🙂

Got this message yesterday from a very concerned climate change alarmist:

Hi Matt, I read you sometimes but I generally find you to be an assh*le. Just being honest. I also think you have a reputation (or you’d like to think you have a reputation) as someone who isn’t afraid to “tell it like it is,” but I think you haven’t earned that. Actually you are very afraid to challenge any republican talking point so you stick to the script on everything. I guess it’s more important to be invited to the parties than to tell the truth.

I’m wondering if you have the guts to address something and actually force your right wing readers to think for themselves. I’m getting really tired of seeing these idiots on Facebook who every time it gets cold or snows start gloating about how it “proves” there is no climate change. You’ve never outed yourself as a climate denier, and I know you like to consider yourself a logical person, so I’m hoping this is one area where you differ from your cohorts. These morons need to be put in their place. Colder temperatures and blizzards ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SCIENTIFIC MODEL FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. This is why I could never be a republican. I can’t be a part of a group of anti-science climate deniers who would kill this planet if they were given free reign. Prove you’re really “controversial,” Matt, and call your people to task here.

-JM

Hi JM,

I agree with you. Honestly, I never addressed it because I never knew it was such a pervasive problem. But now that you’ve called my attention to it, allow me to be the first to say that climate deniers are lunatics. I’ll take it a step further than you even did, JM, and submit that climate deniers should be banned from teaching, voted out of office, and probably fired from any other job they might hold. Seriously, I can’t hardly believe that anyone could be so foolish and so delusional as to be a climate denier.

I mean, to deny the existence of the climate? That’s madness. The word “climate” means “the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region.” The word “deny” means “to refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate.” Anyone who rejects or repudiates the existence of weather conditions ought to be scolded and shunned and possibly institutionalized. We all must stand up against these menaces!

Luckily, upon closer inspection, I see that no such view actually exists anywhere in our society. This is just a label you people fabricated because left wing environmentalists are reflexively disingenuous about everything. “Climate denier” may in fact be the most ludicrous assemblage of two words ever concocted by mankind. But it’s not much better than the slightly more specific “climate change denier,” (used in a sentence: “liberal college professors think climate change deniers should be put in prison“) because, despite these marvelous straw men left wingers take so much time building, nobody in the world denies the fact of climate change. If anyone is a climate change denier — that is, someone who denies that climates change — I’d agree that he is an imbecile and probably mentally unstable.

Yet that view doesn’t exist because we all know the climate changes. Of course the climate changes. It’s a climate. That’s what climates do. They change. It gets colder, it gets hotter, it rains, it snows, it does all kinds of things. I don’t deny that, and although I’m not a Republican and I take great exception to that accusation, I feel safe in speaking for them when I say that they neither deny the fact of the climate, nor the fact that the climate changes. Progressives use labels like “climate denier” or “climate skeptic” (for the people who are willing to believe that there might be a climate, but are still a little iffy on the whole thing) because they are not interested in an honest discussion. You either buy in to their environmental dogma one hundred percent, or you will be painted as an idiot, an infidel, and a maniac.

Now, why might a person be skeptical about the theory that humans are causing dramatic shifts to the climate, and that these shifts will eventually kill us all? Have you ever thought about why someone might have these reservations, JM? Have you really taken the time to consider the reasons for this skepticism? Yeah, they’re morons, right, I get it, but have you determined that they’re morons because the media and people on Twitter told you they’re morons, or because you gave their case a fair hearing and came away with the impression that they have absolutely nothing even slightly coherent to say? I’m guessing it’s more the former, which makes you not necessarily a moron yourself, but an intellectually lazy chump who can be easily herded and exploited.

But since you broached the subject, I’m hoping today will be perhaps the first day in your life when you listen to a point of view before deciding to disqualify it.

So, why do so many people have trouble falling in line with the Climate Change Doomsday Cult (CCDC)? Let’s start with history. Just going back through the past few decades, according to left wing environmentalists we should all be dead from an Ice Age, and after that it was a nuclear winter, and after that it was overpopulation. Sprinkle in the various fits of hysteria about how we’re going to run out of oil and end up back living in caves, or run out of rain forest and suffocate to death, or run out of food, or run out of water, or run out of ozone, and you see how people might grow wary of the CCDC’s constant hand wringing about some kind of apocalypse (side note: “Some Kind of Apocalypse” would be a great name for a band). We should have perished 12 times over at this point. There were at least three different global annihilations that should have arrived before the year 2000, and another several since then. We should be starving, sick with radiation poisoning, unable to breathe, freezing from the sub zero temperatures, melting from the scorching heat, and causing entire landmasses to literally tip over due to the excess population. But we’re still here.

Some of these theories, like overpopulation and the Ice Age, have been thoroughly debunked and disproved. Others have simply been abandoned for trendier causes. But in all of these cases, the prophets of doom reaped profits from the doom, while slimy politicians used the hysteria as a means to tax, regulate, and control. Excuse us, JM, but are you really saying that after so many failed and erroneous predictions, we shouldn’t even raise an eyebrow when the very same people come back with yet another one?

Left Wing Environmentalists: Watch out everyone, this is going to kill you!

Everyone: Oh no! What do we do?

LWE: Quick pay more taxes!

Everyone: OK, here you go!

LWE: Just kidding. That probably won’t kill you, but this will!

Everyone: AHHHH!

LWE: No, OK, not that. But this!

Everyone: Dear Lord, help us!

LWE: Alright, never mind, we dodged that bullet. But this new thing will definitely wipe us out!

Everyone: We’re so afraid!

LWE: Scratch that. It’s this. This will do it!

Everyone: Uh, OK, we’re starting to get a little skeptical –

LWE: WHY DO YOU HATE SCIENCE?

How many times do they have to be wrong before our skepticism might be considered reasonable? Because that’s what this is about. Skepticism. You’re saying, just as most progressives say, that it’s “anti-science” to even be skeptical of climate alarmism, which is to say that the prevailing climate theory of the day should be believed regardless of how believable it is. This is the very definition of an unscientific attitude. It’s religious zealotry. Nothing more, nothing less.

Our history lesson isn’t over. Not long ago, nobody talked about climate change — instead it was global warming. If you can recall the year 2007, way back in the distant past, you might remember when Al Gore received a Nobel Peace prize for narrating a science fiction documentary and mentioned in his acceptance speech that the North Polar ice cap would completely melt by the year 2013. But then the year 2013 rolled around, and the Arctic had actually increased in mass by about 60 percent. Man, that’s embarrassing.

Indeed, you wouldn’t expect global warming to melt the ice caps considering the globe hasn’t warmed since about 1997. In other words, by the time Gore jumped on the global warming gravy train, global warming hadn’t been a thing for about a decade. Today, we’re about 219 months and counting since the last time the aggregate temperatures on Earth rose by any statistically significant amount.

What happened next? Well, the same thing that always happens. Progressives repackaged, rebranded, renamed, and came up with a few new marketing tricks. Suddenly, global warming became climate change, and man made climate change is as undeniable as man made global warming, even though global warming didn’t exist.

It was a smart move, though. Progressives realized that global warming — like the Ice Age, or overpopulation, or a nuclear winter — is just too specific. They needed something that could never be truly debunked because, no matter what happens, whatever happens proves them right. Hence, climate change.

“The climate is changing because of people!”

How do you know?

“Because it’s changing!”

Yeah, but–

“Look! It just changed again!”

They came up with a theory that can be validated by any turn of events, which means it can’t be validated by any turn of events. They’ve formulated not that one plus one equals two, or even that one plus one equals four, but that one plus one equals infinity.

Want to see something funny? Here’s a National Geographic headline from September of 2014:

Human-Caused Climate Change Worsened Heat Waves in 2013

Now, here’s one from yesterday:

Blizzard of Nor’Easters No Surprise, Thanks to Climate Change

One theory, two opposite results, both proof of the theory. Does that make sense, JM? Can you, at a minimum, understand why some of us look at that and think “hmmmm”?

On a related note, the subheading under that blizzard article is pretty hysterical: “More extreme storms are expected to fall on the Northeast as climate changes.”

Oh, as the climate changes sometimes snow happens, you say? Yes, it’s called winter in the north east. It’s been this way for a while now, National Geographic. Why are you so surprised that it snowed in Buffalo in January? Aren’t you people supposed to be nature experts?

Want more from Matt Walsh?

It’s all so ridiculous, JM. And we haven’t even really gotten to dissecting the actual science here.

As far as that goes, I admit I’m not a scientist, though I suspect neither are you, and neither are most of the people who participate in this debate on either side. Still, even us lowly citizens can know a few things. For instance, we can know that the climate on this planet has changed wildly over the course of its existence. It’s had tropical periods and icy periods and everything in between, and the vast majority of all of that came before the Industrial Age. In fact, human beings have only been industrialized for a tiny fraction of human history, and we’ve been driving cars for an even tinier fraction. We can know, therefore, that temperatures and weather conditions have swung dramatically from one side of the spectrum to the other and back again, and, from a historical perspective, when comparing 200 years of industrialization to the 4 billion years the Earth’s been around, almost all of the warming and cooling happened before any factory was ever built.

We can also know that our CO2 emmissions are dwarfed by the immense amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by natural (and evil, likely Republican) sources like oceans and vegetation.

We can further know that the Sun — which is big enough to eat a million Earths, and hot enough to make you burst into flames from millions of miles away — really calls the shots in our solar system. If we’re searching for “global warming” culprits, we might want to look at that 27,000,000 degree ball of gas in the sky.

And we can even more confidently know that if human CO2 emissions are a primary driver of global temperatures, it wouldn’t make sense for temperatures to drop or stay stagnate while humanity only continues to increase its CO2 output. But that’s exactly what’s happened. I can know that, and I can know that something doesn’t make sense here. And I can know all of that without being a “scientist.”

Speaking of scientists, it’s probably not worth mentioning at this point that there isn’t any real 97 percent consensus on climate change in the scientific community. That oft-cited figure is based on faulty methodology, cherry picked findings, misleading questions, and misinterpreted results. What do scientists really think? Well, a good number of them are just as skeptical as me check  here, and here, and here for example. .

Even the people who believe in man made climate change don’t really believe it. That’s why so few of you folks are actively adjusting your lifestyle in any substantive way. I mean, if you think that the Earth itself is on the verge of a destruction brought upon by human beings and our technology, wouldn’t you clothe yourself in a loin cloth stitched from foliage and run off into the wilderness, living in a hollowed-out tree and subsisting on wild edibles? If you possess the conviction that the planet itself will die if humanity does not make dramatic changes, wouldn’t you begin by making those dramatic changes yourself? But you don’t. Maybe you buy a hybrid, maybe you put a “Save the Earth” bumper sticker on it, maybe you turn your heat down at night, but when it comes down to it, leftwing environmentalists continue on living the same way we all do. They drive around, buy things, watch TV, fly on airplanes, eat at restaurants. They sermonize about the end times but that’s all it is — a sermon. At least other religious cults put their money where their mouth is. You guys use a lot of dramatic language, but do nothing.

So where does that leave us? With, you might say, a few reasons to be have some doubt. But I realize this isn’t about “reasons” for you, it’s about faith. And far be it for me to attack your religion.

Thanks for writing.

-Matt

(Matt Walsh)

AMEN! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Herr Torcello

Climate change will displace hundreds of millions of people by the end of this century, increasing the risk of violent conflict and wiping trillions of dollars off the global economy, a forthcoming UN report will warn. (Independent)

What else are the Sky is Falling! Chicken Little Control Freaks going to say? And as for wiping Trillions off the economy, Obama and his Socialist pals are doing that quite well without their help!

A professor with Rochester Institute of Technology has called for the incarceration of any American who actively disagrees that climate change is solely caused by human activity.

Lawrence Torcello, a philosophy professor with a Ph.D. from the University at Buffalo, published the comments as part of an essay submitted to the academic website The Conversation.

Torcello argues that malignant individuals, who he does not identify, are collectively organising a “campaign funding misinformation” about climate change. Torcello goes on to suggest that such activity “ought to be considered criminally negligent.”

Adding that “science misinformation” surrounding climate change should be considered a crime, Torcello asks readers to “Consider cases in which science communication is intentionally undermined for political and financial gain.”

Someone’s psychosis needs a time out.

He wants the The Spanish Inquisition! Or Maybe just The Global Warming SS…

And here’s the kicker:

“Climate denial remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.” the professor adds.

Not science, Politics!

You see in Science if you have a theory, you test the theory. If the data comes back against your theory you don’t toss out the data, stamp your foot, and demand the data fit your theory. or demand that anyone who has conflicting data be locked up because they don’t agree with you.

That’s Politics.

But if it’s a political theory, then science is merely a tool and you only use that which furthers your political goals.

That is not science.

“We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions,” he writes.

Aka, opinions that are in line with my politics only. Everyone else should be locked up.

Thank you, Herr Torcello!

Torcello’s America would also see countless scientists thrown into prison for continually presenting evidence that shows there is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm. The latest to be locked up would be Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee last month that “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”

Moore cited the IPCC’s own figures on global warming which show only a 0.57C temperature increase during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature.

Furthermore, the latest temperature data from two U.S. government bureaucracies, NASA and NOAA, verifies that the “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming is still ongoing. If professor Torcello had his way, the scientists involved in those studies would presumably also be imprisoned. (Infowars)

But then again, Global Warming is not about science, it’s about politics, and politics is a very dirty, cynical, self-obsessed, self-aggrandizing, control beast.

And so is Herr Torcello.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Ideological Weather

How can you tell that “Global Warming” is about ideology and not science.

Simple look at the contradictions and then the attitude.

November 2013 didn’t feel like November with several wintry blasts after a briefly mild beginning.  The month averaged 3 degrees F below normal (exactly the same as last year, tying with 2008 too for coldest of the 2000s), and we achieved several cold weather milestones.

I was also amused by the Antarctic trip by a bunch of alarmist who were going to prove the ice shelf there was melting and they got stuck in very thick ice for over a week nowhere close to their goal!

Then the news media just talked up their “bravery” and their “determination” and not the fact that they failed miserably.

November 2013 saw three days with high temperatures below 40F (11/24, 11/25, 11/3o), which was the most since 1956.  The two-day period one week ago (Sunday, the 24th -Monday, the 25th) was the coldest since 1970.  The high temperature of 34 that Sunday (Nov. 24) was the coldest high in November since 1987. (WP)

In honor of the 17th year without global warming, The Daily Caller News Foundation has put together seven setbacks for global warming alarmism. 

 

They are:

1) Studies show that the world was warmer than it is today during the Roman Empire and when the Vikings were plundering Europe and North America. In fact, even in the 19th Century, there were discussions surrounding the fact that the Vikings could settle the northernmost reaches of Greenland and North America because there was less ice coverage.

2) During the second week in December, the U.S. saw more than 2000 record low temperatures and record snowfalls, according to the National Weather Service and HamWeather records center. There were 606 record low temperatures, 1,234 low maximum temperatures and 285 record snowfalls across the country. In the meantime there were only 98 high temperature records and 141 high minimum temperature records.

3) Satellite data shows that the polar bears have at least one reason to be happy this year – Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent over last year’s record low coverage. Contrary to Al Gore’s prediction that there would be no polar ice cap by this year, sea ice coverage spanned nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic last year.

4) Global cooling is on the way, according to an increasing number of scientists. German scientists have predicted that based on declining sunspot activity and natural climate oscillation the world will cool over the next century. Temperatures will eventually drop to levels corresponding with the “little ice age” of 1870.

5) Other scientists have also been coming around to the global cooling side of things. The BBC reported that Professor Mike Lockwood of the Reading University predicts that at the current rate of decline in solar activity, another “Little Ice Age” could envelope Northern Europe.

6) The United Nations climate bureaucracy’s latest global warming report was called “hilarious” by a leading scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Richard Lindzen said the UN’s report “has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence” because they continue to proclaim with ever greater certainty that mankind is causing global warming, despite their models continually being wrong.

“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen said. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”

7) The Senate testimony of Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado completely undercut environmentalists and Democrats trying to claim that global warming was causing “extreme weather.”

“It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” Pielke said. “It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.” (DC)

Then The Chicken Little’s Step in:

World’s climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

Scientists say the world’s climate is warming faster than feared because previous predictions were too “optimistic” and overestimated the cooling impact of clouds.

As the planet marked its fourth hottest year on record, a study published in the journal Nature found increasing levels of carbon dioxide will lead to thinner ocean clouds and reduce their cooling impact, causing temperature rises of at least 5.6F (3C) over the course of the century. (LT)

2012: A new study shows that average global temperatures could climb 2.5 to 5.4 degrees by 2050 if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated.

In one year Armageddon was pushed back 50 years… 🙂

Global Warming Alarmist site: “Six thousand years ago, when the world was one degree warmer than it is now, the American agricultural heartland around Nebraska was desert.

So what Industrial Technology did they have then that made it so hot? Whoops, damn those buffalo farts!

But to understand the effect of nearly 6 Degrees , they say hysterically I refer back to  the same global warming alarmist website:

To see the most recent climatic lookalike, we have to turn the geological clock back between 144m and 65m years, to the Cretaceous, which ended with the extinction of the dinosaurs. There was an even closer fit at the end of the Permian, 251m years ago, when global temperatures rose by – yes – six degrees, and 95% of species were wiped out.

OMG! We’re all gonna die! Quick, everyone do everything the alarmist want, no matter how cracked! The Sky is Falling The Sky is Falling!! OMG WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!

(too much?) 🙂

That episode was the worst ever endured by life on Earth, the closest the planet has come to ending up a dead and desolate rock in space.” On land, the only winners were fungi that flourished on dying trees and shrubs. At sea there were only losers. Warm water is a killer. Less oxygen can dissolve, so conditions become stagnant and anoxic. Oxygen-breathing water-dwellers – all the higher forms of life from plankton to sharks – face suffocation. Warm water also expands, and sea levels rose by 20 metres.” The resulting “super-hurricanes” hitting the coasts would have triggered flash floods that no living thing could have survived.

So the latest cry of Global Warming Nutjobs is if you don’t do as we say you’re all going to be EXTINCT by the end of the century!!

Permian Extinction II or else!

Wow, the reptiles of 252 Million years ago were really industrious bastards.!!

Maybe the Flintstones are true!

So let’s not get hysterical here! 🙂

But you can really tell it’s agenda driven by the response to critics.

Maurice Newman, top business advisor to the Australian Prime Minister pissed all over the Global Warming nutjobs and their response was the usual level of maturity and rationality you’d expect:

“His piece is a mix of common climate change myths, misinformation and ideology,” said Professor David Karoly, from the University of Melbourne, in an article in The Sydney Morning Herald.

I would not choose a person who believes that the Earth is flat to advise Australian shipping or airline businesses on how to plan routes to travel around the world. It is clearly not sensible to have a person who believes that climate change science is a delusion as leader of the prime minister’s Business Advisory Council.”

So if you disagree with them you’re a flat-earther!

Now that’s an mature and rational counter argument don’t you think?

So you know it’s just another level of Liberal Control Freak-ism.

So do as we say because we say or you’ll be extinct!

Nope, no hyperbole there…

Damn those Reptiles!

So hide the Decline… 🙂

 

A Study

Here is a perfect study in Orwellian Liberal thought.

A professor at Yale set out to prove a politically motivated study and when he doesn’t get the result he was expecting he blows it off because his Orwellian trained mind can’t handle the actual truth so it recedes into the Thought Police darkness.

The grades are back, and the professor was shocked to learn that the “smart” kids aren’t nearly so smart as the ones he had pegged as imbeciles.

It doesn’t happen too often that a dyed-in-the-wool liberal has the tenacity, skills or attention span to actually question his own assumptions and admit that they’re wrong.

But that’s what happened in the case of Yale psychology professor Dan Kahan, who conducted a survey of political affiliations and scientific literacy.

Kahan found that not only are members of the Tea Party knowledgeable about things scientific, but they are more scientifically literate than most of the population.

What makes Kahan’s research most noteworthy, however, is the rare honesty with which he discusses his findings.

“I’ve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising,” Kahan said. “As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I’d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension.”

Kahan’s comments also support the notion many Tea Partiers hold that liberals base their opinions mostly on what the liberal media tell them.

 

“But then again, I don’t know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party,” Kahan admitted. “All my impressions come from watching cable TV — & I don’t watch Fox News very often — and reading the ‘paper’ (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused internet sites like Huffington Post & Politico). I’m a little embarrassed, but mainly I’m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.”

Since he’s a liberal, and very racially sensitive, I wonder if he has any “white” friends?

Maybe they are just “in the closet” and afraid to come out because of the social stigma and ridicule that would be heaped on them. That arrogant stench of disapproval…:)

Of course not, that was not the aim of the piece anyways. It was had a biased premise. He was surprised by a result he can’t accept to begin with because his ideology can’t accept it.  So like any good scientist her marginalizes, rationalizes it away and moves on. His view of how the universe works and his superiority in it must remain intact.

The universe revolves around his earth, after all. 🙂

Kahan might have saved himself some time if he had referred to a 2010 study, published in the New York Times that found Tea Party members were smarter and wealthier than the average.

If liberals like Kahan ever bothered to attend a Tea Party event, they would find that Tea Party members are bright, engaged people who are concerned about this country’s future based on their detailed knowledge of history, economics and politics. So it’s no surprise Tea Partiers ace science tests as well.

Still, you can lead a liberal to facts, but you can’t make him think.

Kahan, in his original posting talking about his findings, turns right around and dismisses his figures as “trivially small,” and he rushes to reassure his liberal readers, “Of course, I still subscribe to my various political and moral assessments–all very negative– of what I understand the ‘Tea Party movement’ to stand for.”

Maybe Kahan will continue to be honest and explain what part of lower taxes, constitutionally limited government and free markets — specifically — he finds morally repugnant. (politicaloutcast.com)

Commentor patriotusa2: Professor or not, I find his assumptions about tea partiers to be ridiculous. Tea party is just a name for a conservative group of people, just as those with his political leanings are called liberals. What he actually believed was that people who didn’t adhere to his political way of thinking, had to be dumb, uninformed and a lot of other negatives. Professor Kahan should get a very low grade for his stupid assumptions which amount to nothing more than arrogance and a lack of common sense.

As I have said many time before because the examples are too numerous to mention, a hardcore liberal is so arrogant and so much a mindless Orwellian zombie (and childish to boot) that of course anyone who disagrees with must be a moron. Their universe simply doesn’t work any other way.

They are Homo Superior and you’re a dirty, little Neanderthal to them for daring to question the superiority of your Masters.

And he’s a YALE Professor you dirty little gutter snipe!

That’s how they think. And out ‘esteemed’ Ivy League Professor shows it goes from the top to the bottom of liberalism.

There was brief light of enlightenment and he ran away from the light and back into the comfort of The Ministry of Truth darkness and wallowed in it.

A follow up article: “But despite all this, many many many tea-party partisans succumbed to politically biased reasoning in their assessment of the evidence in my post.”

But I bet he doesn’t examine HIS OWN biases now does he… 🙂

After all, he’s from the Yale Law Professor so he has to be smarter than us rubes!! 🙂

Commentor on 2nd Article, chastising the author for not explaining himself better (sound rather Obama like- if he just explained it better the morons would understand how superior they are): “Whereas you and I know that with motivated reasoning, you’d find it immoral whatever they said.”

So you (liberal) and I (liberal) know that with reasoning applied that we will always find them immoral that doesn’t bias the studies at all!! 🙂

After all, I’m always right so no need to examine mine own biases and assumptions about myself.

That’s what we have today in Liberal Zombie Land.

Manufacturing Crisis

 

What Glass?

Lately when people ask me if I’m a glass half-empty of a glass half-full kind of a guy they get the rather snarky, What Glass?

UK Telegraph: Older people blighted by pessimism and fear for the future are more likely to live longer, according to scientists.

A study, into 40,000 adults across ten years, has found those with low expectations for a “satisfying future” actually led healthier lives.

In contrast, people who were “overly optimistic” about the days ahead had a greater risk of disability or death within ten years.

The extraordinary research, published by the American Psychological Association, will not doubt prove comfort to anyone with a tendency to grumpiness.

Frieder R. Lang, lead author of the study from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany, said: “Our findings revealed that being overly optimistic in predicting a better future was associated with a greater risk of disability and death within the following decade.

“Pessimism about the future may encourage people to live more carefully, taking health and safety precautions.”

The research, based on data collected between 1993 and 2003, asked 40,000 respondents to rate how satisfied they believed they would be in five years time.

They were interviewed again five years later, and their satisfaction levels compared with their own predictions.

Those who overestimated how happy they would be were found to have a 9.5 per cent increase in reporting disabilities, and a ten per cent high risk of death.

Older people, who tended to have a “darker outlook” on the future, were shown to be the most accurate in their predictions, with optimistic youngsters overestimating their success.

“Unexpectedly, we also found that stable and good health and income were associated with expecting a greater decline compared with those in poor health or with low incomes,” said Dr Lang.

“Moreover, we found that higher income was related to a greater risk of disability.

“We argue, though, that the outcomes of optimistic, accurate or pessimistic forecasts may depend on age and available resources.

“These findings shed new light on how our perspectives can either help or hinder us in taking actions that can help improve our chances of a long healthy life.”

Of those interviewed, 43 percent of the oldest group were found to have underestimated their future life satisfaction, 25 percent had predicted accurately and 32 percent had overestimated, according to the study

Research published last year by the Office for National Statistics found most people are now living six years longer than current life expectancy projections, with no sign of an upper age limit.

Previous studies have suggested that “unrealistic optimism” about the future can help people feel better while facing inevitable negative outcomes, such as terminal disease.

VINDICATION!  Science says so… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Busting Out Some Fun For a Change

Where I was yesterday after I did my blog….

I drove down to Tucson to the Centennial Hall at The University of Arizona for 2 hour stage show of “Mythbusters” with Adam Savage and Jaime Hyneman.

It was lots of fun. Lots of Science. And lots of humiliating the audience members.

Most of the pictures I took were not very salvageable.

But the best gag of the night was a sight test with specially modified night-like goggles that distorted your vision and made things look farther way than they were.

The first person was a very tall guy. They wanted him to pick up a glass then walk over pour a jug of milk in the glass and then sit in a chair and then go to a hat stand pick up the hat and then walk over to another bench (which were rubic’s cubes) and put the milk on a tray and carry it to where Jaime and Adam were standing.

About minute later after some stumbling and bumbling he completed it.

Then they took this petite girl as the second one. While they were fitting the goggles on her the stage hands were messing with the props.

They change the size and positions of the Rubic’s Cube benchs and the they made the chair go from regualr size to one suited for 3 year old. They also made the hat pole about 4 feet taller (way taller than she was by far).

And when downloading the pictures I noticed the “Don’t Give it Away” on the monitors. I never saw that because I was too busy watch them mess with the test.

The object lesson, “Don’t believe everything you see”

An Object lesson for 2012 for sure.

It was fun night. No cares. Just fun.

We all need more days like that.

The Gag Photo.

Adam said he wanted to set up a photo for his Twitter feed that would make people go “What the Hell are you doing?”

I am visible in the picture but I’m telling you where… 🙂

 

Sign of the Times

Uber Progressive Leftist Alan Colmes on Megyn Kelly’s America Live yesterday discussing the 1/1/11 Tax Increases and Congress in general in getting things done implicitly said that 1-party rule (meaning Democrats) is the only way Washington can function anymore.

“But you don’t have 60 votes in The Senate to override a Republican filibuster”-Colmes

So unless you have an absolute supermajority  1- party rule where everyone is in lock step the minority is going to muck everything up.

Mind you, before Scott Brown’s election in January 2010 the Democrats did have a supermajority and STILL couldn’t pass their agenda. It took legislative trickery and dishonesty to pass ObamaCare after 15 months of wrangling, horse-trading,back room deals and manipulation by DEMOCRATS to pass it.

But even then, it was still the Republican’s fault!

So “Bi-partisan” is a myth.

The Democrats want total control or everything is going to go to hell. After all, they are the vastly superior economic and moral beings- if only those damn Republicans and those damn Tea Partiers would just get out of their way!

1- party rule (THEM) or bust!

I wonder if it will shift on the minority view when the Democrats are in the minority in the House starting in January? 🙂

It will still be the Republican’s fault, after all. Everything in life is, you know. 🙂

The “party of no” indeed…

But what do the Democrats want to do?

Here, for instance, is The Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberley Strassel:

“According to (Nevadan Harry Reid), Senate Democrats are going to confirm judges, rewrite immigration law, extend unemployment insurance, fix the issue of gays in the military, reorganize the FDA, forestall tax hikes, re-fund the government, and ratify a nuclear arms treaty (and the DREAM act) — all in two, maybe three, weeks. This is the same institution that needs a month to rename a post office.”

Or 15 months to pass Socialized medicine even with a Super-Majority! 🙂

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can afford to have all the tax rates go up in January because they couldn’t get together and pass a bill to prevent that from happening (but the Democrats will do it just to preserve their class warfare ideology). But the nature of that bill matters, not just for politicians but — far more important — for the economy.

Speaking of the economy, another sign of the times:

The Soon-to-be Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi just this week: “But it’s also the right thing to do to grow our economy.  Economists tell us that unemployment insurance — the non-partisan Urban Institute estimated that unemployment insurance returns $2 to the economy for every $1 spent. This is money that is needed by families to buy necessities, to heat their homes… and immediately injects demand into the economy — creating jobs.”

Yes, folks, you heard it here- Unemployment creates Jobs and stimulates growth!

So more unemployment must therefore be a good thing.

Let’s all lose our jobs, sit home and watch Oprah and collect our Unemployment $$$ . It should be  a Utopia by Pelosi’s reasoning. 🙂

And Speaking of Pelosi:

In one of her first acts as speaker in 2007, Pelosi, a California Democrat, created the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to draw attention to climate-change science and showcase how a cap on carbon dioxide needn’t be a threat to economic growth.

Republicans, who won control of the House in the Nov. 2 election, have opposed legislative efforts to regulate carbon emissions as a tax on energy. When the panel convened today, Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said that the hearing “will be the last of the select committee.”

Too Bad Nancy, I guess you’ll have to peddle your Global Warming fraud another way…How about The EPA….

Republicans are assuming that cap-and-trade (aka cap-and-tax) is dead because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lacks the votes to bring up the House-passed bill and because this issue proved a loser in the 2010 House races. Like the famous Mark Twain saying, its death may be exaggerated.

The Senate’s environmentalism expert, Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., warns us that the Obama administration is trying to implement cap-and-trade anyway by bureaucratic regulations. Directives issued by the Environmental Protection Agency are coming down the pike to increase energy costs and kill jobs.

Last May, the EPA issued what it called a tailoring rule to govern new power plants, oil refineries and factories that yearly emit 100,000 tons or more of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride. Inhofe reports that this tailoring rule will further reduce our manufacturing base and especially hurt the poor and elderly.

Inhofe predicts that the EPA standards planned for commercial and industrial boilers will cost 798,000 jobs. He also warns about the harmful effects on jobs caused by new rules on ozone emissions.

Since Barack Obama moved into the White House, the EPA has proposed or finalized 29 major regulations and 172 major policy rules. The EPA is, for the first time, simultaneously toughening the regulations on all six major traditional pollutants such as ozone and sulfur dioxide.

Before Climate-gate exposed the politics behind the “science” of global warming, a 5-to-4 Supreme Court ordered the EPA to consider regulating emissions based on that unsubstantiated and now largely discredited theory.

Despite a long record of supporting Obama stimulus and spending legislation, the expected chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., says, “We are not going to allow this administration to regulate what they have been unable to legislate.”

Opposition to EPA’s new rules is remarkably bipartisan. Seventeen Democrats signed a letter to EPA Director Lisa Jackson opposing them.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., was elected after running a TV ad showing himself firing a rifle to put a bullet through a copy of the cap-and-trade bill, and he promised to fight EPA attempts to curb greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. He may have a difficult task because Jackson is plotting to force mass retirements of the coal plants that provide half of U.S. electricity.

EPA’s aggressive overregulation is forcing the electric industry to choose between continuing to operate while taking on major capital costs of complying with heavy new burdens or closing down and building new plants that use more expensive sources such as natural gas. The public will surely end up paying higher electric rates (aka a big tax increase).

The ObamaCare law was deviously designed to take decision-making away from our elected representatives and give it to 15 “expert” members of the Obama-appointed Independent Payment Advisory Board. Many provisions of this law prohibit Congress from repealing or changing decisions of the “experts.”

The Obama administration is using administrative regulations to implement what is known as card check, which even the Democratic Congress refuses to legislate. Obama’s recess appointee to the National Labor Relations Board, Craig Becker, has lined up a 3-to-2 board majority to repeal the rule that requires secret ballots in unionization elections.

Currently, a secret ballot of workers is mandated to unionize a company. Becker’s new regulation will eliminate workers’ right and make them subject to coercion and bullying to induce them to vote yes on a card visible to union bosses.

The Obama administration is also toying with a plan to substitute administrative regulations for treaties. Several years ago, the Council on Foreign Relations fingered the treaty provision of the U.S. Constitution as its most objectionable section, and now an ex-Clinton administration State Department bureaucrat, James P. Rubin, has floated a New York Times op-ed suggesting that treaties are not “worth the trouble anymore,” and we should substitute domestic regulations.

The globalists find it inconvenient that our Constitution requires a two-thirds Senate vote for treaty ratification. Horrors! That, they say, causes “international frustration” with America.

This frustration broke into print because there are not enough Senate votes to ratify the New START Treaty that Obama signed with Russia. Rubin’s solution is to ditch the ratification process and substitute executive agreements and pronouncements.

Rubin reminds us that after it became clear the Senate was not going to ratify a climate-change treaty, Obama just used EPA regulations, and so we can do likewise with arms-control treaties. Let’s just ignore the Constitution and let Obama bureaucrats make all important decisions. (IBD)

Or Food, let’s get them where they eat.

A questionable food safety bill in search of a crisis passed the Senate, but may hit a snag in the House. This power grab of the nation’s food supply may end up benefiting a certain Hungarian billionaire. (aka George Soros, puppetmaster of the extreme Left).

Why would the Senate take up precious time in the lame duck session considering a food safety bill?

Just as ObamaCare wasn’t really about health care reform but about government power, S510 is not really about food safety but about government control of agriculture and the nation’s food producers. The Food Safety Modernization Act would give the Food and Drug Administration unprecedented power to govern how farmers produce their crops. The FDA would be able to control soil, water, hygiene, and even temperature, on farms. Through the law, the agency could regulate animal activity in the fields.

“This legislation means that parents who tell their kids to eat their spinach can be assured it won’t make them sick,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who wrote the bill, referring to a recent e-coli outbreak traced to spinach.

A crisis is a terrible thing to waste, even if you have to manufacture one. As the Heritage Foundation reports, the nation’s food supply is the world’s safest and getting safer all the time. Incidences of food-borne illnesses, despite headlines about massive egg recalls, have been declining for more than a decade.

In 1996, there were 51.2 cases of confirmed food-borne bacterial contamination per 100,000 people.

By 2009, this fell by a third to 34.8 cases per 100,000 people. So it would seem it’s getting safer for kids to eat their spinach. But then again, this bill isn’t about spinach.

S510 transfers authority over food regulation enforcement from the FDA to the Homeland Security Department, which brought us the TSA, naked body scanners and the groping of our junk. The bill requires the EPA to “participate” in regulating the food chain.

The bill expands government authority and control over America’s 2.2 million farms, 28,000 food manufacturing facilities, 149,000 food and beverage stores, and 505,000 residents and similar facilities. It increases inspections of all food “facilities.”

Because it taxes them for the privilege, the House must pass a new version of the bill to be sent back to the Senate. The Constitution requires all tax bills to originate in the House, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who opened the session with a five-minute soliloquy on football, should have known that.

One interesting feature of the bill is a bunch of new regulations regarding seeds and seed cleaning that requires expensive equipment. Smaller concerns might not be able to handle the added burden, concentrating the handling of seed production in the hands of corporate giants like Monsanto.

Curiously, George Soros’ hedge fund has just bought 897,813 shares (valued at $312.6 million) of Monsanto. His hand seems to be in anything that weakens individual freedom and destabilizes currencies and free governments, and makes him money in the process.

Governments at all levels have been busy telling us what we should eat and how our restaurants should prepare our food. Trans fats are bad and must be banned, as must vending machines that dispense candy bars and soda. There’s talk of putting federally funded salad bars in our public schools.

So much for the pursuit of happiness — we’re from the government and we have ways to make you healthy. Thomas Jefferson once said: “If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

Well, ObamaCare has taken care of the medicine part, and now government is after our spinach, too.

You can have our turnips when you pry them from our cold, dead hands. Bon appetit, America. (IBD)

And there’s still the FCC with Net Neutrality and The Fairness Doctrine. The FTC with new regulations on businesses.

This Alphabet soup of liberal regulations is bad for anyone’s health.

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”– Thomas Jefferson

We are from the Government and we are here to help you… 🙂

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”-Thomas Jefferson

Political Cartoon by Nate Beeler

Scared Lizard Brains

Political Cartoon by Lisa Benson

President Obama seems to have learned nothing from the disaster of the “cling-to-guns-and-God” talk that almost derailed his campaign in 2008. He’s back at it—blaming voters for failing to “think clearly” because they’re “scared” about the economy:

WEST NEWTON, Mass. – President Barack Obama said Americans’ “fear and frustration” is to blame for an intense midterm election cycle that threatens to derail the Democratic agenda.

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening. “And the country’s scared.”

Scared of You, your Czars, and your Socialism,dear boy.

Obama views himself as the neocortical leader — the defender, not just of the stimulus package and health-care reform but also of cognitive reasoning. His critics rely on their lizard brains — the location of reptilian ritual and aggression. Some, presumably Democrats, rise above their evolutionary hard-wiring in times of social stress; others, sadly, do not.

Though there is plenty of competition, these are some of the most arrogant words ever uttered by an American president. (Washington Post)

This is an improvement over Obama’s 2008 “cling” speech because now Obama’s critics are scared rather than racist or stupid. There’s hope for us!

Obama told the several dozen donors that he was offering them his “view from the Oval Office.” He faulted the economic downturn for Americans’ inability to “think clearly” and said the burden is on Democrats “to break through the fear and the frustration people are feeling.”

Big Brother Barack is hear to save you. Cuddle up and he’ll protect you from the evil capitalists and the mean old Republicans who want your children to starve and your grandma to be homeless and eating dog food!.

Now, don’t you feel better. 🙂

Insulting voters is rarely a good way to win them over. But usually the “blame the customer” approach, as Mark Shields calls it, takes hold in the wake of an election defeat. Obama has broken new ground by moving it up to two weeks in advance of the vote.

It’s another thing to say those poor people will change when they get their jobs back when you’ve had two years to get them their jobs back and have conspicuously failed. At that point, blaming “false consciousness” becomes a semi-delusional way of dancing around your own inability to remove the root of that false consciousness. A little humility is in order. If true humility is unavailable, false humility will do.

Maybe Obama was cynically making a pitch to his immediate audience—a small crowd of Massachusetts donors who might be expected to respond to the idea that they were defending “facts” and “science” against confused know-nothings. But Obama should know, especially after the 2008 San Francisco incident, that a candidate can’t keep his words confined to a fundraiser. And this apparently wasn’t a closed-to-press event like the one in S.F. We didn’t have to rely on a donor/blogger like Mayhill Fowler to spill the beans. Reporters reported on it. Obama couldn’t have been trying to cyncially play to the donors—he’s not that naive! This must be what he really thinks.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

Obama seems more inclined to just tough it out until the economy recovers and the scared, confused voters become unscared and see the light. Meanwhile, he’ll spend his time in a protective cocoon.

He’ll be the child you will just sit and pout and turn blue 🙂 until he’s proven right and everyone loves him for it.

Ground your heels into the dirt and refuse to do anything until someone kisses my butt and tells me I’m the greatest thing since the evolution of man.

We thought he was a great salesman. He turned out to be a lousy salesman. We thought he was a great politician. Instead he makes elementary mistakes and doesn’t learn from them. He didn’t know “shovel-ready” from a hole in the ground, and then somehow thinks admitting this ignorance without apology will add to his appeal.

Did I happen to mention this editorial was from Newsweek? You know the Magazine famous for Cover Headlines like “We are all Socialists Now” and “Is America  Islamophobic?”

I found it fascinating. And in the end the writer said he still wanted Obama over a Republican. Even after trashing him.

Now that’s partisanship for you. 🙂

What could Obama possibly learn from voters who are embittered, confused and dominated by subconscious evolutionary fears? They have nothing to teach, nothing to offer to the superior mind. Instead of engaging in debate, Obama resorts to reductionism, explaining his opponents away.

In April 2008, Obama described small-town voters to wealthy donors in San Francisco: “It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” Now, to wealthy donors in Massachusetts, opponents are “hard-wired not to always think clearly.” Interpreting Obama does not require psychoanalysis or the reading of mystic Chicago runes. He is an intellectual snob.

But intellectual disdain among elites feeds this destructive populism rather than directing or defusing it. Obama is helping to cause what he criticizes.

Obama may think that many of his fellow citizens can’t reason. But they can still vote.

And voting him out in 2012 and his buddies out in two weeks is what us scared, racist, primitive gun-clingling,  scared morons have to do.

Period.

The Peasants are Revolting!

Speaker Nancy Pelosi 2/4/09: “Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs.”

9/3/10: Obama said a recovery is taking place, but not at the speed he’d hope. “That’s why we need to take further steps to create jobs and keep the economy growing, including extending tax cuts for the middle class and investing in the areas of our economy where the potential for job growth is greatest,” Obama said Friday. “In the weeks ahead, I’ll be discussing some of these ideas in more detail.”

Doesn’t the anticipation of more Keynesian economics just make you twitch with excitement? 😦

This is not “better than expected”; it’s worse than expected. This can be gauged not by market expectations for modest job creation, but by long-term experience watching how jobs are created in a normal recovery. By that gauge, we’re in the worst jobs slump since World War II.

Even the normally bland Surveys of Consumers, put out by Thomson Reuters and the University of Michigan, warned Friday that “the probability of a double dip (recession) is high enough for everyone to include such an event in their contingency plans.”

Job data can be misleading. Gallup’s biweekly measure of “underemployment” — the share of workers who are either unemployed or working part-time but want to work full-time — stood at 18.6% in late August, the highest level since June.

“Worse yet,” said Gallup, “(our) job data show that 28% of Americans 18 to 29, 24% of those with no college education, and 22% of women, were underemployed in August.”

For those who have no job but want one, it may be a long wait.

In 2009, President Obama vowed to create 3.5 million jobs, lifting the total by the end of this year to 137.8 million. The actual number as of August was 130.3 million — leaving, as Heritage Foundation economist J.D. Foster puts it, a “jobs deficit” of 7.5 million.

Put differently, at August’s pace of private-sector job creation — 68,000 a month — it would take more than nine years for Obama to reach his goal. And that assumes that there’s no growth in the work force at all.

If it wasn’t clear to everyone by now, it should be: All the actions this government has taken — the $700 billion TARP program, the $862 billion “stimulus,” the health care takeover, financial reform — haven’t “saved or created” 3.8 million jobs, as claimed. Instead, they’ve destroyed millions of jobs — and with them, the hopes and dreams of those who’ve lost the jobs.

But the administration remains clueless, hinting that it may seek another “stimulus” costing billions. This bunch is either willfully doing damage to the U.S. economy, or completely incompetent.

On Friday, the president actually patted himself on the back, saying the employment report was “positive news” that “reflects the steps we’ve already taken to break the back of this recession.”

If there’s one thing that marks this administration as different from others, it’s the steadfast refusal to remove its ideological blinders and learn from its mistakes.

The Democrats’ politicized housing and mortgage policies pushed our economy into its worst downturn since the Great Depression. So, of course, it’s a perfect time for the biggest tax increase in history.

Why is the economy still paralyzed after the president’s much-touted “Recovery Summer”? It may be that private investment, too, has been immobilized.

With unemployment now up to 9.6%, Americans fear that the economy won’t get moving again anytime soon. As a new report from Americans for Tax Reform shows, that fear is completely rational. The report outlines the impact of the largest-ever tax hike that’s coming in just 120 days as the Bush tax cuts expire.

On New Year’s Day, “The top income tax rate will rise from 35% to 39.6% (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10% to 15%. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.”

Of crucial importance to entrepreneurship and job creation, the top capital gains tax rate rises from 15% to 20% next year, while the top rate for taxation of dividends rises from 15% to 39.6%.

And, “These rates will rise another 3.8% in 2013,” ATR points out.

Then there are the 20 new or increased taxes dictated by the ObamaCare government takeover of the health care system. All told, Americans’ taxes will go up by $3.1 trillion, as Heartland Institute economist John Nothdurft noted in IBD last week.

With all that on the horizon for an already-crippled U.S. economy, the Obama administration has saturated the Internet with WhiteHouse.gov propaganda — like an interactive map in which you can “Roll over states to learn how many estimated jobs have been created and saved due to Recovery Act funding.”

Maybe playing with that map of fictional jobs on their computer can give unemployed breadwinners something to do.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in July sent an open letter to the president, Congress and the American people, warning: “Through their legislative and regulatory proposals — some passed, some pending, and others simply talked about — the congressional majority and the administration have injected tremendous uncertainty into economic decision making and business planning.”

“This is why banks are reluctant to lend and why American corporations are sitting on well over a trillion dollars,” the Chamber wrote. “It is why America’s small businesses and entrepreneurs, the engines of innovation and job creation, are starving for capital and are either struggling to survive or unable to expand.”

Amid all this, the president is reportedly mulling “emergency” infrastructure spending — another stimulus to throw tens of billions more in good taxpayer money after bad. (IBD)

Though the Democrats won’t call it a “stimulus” anymore. That word is persona non-grata. It’s now a “jobs bill” And how could you be against that? 🙂

But in reality, the Democrats are going into a siege mentality. The villagers are coming for them with pitchforks so they are shoring up their defenses.

It’s not like they can admit to being wrong. After all, they are the morally and intellectually superior Masters of all that they survey.

Eugene Robinson, Mega-Lefist: According to polls, Americans are in a mood to hold their breath until they turn blue. Voters appear to be so fed up with the Democrats that they’re ready to toss them out in favor of the Republicans — for whom, according to those same polls (by Liberals no doubt) , the nation has even greater contempt. This isn’t an “electoral wave,” it’s a temper tantrum.

Maybe the american people just need a time out in the corner to think about how badly they have been treating their Intellectual Superiors. 🙂

But at this point, it’s impossible to ignore the obvious: The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats. (IBD)

It’s just a bunch of ignorant peasants wanting to storm the gates of their castle, after all.

To hold the line against Republicans, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, issued an urgent plea for members in safe districts to help their endangered colleagues by contributing money. She called out to Democrats who were delinquent on paying their party dues and instructed members with no re-election worries to tap into a combined $218 million from their campaign accounts to help save their majority.

“We need to know your commitment,” Pelosi wrote to lawmakers last week in a private letter, demanding that they call her within 72 hours to explain how they plan to help.

She added, “The day after the election, we do not want to have any regrets.”

They are circling the wagons. The hostile natives are after them and they have fight them off.

They have the liberal media to use as their ammunition.

So expect an all out nuclear war.

The following headline appeared at Time.com shortly after the release of Friday’s jobs report:

What’s Good About Rising Unemployment

What should jump out at the eagle-eyed reader is that headline didn’t end with a question mark.

Time senior writer Stephen Gandel was actually making the case that the rising unemployment rate was good news.

He also argues a fallacy: What economists know very well, but most of the rest of us do not is that the unemployment rate never hits 0%. It never even gets close.

So why are you worried now?  It’s not like we can solve the problem, so just be patient, you’re an ignoramus for being so short-sighted. 🙂

Watch just how far a liberal media member is willing to go today to make economic data look favorable for the Party currently in power, and imagine the unlikelihood of such a thing happening if a Republican was in the White House.(Newbusters)

You mean like, the uptick in unemployment is good because more people are LOOKING for work instead of sitting on their asses waiting for their Mama Government to take care of them?

Orwell would be proud of you my sons.

Not that they will find them. That doesn’t really matter in the end. Just the perception.

The Hope.

And Change. 🙂

And it won’t stop there. Many Democrats are running as “moderates” and “against Washington” and all I have to say to that is, stay tuned to see if voters remember and apply this old adage come Election Day: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
So don’t be fooled.
And if the Republicans don’t get it, the same applies.
Period.
Cynthia Tucker (AJC): Our long, hot summer needed another ingredient to induce a fever-like madness in the national psyche: demographic change. Over the last year and a half, many Americans have begun to see a deeper message in President Obama’s inauguration — the end of the white majority. For some,  especially those who are middle-aged and older, it’s a jarring and unwelcome message.
Then she goes on to say she’s not calling you a racist…sort of. 🙂

While some prognosticators were naïve enough to believe that Obama’s election signaled the beginning of a post-racial era, it prompted something altogether different: a backlash against the browning of America. The winds of resentment would have blown in even if the economy were booming, but an anemic recovery provided the perfect fuel for a summer of discontent.

Timing is everything. Just as many Americans came to understand that the nation they knew was undergoing a dramatic demographic change, the economy collapsed. Unable to account for the disappearance of jobs and financial security, they linked those developments as cause and effect. The backlash is now at gale force.

So we’ve seen a summer of fury over illegal immigration, despite the fact that illegal border-crossings have plunged in the last two or three years, according to a new study by the Pew Hispanic Center. Islamophobia spiked as conservatives made a case against a proposed Islamic center two blocks from Ground Zero, claiming that it would represent a victory for jihadists. It didn’t seem to matter that the imam proposing the center has publicly denounced jihadists.

Just not terrorists, Iran, or Sharia Law. Nothing too big to fail. 🙂

So in the coming months as the Democrats turn up the spin to the point where the Earth should stop rotating because it, just keep it in mind this science fact:

If you raise the middle while trying to crush the top you squash the middle. 🙂

Show Me Da Money!

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

Channel 9, Ralieigh, NC: RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) – Forecasters say the coldest stretch of weather in years if not decades could be heading for North Carolina.
While temperatures won’t be falling to record lows, the National Weather Service says the duration of the cold weather is unusual. Highs could struggle to get above freezing for the next week in areas from Raleigh west.
Forecasters say there are some indications the weather with highs in the 30s and lows in the teens could last up to two weeks. A cold snap like that was last seen in January 1977.
A wind chill advisory has been issued for the mountains. Once the temperature dips below freezing Friday evening, forecasters say it might not get above 32 degrees again until Tuesday or Wednesday.

As the Chicago Tribune reported, “There have been only 162 days 90 degrees or warmer at Midway Airport over the period from 2000 to 2008. That’s by far the fewest 90-degree temperatures in the opening nine years of any decade on record here since 1930.”

In December 2008, 3.6 inches of snow fell on Las Vegas’ McCarran Airport, the highest December snowfall recorded in the area since it began keeping records 70 years ago. The freakishly cold weather even produced a light dusting of snow in Malibu, along Southern California’s coast.

“Between 1940 and 1975, and again between 2001 and the present, global temperatures have exhibited a downtrend,” says global warming skeptic (and Nobel Laurette) Christopher Monckton. “Not one of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC had predicted this downturn.”

Richard S. Courtney, an IPCC expert reviewer and Britain-based climate and atmospheric science consultant, has dismissed claims of dangerous global heating as “rubbish.”

“Global warming is not ‘accelerating.’ Global warming has stopped. There has been no statistically significant rise in [mean global temperature or MGT] since 1995 and MGT has fallen since 1998,” he said.

Another outspoken global warming skeptic is Professor Kunihiko Takeda, vice chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Japan’s Chubu University, who has challenged the prevailing theory that rising levels of CO2 are driving climate change.

“Global warming has nothing to do with how much CO2 is produced or what we do here on Earth,” he told The Japan Times. “For millions of years, solar activity has been controlling temperatures on Earth and even now, the sun controls how high the mercury goes. CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another.”

Takeda then took aim at the many CO2 alarmists in the scientific community:

“Soon it [the earth] will cool down anyhow, once again, regardless of what we do. Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so.”

Why is there such a concerted effort by prominent members of the scientific community to deny the now undeniable downtrend in global temperatures? The answer is “money,” says Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University.

“The U.S. spends about two-billion dollars a year on research. Right now, if you submit anything that says CO2 is not the bad guy, you won’t have a chance of getting funding. It all goes to the CO2 people who build little fiefdoms; they have grant money coming out of their ears.”(examiner)

From Lord Doom (Al Gore):

To whip up the global warming hysteria again after the Climategate e-mails, Al just informed everybody that unless there was a 70 percent change that all the Arctic ice would be melted in seven years. The only problem is the scientist Al quoted as the source quickly informed the press that he never said that. Now this would all be hilarious if Al’s pretend global warming routine wasn’t going to cost us trillions of dollars in new taxes and 2 million jobs shipped to China.

Here is why Al’s not laughing. So far, Al has earned $100 million dollars selling global warming. If the cap and trade tax passes, Al stands to make $1 billion dollars with his global warming investments, and you and I will be paying for it! Pretty funny, huh? (Daily herald)

Global Climate Change.

More like Global Pocket Change for the P.T. Barnum’s of our time.

There’s profit in Doom.

You’re Just Ignornant

Again I was going to say how much fun it is to see Obama and his teleprompter took nearly 4 months to decide to do both a surge strategy and an exit strategy (were coming to get you, but we’re leaving before my re-election campaign) and manage to look weak being decisively indecisive.

But then I saw this from the The Guardian newspaper in England, On Climate Gate:

Liberals, faced with having their faith challenged resort to even more childish insults.

For one thing, as well as the proper scepticism of the inquisitive mind, which all scientists face, they must tackle the talk-show brand of bastardised scepticism that is borne  of wilful ignorance.

Sound familiar?

You’re a “moron” for questioning us, the Liberal elite intelligentsia.

Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Global Warming, Cap & Trade, anyone?

The Guardian continues: Blinded or at least baffled by science, the uninitiated majority imagine it as the sort of impersonal process a robot might carry out. Days before the Copenhagen climate conference – where scientific reasoning will make strenuous demands on everyday life – we have all been reminded that the frontiers of technical knowledge are not in fact advanced by automatons, but by fallible human beings.

When we get caught we’re fallible and you should forgive us our sins, then lets us do whatever the hell we want because we’re right. 🙂

Orwell would be proud of the doublethink.

But calling protesters of the Health Care Reform collosus “morons”, “idiots”,”dupes”, “racists”, “sexists”,”insurance company hacks” anyone?

CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “Journalist” on his own blog- “Granted, the way that opposition has been ginned up by outside forces does discount these outbursts some.”

A Liberal Blogger: Given the math deficiency of the American public, it is difficult to imagine how Democrats will be able to prove to the public with numbers, that health care costs will not rise with their reform.

Well, considering that Liberal control Education, and have for at least 30 years, then the “math deficiency” is their fault too. 🙂

Salaon. com editorial pick: A “Journalist” from St, Louis after a Town hall in August.

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they’ve given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They’ve become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

And the editorial agreed: They’ve become political terrorists. Yeah, pretty much.

So I guess I can add that to my list of list insults.

Then the editorial continues: “Terrorists, like it or not, are people who believe they are doing the right thing and feel passionately about their cause. They also feel that anything they do is justified because they have Absolute Right on their side.”

Sounds like the Liberals I know and have seen on display in the News, on the radio, and the internet.

But Liberals generally can’t even utter the word “terrorist”, it’s a “man-caused disaster” after all. 🙂

The point is, Liberal can’t argue or take criticism without resorting to condescending and insulting personal attacks and childish behavior.

But yet, they are “the consensus”. The “perceived wisdom”. The “majority opinion”.

They are better than you.

God help mankind if that were true!

Guardian: But like politicians before them, climate scientists are learning the hard way that sticking to the rules is not enough – they must also to be seen to be sticking to them.

So are they Scientists or Politicians?

You can’t be both.

They don’t mix.

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Politics is the cynical application of power and manipulation of truth to fit ones agenda.

They don’t mix.

The fact that liberals think they do, is the death knell of science, just like journalism died under the weight of liberalism.

Climate projections are surrounded by margins of error, a vulnerability when humans are poor at grappling with risk and prone to letting self-interest cloud their thinking.

They were talking about you and me, but they  should have looked in the mirror. 🙂

Another rule of public life, however, is that the cover-up does more harm than the scandal. Any suggestion that scientists are being less than frank will shred their credibility. The leaked emails are thus profoundly inconvenient for all of us who are concerned to make the world wake up to an inconvenient truth.

So what is the media doing in large majority, covering it up. 🙂

And the truth is inconvenient.

So decry the cover-up, then cover it up.

Well, that sounds like a liberal. 🙂

Orwell: It is the job of the Thought Police to uncover and punish thoughtcrime and thought-criminals, using psychology and omnipresent surveillance from telescreens to find and eliminate members of society who were capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority.

🙂

Meanwhile, today’s Times – the paper which boasts it has more environmental correspondents than any other publication: gotta use them somehow, I suppose – prints a special, glossy, Copenhagen-themed supplement about global ecodoom. On the cover there’s a picture of a pretty clownfish nestling amid an anemone. The coverline shouts:

“Losing Nemo: Is it too late to save the ocean?”

Sen. Boxer, Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, says that the recently released e-mails should be treated as a crime. (eaminer.com)

“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,'” she said during a committee meeting.

And her co-written bill is one of the Cap & Trade nightmares. So no conflict of interest there. 🙂

CBS: Markey, the head of a House global warming committee, said during a hearing that his Republican colleagues “sit over here using a couple of e-mails to (tell us) how to deal with a catastrophic threat to our planet.” And: “There is no alternative theory that the minority is proposing, other than that we know has been funded by the oil, by the coal industries that want to continue business as usual.”

Sound familiar?

Do you feel talked-down to yet?

Ed Miliband, British Secretary of State For Energy and Climate Change: “I think it’s a question of political will, of mobilising the public.”

And here I thought it was about science… 🙂

John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy ( a “Czar”),He denied its significance, calling the embarrassing disclosures “not remotely sufficient to demonstrate a culture of corruption” and said “as to exactly what went on in the way of manipulation of data, that remains to be seen.” He objected to the idea of an independent probe — the CRU received U.S. government grants — on grounds that he’s not sure an “independent investigation by the Congress of the United States is a way to get at the truth.”

Isn’t that special. A liberal who doesn’t want to appoint a special prosecutor because it’s a liberal policy that is under the microscope.  Where is a Republican when you need one. 🙂

SYDNEY – Australia’s plans for an emissions trading system to combat global warming were scuttled Wednesday in Parliament, handing a defeat to a government that had hoped to set an example at international climate change talks next week.

Whoops. Someone needs more re-education. So let’s go back to London:

A London Times Supplement write posited why on earth it can be we’re so reluctant to stop taking flights, turn down our heating and generally try to make our lives more primitive and miserable. Her conclusion? Because of our sense of powerlessness. The threat of climate change is so great, apparently, that rather than deal it we retreat into denial mode.

“When we can’t actually remove the source of our fear, we tend to adapt psychologically by adopting a range of defence mechanisms,” explains Tom Crompton, “change strategist” for the World Wildlife Fund.

So your fear of the Global Warming hoax and it’s doomsaying, and it’s massive government controls and taxes and the fact that it’s all crap is just an irrational pathological fear.

You have a phobia.

And you really should get some treatment for it.

The Government is here to help you get better.

Maybe they can include that in the Health Care reform legislation.

Climatechangeaphobia, the irrational 🙂 fear that “consensus” science  and liberal politicians have gotten together to push a mutually beneficial hoax for their own benefit.

The network news broadcasts have ignored a growing scandal over evidence of a potential climate cover-up — and now they’ve even been scooped by the fake news at Comedy Central.

“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” produced its “reporting” on Climate-gate Tuesday night, when Stewart quipped, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!”

The Silence from the Ministry of Truth is both telling and deafening.

James Delingpole, columnist London Telegraph:

So here, very, very simply, is a quick idiot’s guide to why Climategate does matter.

1. A bunch of climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have been caught out cheating. They distorted evidence, hid or lost inconvenient raw data, manipulated the science towards a particular end, and set out to silence hard-working, decent, honest scientists who disagreed with them.

2. Those climate scientists aren’t just any old bunch of scientists. They work at the very heart of the IPCC process. They – and their friends: for this is a small and tight cabal, comprising around 43 scientists – are the ‘lead authors’ on the IPCC’s reports. They also supply the most important of the four data records used by the IPCC. They are the people telling our political leaders that the world is suffering from catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming – caused largely by the growth in CO2 emissions – and that urgent action needs to be taken to prevent it.

3. According to one estimate – by the International Energy Agency – the global cost of dealing with AGW will be $45 trillion (that’s 2/3 of the world’s current entire economic). This will mean our energy bills will rise by perhaps a factor of ten; that we will be subject to more and more pettifogging rules on what kind of lightbulbs we use and how we dispose of our trash – perhaps even how often we’re allowed to fly; it will mean governance by unelected “experts” and technocrats from the UN; it will cripple industry; it will mean higher taxes; it will take money from the middle classes in the Western world and hand them over in the form of “compensation” to kleptocrat dictators in the Third World; it will almost certainly send the global economy diving into a double dip depression. We are, in other words, about to be presented with the biggest bill in the history of mankind.

4. Given what we now know about the reliability of 2 and the basis of 1, are we really sure that with 3 we’re getting our money’s worth?

I say no it’s not worth it.

But then again I’m just an “ignnorant” “terrorist” with climatechangeaphobia. 🙂

I need to watch more MSNBC, I will feel better… 🙂


Be Thankful

ATR: This year we have much for which to be thankful: family, friends, and the Obama-Reid-Pelosi National Energy Tax (Cap and Trade) has not yet become law to name a few. We would like to remind you of 10 reasons you should be thinkful for that this year:

  1. We don’t have to pay over $100 billion in additional taxes.
  2. We don’t have to pay an additional $3.6 trillion in gas taxes.
  3. We won’t lose 1.1 million jobs between 2012 and 2030 and 2.5 million each year after that.
  4. We haven’t made new industries that are dependent on government handouts for their survival.
  5. We don’t have a new bureaucracy in place to allocate and sell carbon credits that will increase corruption and favoritism in Washington, DC.
  6. Our energy costs will not go up by $1500 per year for a family of four.
  7. We won’t have our national debt increase by 26 percent by 2030. An increase of $116,600 for a family of four.
  8. We won’t have protectionist tariffs to create trade wars and cause increased prices and shortages on the goods we need.
  9. We won’t have a reduction in GDP of $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2030.
  10. We won’t have a 58% increase in gas prices

But 2010 is another matter.

Be Thankful that the media is saving you from hearing about the Global Cooling..Global Warming…Global Climate Change…Climate Change scam…

I found this on the Newstribune.com reader comment section: 🙂

Remember now, fellow travelers. The facts really don’t matter as long as the IDEA and the MESSAGE are useful in the eyes of liberals. The so-called information presented by “scientists” is only meant to illustrate the problem, not prove it. Where have y’all been? If we hadn’t listened to the warnings about global cooling 25 years ago, the planet would be plunged into a new ice age by now. And look–we’re actually getting warmer! See, calling public attention to a problem really does work. So accept what these people are telling us, and before you know it, the planet will cool down again. We are all just too dumb to make decisions for ourselves. Yesterday: Mammograms for everyone, save the breasts! Today, uhm, not so much. Global warming will go the same route. Trust me!

🙂

ABC (still ignoring the real story and still obsessed with the couple who crashed the State Dinner LAST WEEK, so be thankful they know a real news story when they see it! 🙂

Some recent studies, including one by Britain’s Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research, indicate that global temperatures have plateaued during the past decade, which could undermine arguments that the Earth is undergoing a long-term warming trend because of the burning of fossil fuels. Phil Jones has denied manipulating evidence and said his comments were taken out of context.

Climate change skeptics “don’t have the science on their side anymore, so they’ve resorted to a smear campaign to distract the public from the reality of the problem and the need to confront it head-on in Copenhagen,” said Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University who was the recipient of several of the published e-mails.

But the pressure is getting to some people, even if the Media continues to ignore it with gusto:

Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.

But others:

Gavin A. Schmidt, a NASA climatologist involved in many of the e-mail exchanges, said that voluntarily disclosing more data would never satisfy the “very hard-bitten, distraught core” of climate skeptics. “The number of attacks on our integrity will actually increase since there will be more ways to twist what it is we do to support some conspiracy theory or other,” he said.

Mike Hulme, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia and author of “Why We Disagree About Climate Change,” said the disclosures could offer a chance to finally bring the practices of climate researchers and the intergovernmental panel into the modern era, where transparency — enforced legally or illegally — is inevitable and appropriate.

“The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production,” he said in an e-mail message, “just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.”

Dr. Curry and others said that if nothing else, the e-mail correspondence suggested that climate scientists needed to show more temperance in dealing with their critics.

“We won the war — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and climate and energy legislation is near the top of the U.S. agenda,” Dr. Curry said. “Why keep fighting all these silly battles and putting ourselves in this position?”

Ah, the condescending, snotty personal attacks of the liberal caught with his hands in the cookie jar.

I guess we can be thankful they never change. 🙂

American Thinker:

Jonathan Leake, writing in the UK’s Times Online, offers a balanced overview of the scandal and this fascinating point regarding the chronology of the “breaking” of the story:

It was a powerful and controversial mix – far too powerful for some. Real Climate is a website designed for scientists who share Jones’s belief in man-made climate change. Within hours the file had been stripped from the site.

Several hours later, however, it reappeared – this time on an obscure Russian server. Soon it had been copied to a host of other servers, first in Saudi Arabia and Turkey and then Europe and America.

What’s more, the anonymous poster was determined not to be stymied again. He or she posted comments on climate-sceptic blogs, detailing a dozen of the best emails and offering web links to the rest. Jones’s statistical tricks were now public property.


Note carefully the fact that this modern shot heard round the world first found a point of entry through Russia, then Saudi Arabia, and then Turkey – next Europe, and lastly the United States.

In other words, the traditionally supposed intellectual freedom and free speech climate of the West was “stoney ground” in comparison to the accessibility of outlets under the more repressive regimes of Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Perhaps the greater story is the truth itself – and its indomitable will to reveal itself through even the most unlikely of conduits and efforts of even one individual arrayed against a worldwide apparatus of dishonesty.

Jesus, in Luke 19:40, when admonished to silence the truth, made a startling claim about the geological record that collided with accepted scientific notions in His day:

And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.


It would appear that the repression of truth in the scientic community and the Mainstream Media in the west has indeed caused “the stones to cry out.”

Be thankful for crying stones.

Now we just have to guard against crying wallets.