Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming… Monday, Nov 28 2011 

The debate ain’t over bitches. Global warming? I say bring it on! I love global warming. The alternative really sucks. Morons.

From American Thinker:

Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming

By Karin McQuillan

Global warming became a cause to save life on earth before it had a chance to become good science. The belief that fossil fuel use is an emergency destroying our planet by CO2 emissions took over the media and political arena by storm. The issue was politicized so quickly that the normal scientific process was stunted. We have never had a full, honest national debate on either the science or government policy issues.

Everyone “knows” that global warming is true. The public has no idea of the number of scientists — precisely one thousand at last count of a congressional committee — who believe that global warming is benign and natural, and that it ended in 1998. We have not been informed of the costs to our economy of discouraging fossil fuel development and promoting alternatives. The public need to know the choices being made on their behalf, and to have a say in the matter. We are constantly told that the scientific and policy debate on global warming is over. It has just begun.

What is never discussed is this: the theory of global warming has catastrophic implications for our economy and national security. Case in point: Obama’s recent decision to block the Keystone pipeline in order to placate global warming advocates. Key Democrat supporters fear the use of oil more than they care about losing jobs or our dangerous dependence on the Mideast for oil. The president delayed the pipeline by fiat, and the general public has had no say. (For the impact on our economy, see my article, “The Whole Country Can Be Rich.”)

President Obama has spoken out passionately on the danger of developing oil and gas because of man-made global warming. “What we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe.”

Obama calls for the debate to end. He cites hurricanes as proof: “dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real — it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.”

Happily, our president is wrong. The worst hurricanes were in 1926, the second-worst in 1900. The world’s top hurricane experts say that there is no evidence that global warming affects storms. There is no such thing as a man-made hurricane. Storm cycles and long patterns of bad weather are entirely natural. Yet this good news is suppressed by our politicized media. We hear only one side.

via Articles: Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming.

Related:

Another blow for warmist fraud: Canada pulling out of Kyoto Protocols

Global Warming Bubble is Popping

Durban Climate Conference: The Dream Fades

Global Warming Myth and Second Hand Smoke… Monday, Dec 20 2010 

I have known for quite some time that the second hand smoke (SHS) claim that it causes cancer study was based on flawed data analysis for some time.

Michael Crichton also was avid in the exposing the false data used in the study. Now the moron Surgeon General says that just one whiff of SHS can cause a heart attack based on nothing. Pretty pathetic.

Here’s an excellent article on the links between sham science and the myth of SHS and how it is used as a cudgel against those that argue against the global warming myth from S. Fred Singer:

Secondhand Smoke, Lung Cancer, and the Global Warming Debate

By S. Fred Singer

In 1993, the EPA published a report claiming that secondhand smoke (SHS
– also sometimes known as environmental tobacco smoke or ETS) causes
three thousand deaths from lung cancer every year.  Anyone doubting this
result has been subject to attack and depicted as a toady of the
tobacco lobby.  The attacks have been led by a smear blog called
DeSmogBlog, financed by the Canadian PR firm of James Hoggan, and have
been taken up with great enthusiasm by self-styled “science historian”
Professor Naomi Oreskes.

The tobacco smoking issue has also become a favorite tool for discrediting climate skeptics.  A prime example is the book Merchants of Doubt
by Oreskes and Eric Conway, which attacks several well-known senior
physicists, including the late Dr. Fred Seitz, a former president of the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, and
(most recently) Rockefeller University.

No matter what the environmental issue — ozone depletion, acid rain,
pesticides, etc. — any and all scientific opposition based on objective
facts is blamed on an imagined involvement with tobacco companies.
None of this is true, of course.  Oreskes and Conway claim to be
academic historians, yet they have consistently ignored factual
information, have not bothered to consult primary sources, have never
interviewed any of the scientists they try to smear, and generally have
operated in a completely unprofessional way.

More

The Ben Bernanke is a Moron… Friday, Nov 19 2010 

This douche-bag is a complete failure.
Time for him and the Fed to go away.

Quantitative Easing Explained

So easy a caveman can do it… Thursday, Sep 2 2010 

May I introduce the caveman…

Pachauri: UN big scored great grants for silly science.

Not only does he look like a caveman, he’s obviously just as smart as the real thing…

Meltdown of the climate ‘consensus’

If this keeps up, no one’s going to trust any scientists.

The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.

For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world’s governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium — and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to “save the planet.”

Pachauri: UN big scored great grants for silly science.

<!– ad(quigo_intext,/news,news_story) sports_story_lower
sports_page quigo_lower
1482096
871776 440 225 * –>

But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of “the best scientists and engineers worldwide” (as the group’s own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give “high-quality advice to international bodies,” has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices — and found them badly wanting.

For example, the IPCC’s much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false — yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ#ixzz0yQ39dtiu

Haters… Tuesday, Jul 20 2010 

I hate the man. Absolutely hate the man.

President Haters

By J.R. Dunn

“I’ll make those f*ckers glad to mutate.”

- Franklin D. Roosevelt, in Roosevelt after Inauguration by William Burroughs

William Burroughs will never be an icon of the conservative movement. A proud junkie, an aggressive homosexual, a leader of both the Beat movement and the Counterculture, a man who shot his wife by “accident” while playing a party game, Burroughs was, if anything, the polar opposite of the conservative ideal.

But there was one element of Burroughs’ thought not altogether alien to conservatives: his opinion of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Relatively late in his career, Burroughs published a short piece titled Roosevelt after Inauguration, which featured FDR swaggering around Washington (this is fiction, remember), wearing a purple toga and accompanied by a gang of killer baboons whom he sends after his enemies. The story climaxes with the massacre of the Supreme Court by the baboons, whereupon FDR gazes contemplatively across the Potomac at the country now lying at his feet and utters the line quoted above.

What inspired Burroughs to embark on this exercise in nastiness remains unclear. He himself claimed that he was promised a high position in the St. Louis sewer department only to be denied it by New Deal do-gooders, but this may be only part of the legend. Whatever the case, Roosevelt after Inauguration remains one of the purest expressions of political hatred ever put into writing. If every foul attack made over the years against Nixon, Reagan, Gingrich, Bush, Cheney, and Palin were rolled into one, the result would not match a single paragraph. Roosevelt after Inauguration is a masterpiece of political scurrility.

Which brings us to Barack Obama.

More

UN More Dangerous than Obama? Friday, May 14 2010 

I have always hated the UN. I think it is the most corrupt organization on the planet next to the DNC.

They are out to take away the rights of the individual in favor of  a one world government.

Keep a sharp eye on these bastards.

Howard Nemerov goes through them with a fine tooth comb and has some excellent charts and statistics as is usual for him.

UN Determined to Destroy America’s Second Amendment
The United Nations wants to control small arms in order to promote peace and security, but their own research contradicts this rhetoric.
by Howard Nemerov

The Heritage Foundation is America’s “most broadly supported public policy research institute,” promoting “public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”

Each year, the Heritage Foundation publishes the “Economic Freedom Index,” which analyzes ten economic variables for each country. The Heritage Foundation defines economic freedom as:

[I]ndividuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, and that freedom is both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state.

The Heritage Foundation rates countries by the following grading scale: Economically “Free” countries have an overall score of 80-100; “Mostly Free” between 70 and 79.9; “Moderately Free” between 60 and 69.9, “Mostly Unfree” between 50 and 59.9; and economically “Repressed” countries average an overall score under 50.

The Heritage Foundation explains the difference between economic freedom and repression:

All government action involves coercion. Some minimal coercion is necessary for the citizens of a community or nation to defend themselves, promote the evolution of civil society, and enjoy the fruits of their labor…

When government coercion rises beyond the minimal level, however, it becomes corrosive to freedom—and the first freedom affected is economic freedom.

More

Quote of the Week… Thursday, Feb 18 2010 

This has got to be the quote of the week. If not, it’s in the top three.

One day this week, there was measurable snow on the ground in 50 states. (No report yet from the other seven of the “57 states” President Obama once said he was campaigning to be the president of.) Even Hawaii reported snow on some of its mountain peaks, and several towns in northwestern Florida were lightly dusted, like the powdered sugar on a cop’s doughnut.

Comes from:

PRUDEN: The red-hot scam unravels
By Wesley Pruden

You can fool some of the people some of the time, as Abraham Lincoln observed, and you even can fool all the people some of the time. But you can’t fool all the people all the time. Al Gore and his friends got so excited about points one and especially point two that they forgot point three.

Not everybody is on to the global-warming scam, not yet, but all the people — or enough of them — are getting there. “Global warming,” or even “climate change” as Al’s marketing men now insist that it be called, is becoming the stuff of jests and jokes. Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican, built an igloo of that hot stuff that buried Washington last week on the Capitol lawn and dubbed it “Al Gore’s new home.”

More

Speaking of Lying Scientists… Monday, Feb 8 2010 

Here’s a nice take on the latest from the global whining hysteria gone awry…

The great global warming collapse
Margaret Wente

In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.

These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia’s nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country’s plight, Nepal’s top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.

More

Global Warming and CFC Similarity Thursday, Feb 4 2010 

I didn’t think about this until I saw the title of the article over at American Thinker.

The CFC controversy back in the 80s is very similar to that of the global warming scam. In fact, it has the same players.

Check out these two articles at American Thinker:

The CFC Ban: Global Warming’s Pilot Episode
By David S. Van Dyke

Although it has been only a little over twenty years since the Montreal Protocol, which effectively created a global ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the interesting history of the ozone hole has slipped under the radar, largely eclipsed by the much greater story of the anthropogenic global warming fraud. It’s interesting to revisit the CFC/ozone depletion scam and note the striking similarities to the current campaign against CO2. [See also: IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks]

Chlorofluorocarbons were primarily used as refrigerants, propellants, and in fire control systems. They were uniquely well-suited to these applications. CFCs are non-toxic, chemically inert, non-corrosive, non-flammable and roughly four times heavier than air. Their physical characteristics makes them ideal refrigerants. Because they are so chemically inert, non-toxic, and non-flammable, they are excellent aerosol propellants. They are inexpensive to produce and easy and safe to handle. CFCs made modern refrigeration and air conditioning affordable and widely available.

IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks
By Marc Sheppard

Unquestionably the world’s final authority on the subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s findings and recommendations have formed the bedrock of literally every climate-related initiative worldwide for more than a decade. Likewise, virtually all such future endeavors — be they Kyoto II, domestic cap-and-tax, or EPA carbon regulation, would inexorably be built upon the credibility of the same U.N. panel’s “expert” counsel. But a glut of ongoing recent discoveries of systemic fraud has rocked that foundation, and the entire man-made global warming house of cards is now teetering on the verge of complete collapse.

Simply stated, we’ve been swindled. We’ve been set up as marks by a gang of opportunistic hucksters who have exploited the naïvely altruistic intentions of the environmental movement in an effort to control international energy consumption while redistributing global wealth and (in many cases) greedily lining their own pockets in the process.

IPCC “My Bad” It’s All BS… Thursday, Jan 21 2010 

Yeah, that part about melting glaciers in the next 20 years, well we sorta, kinda, LIED, er, made an error in our calculations.

Maybe you morons should return the Nobel Idiot Prize, then again, you’re a bunch of idiots, just keep that worthless token of liberal adulation.

Douche bags.

IPCC: “Our bad! Global warming not about to melt Himalayas.
By Michael Fumento

“The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, a large number of them may disappear by 2035 because of climate change.” Such was the lede of one [1] of countless articles about how 1.3 billion Asians were in imminent danger of first flooding and then drought. And that’s not to mention the certain extinction of the abominable snowman.

More

« Previous PageNext Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 110 other followers