All ye liberal lies and media bias, come no further.
Friday, July 25, 2008
A Quick Look at the Messiah of Contradiction
Wow, have I been busy lately. Even so, I can't believe how long it's been since I've posted anything. Unfortunately, it may be a while longer till I post anything of substance. All right quick laughing.
There's so much I want to comment on. Everything from Tony Snow, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, et al.
While President Bush's approval ratings may be a dismal 22% (actually a bit higher as of this writing, but the actual number can't be confirmed as of yet) but at least his numbers are not as dismal as Congress', which now sit at a rich nine percent.
Why the abandon ship alarm is going off in alarmist-ville.
What warming there was has shown evidence of life under the glaciers that 'are left' -- meaning they were much smaller than they are today. Trees rimming the Artic ocean speaks of warmer times than today. See Prof Bob Carter's video for the details.
It's been really cold this winter. Records falling like acorns in a spring snow. Being repeated in the south hemisphere right now.
The ARGO bouys find no warming, but cooling. This is a cool array of robots who are now on duty.
The USHCN system is a laughable disaster for accuracy and data collection. Anthony Watts and helpers have exposed the problem.
The AQUA satellite has found no evidence of the CO2 layer in the atmosphere, meaning the uniquie signature of AGW is not there.
The sun has decided to stop making spots, no one knows exactly why. The solar wind is very low and has been quite for an extened period.
Roy Spencer(EIB climatologist :-) has a theory of cloud formation, and no one knows how to discredit it, since it's based on real satellite data.
There is a limited amount of torpedos you can take before your computer models sink into a useless hypothesis. That's the current position today.
It's now obvious to a whole lot of people that what we know you can wrte a book on, what we don't know would fill a library.
Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Basically, what the report says is no matter what the climate does, it's still man's fault. Man's contribution is a bias upon the natural variation even if the variation totally cancels out a supposed CO2 temperature effect. Pay no attention to the snow in Baghdad, pay no attention to the dire situation China has been in this winter, pay no attention to the polar ice cover being above average, and absolutely pay no attention to the April CO2 readings of Mauna Loa due to be released in the next couple of days.
I shall be very blunt, the report is strictly about justifying the refusal of AGW believers to subject their theory to falsification as required by the scientific method. They did this for a reason, they are deathly afraid that when the CO2 readings at Mauna Loa don't come in higher than last year, the public will come to the conclusion that temperature drives CO2 and not as the AGW believers claim. The April and May readings will once and for all disprove the AGW claims that CO2 drives temperature. The reason being Man's CO2 contribution to the atmosphere has not gone down or even stayed the same, it went up! If La Nina can drive down CO2 then all the arguments of the AGW believers fall flat because at that point, the most inconvenient question has to asked and answered, what causes La Nina? The sun.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
An engineer, a scientist, and a global warming modeler were all interviewing for a job. The interviewer calls in the engineer first. The interviewer tells the engineer, "I have one question, what is 2+2"? The engineer replies, "I can tell you with exact certitude the answer is 4.00000". The interviewer makes some notes, lets the engineer go and then calls in the scientist. "I have one question", says the interviewer. "What is 2+2?". The scientist thinks for a moment then replies, "I can tell you that the answer lies somewhere between 3.998 and 4.002.". The interviewer lets the scientist go and then calls in the global warming computer modeler. The interviewer tells the modeler, "I have one question, what is 2+2?". The modeler thinks for a moment, looks to the left of him, then looks to his right. Then he lowers his head, leans in and whispers to the interviewer, "What answer do you want it to be?"
Edward Lorenz, MIT Professor of Meterology and developer of chaos theory, died on April 16th.
The AP obituary: "His discovery of derterministic chaos brought about 'one of the most dramatic changes in mankind's view of nature since Isaac Newton' said the committee that awarded Lorenz the 1991 Kyoto Prize for basic science."
What led to the discovery of chaos theory? During the 1960's Lorenz re-ran a meterological model to confirm its initial results and came up with dramatically different forecast results. He determined that a input error of less than 0.0001 in the value of a single variable led to the significant swing in predicted outcome. It was published in a paper in 1972 and led to the term the "butterfly effect".
So, when Al Gore and his minions use models that exclude the effect of clouds, and ignore variations in solar radiation to substantiate their political conclusions that we are facing dire circumstances of 0.3 degrees of warming over a 100 year period - do they really expect us to believe them?
Is it possible the alarmists realize that the postponement of solar cycle 24, and the current solar inactivity, will indeed result in a cooling pattern of undetermined length requiring some forward explaining as a red herring?
Not only do I believe the answer to that question is yes, I sincerely believe back in 1988 James Hansen knew exactly what he was doing when he started all of this nonsense. Even though the man is obviously idealogically driven he surely is not that naive about climate patterns. I believe in 1988 he knew because of the PDO pattern and current solar activity that we were headed fo another 10-20 years of warmer temperatures. Couple that with a litte data manipulation and bogus computer models his CO2 scam would be easy to sell. Let April 29, 2008 go down officially as the day the "butt covereing" era began.
Why wasnt this cooling trend in the original model and are there future cooling trends that are not yet discovered in the model calling for warming after a 10 year pause? In other words if they could not see a 10 year cooling trend until the last minute then what degree of certainty can they have in their overall model? I think a lot of people are taking the wrong tact on this issue...instead of bashing it - do the reverse...act like it is the gospel. Then when it doesnt fit...ask them why not? Ask them how that happened, how the model they want to change the entire economy and infrastructure of human civilization around is worth believing. Then hold them accountable to their models...right now they dropped the ball and every single person who failed to see a cooling trend has a broken model that cannot be trusted- they are forever more not allowed to put forth a model.
These models and this mad belief is starving, freezing, and bankrupting people where the effort and money could be put to use in raising the living conditions of every person on the planet instead. To casually say - 'hey, oops missed this data point' is unacceptable when you are asking the world to spend 1 trillion dollars on it.
Consider this...If global warming exists then how cold and how many people would have died this record breaking winter if we hadnt been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?
That is what I want to know
The whole AGW fraud is unraveling faster than B.O. Plenty's presidential campaign. The entire article was an exercise in political ass covering. "Global warming" has been transformed into "climate change”. So we are supposed to believe that we are going into a "natural" cooling cycle, but at the same time there is no such thing as “natural” warming cycles? I see a dangerous confluence coming that may just lay waste to the Democrat’s social engineering aspirations for a long time.
1) The collapse of the AGW hoax.
2) The food price crisis brought on by the bio-fuel fraud.
3) Spiraling fuel prices brought on by environmentalist sequestering of our own energy supplies.
Surprised? You better not be by now. People, the MSM, the Democrats, MoveOn.org, The Huffington Post, The Daily Kos, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, Kieth Olberloon, et al all want us to lose the War on Terror.
Remember when John Kerry ran for president? Yeah, I know, but it seems like a hundred years ago.
Anyways, Kerry is now saying that John McCain doesn't have the judgement to be president. Kerry of all people is saying this.
Here's the article followed by my own interprtations.
"John McCain ... has proven that he has been wrong about every judgment he's made about the war. The only person wrong about the war has been Kerry and his democratic party (as always) Why Kerry and his ilk continue to make stuff up just astounds me. McCain was about the only senator to support the surge, which is almost a complete and utter success, and only one of a handful of senators to rightfully support Gen. Patreaus. Wrong about the Iraqis paying for the reconstruction...wrong about whether or not the oil would pay for it." Uh, no.The Iraqi oil revenue is exactly what is paying for Iraqi troop and army reconstruction, not to mention their training, which has surpassed expectations..finally. Wrong about Sunni and Shia violence through the years, wrong about the willingness of the Iraqis to stand up for themselves." Nope. Try again. I don't know where these guys get there information (read: lies) from. The fact is Sunnis and Shias are and have been at each others throats for centuries. But with the help of men like Patreaus, both groups have come together for the benefit of their own nation's future. Take a look at this. Do you think people like Harry "The war is lost" Reid or Nancy "This is not a war to win, but a problem to solve" Pelosi would have garnered such success? Not by ending the war in defeat, they wouldn't have. As for Iraqis not standing up for themselves, what about reports (from Michael Yon, so you know it's at least accurate) about Iraqi citizens coming out of their homes and shooting insurgents point blank? Or of these same citizens feeding U.S. and coaltion troops from their own barbeque grills, not to mention all the weapons caches and insurgent hideouts and movements they inform the Americans about? I mean, can this guy be any more uninformed?
"If you like the Bush tax cut and what it's done to our economy, making wealthier people wealthier and the average middle class struggle harder, then John McCain is going to give you a third term of George Bush and Karl Rove." Forget the fact that Kerry is obviously regurgitating Barry Obama talking points, the simple fact is, when you stimulate the economy with tax cuts, more people make money. Yes, the rich get richer, but so do the less rich. And the reason the middle-class is shrinking is because more people are graduating the upper-class. Simple economics, people.
And by the way, if a McCain presidency is a third term for Bush, wouldn't an Obama presidency be a second term for Carter?
Leave it to radio star Martha Zoller to sum up the need for radio independence this Independence Day. Zoller, writing a timely piece for the Business & Media Institute, gives a brief history of the rise of talk radio and a true free market of ideas.
Thanks to the left and people like Nancy Pelosi, our ability to have media outlets give other than the liberal party line is jeopardized. It is one of the greatest threats to our freedom this July 4th.
Martha, a veteran talk host, sums up the issue nicely. The reason talk radio leans to the right is "because conservatives are so under-represented in the rest of the media market."
That's the way the left and the media like it. Read what she has to say. It's a good way to celebrate your freedom -- while you can.
Or at the very least, I don't think he knows who we're fighting.
No worries, Karl Rove schooled him enough for all of us. But oddly enough, you know Colmes and the rest of the loonie libs will continue to repeat and regurgitate the myths of the left, or as we in the real world call it...La La Land.
He's not fooling anyone that's paying attention, y'know. That apparently includes some (my God) honest liberals.
I do like the opening...
"Thus far, no one with any serious affiliation to John McCain’s campaign has resorted to the alleged “scare” tactics in which Republicans — and, apparently, only Republicans — have been perfecting since Richard Nixon was first elected. On the contrary, if the past few months have showed us anything, it’s that the Obama campaign is the one dealing in crude smears..."
Nevermind the fact that Smith is talking to America's leading correspondent on defeatism (couldn't you just see the left-wing lust oozing out of Jon Stewart when Logan was on his show?)
And why do lefties insist, with facts to the contrary readily available, that "they (Iraqi citizens) don't want us there." Logan obviously took cues from her other Liberal bretheren (that had the little courage they could muster to even go to a war zone, which is safer and safer every day thanks to those "cold-blooded killers" wearing the American uniform) and stayed-not only out of the red zone-but probably didn't even leave her hotel balcony. Well, not really, but can you blame me for thinking so?
By the way the reason troops fatalities are, seemingly, up in Afghanistan are because U.S. casualties were down in Iraq, not because there were more in Afghanistan. Really, do you have to be a main-stream "journalist" to be this naive? Or, is Logan just another outright liar.