Friday, February 26, 2010

Extremely Inconvenient Truths

by Diogenes Sarcastica

The New York Times 1992:
 “With the cold war over, many scientists are converting both their professional skills and their activist convictions from national security and nuclear weapons to other issues, particularly the environment. This intellectual shift is driven variously by principle, by a growing interest in the environment among younger scientists, by the hunger for new challenges and – not least – by the search for new sources of financial support.”  

As a famous scientist once said, ‘Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view.’ … It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. 


Anyone who has ever taken a serious look into it, will find
that the Earth goes through alternate cycles of warming and cooling that last thousands of years, and shorter cycles of warming and cooling within the longer cycles.

The global warming/climate change advocates (warmists) believe human activity since the onset of the Industrial Age is producing rising global temperatures. Skeptics point to other reasons for the increase, such as normal cyclical change and changes in Sun activity, among other reasons, and note that for the last several years there has actually been a cooling trend.

Warmists, however, behave as if the question is finally and unquestionably resolved, claiming there is a “consensus” and saying that it is “settled science.”
GreenFacts.org’s glossary says this about consensus:
“The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field. Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that:
• all scientist[s] are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress,
• the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions.
Therefore, Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of ‘Certain Truth.’"
NASA’s Home Page informs us that:
"It may surprise many people that science -- the de facto source of dependable knowledge about the natural world -- cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as important as climate change.”
The certainty with which warmists dismiss skeptical views of their pet theory seems to run counter to the spirit of scientific investigation. Some prominent warmists’ attitude toward and treatment of skeptics are clearly non-scientific. They include ridicule, intimidation of skeptical colleagues, personal destruction and calls for legal prosecution, all because they disagree on a scientific theory. And on top of that, in an effort to perpetuate their alarmist scenarios, some warmists have resorted to deceit and outright fraud at Penn State University and England’s University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU).

After a hacker broke into computers at the CRU, releasing 61 megabytes of confidential emails and documents onto the Internet, the UK Telegraph reported:
“perhaps the most damaging revelations … are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.”
 Knowing what these documents and emails contain, it is clear why the CRU scientists are upset that their duplicity has become public, a scandal some believe could be the greatest in modern science.

Read more on these emails in my previous post Here.

We can then rightly ask; If man’s activities truly cause the Earth to warm, why do they need to deceive the public? What do they fear from being honest? As the science of global warming crumbles, the reaction of warmists to the revelations is interesting. The scientists say these revelations are a petty issue, while the policymakers go merrily on as if man-caused warming is settled science and everything is just hunky-dory.

All of this supports the idea that “saving the Earth from humans” is more about an ideology turned into a religion than about a real threat to the environment. And it has become very lucrative for some people!
_______________________________ 

Friday, February 19, 2010

Warming Up the Clinton Smear Machine

Posted by Diogenes Sarcastica
Febuary 20,2010

When townhall protests and rallies first sprang on the national scene, journalists and left wing bloggers laughed away the movement with derogatory, pornographic references. But no one is laughing anymore. A movement of people of all races, professions and political affiliations have in fact left the Democrat party in dis-array and facing a possible political clock cleaning this November. Not only do Democrats face losing their congressional majorities, potential losses in state house races could jeopardize redistricting next year and set back the progressive agenda for at least a decade.  Enter former President Bill Clinton.

  
It is well known there is no love lost between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, as attested to during the election primaries. But a serious set back of Democrat power and leadership could also be disastrous for one possible future candidate'shopes.


Big Government.com reports:
" It seems there have been meetings of former Clintonistas and senior Democrat political operatives to coordinate a push-back to the burgeoning tea party movement. Consider it a Democrat party relief effort."
" Big Government.com has learned that Clintonistas are plotting a “push/pull” strategy. They plan to identify 7-8 national figures active in the tea party movement and engage in deep opposition research on them. If possible, they will identify one or two they can perhaps ‘turn’, either with money or threats, to create a mole in the movement. The others will be subjected to a full-on smear campaign.  Big Government has also  leared that James Carville will head up the effort"
 
With the left-wing bloggers at the ready to parrot anything coming out of media sources and adding their own bile to the mix, it seems a prefect propaganda opportunity. 
" It may at first seem odd that Clinton would rush to Obama’s defense, but the tea party movement poses a threat far beyond the immediate goals of the Obama Administration. "
Odd? Yes, and two words come to mind if you think about it; Hillary Clinton.

Secretary of State Clinton has been unusually quite for the most important foreign policy Representative of the most powerful country in the world don't you think? A lot of people wondered why Obama would, with all the chaos of a war on terror the U.S. must deal with these days, appoint a inexperienced wife of a former president as the main representative of the U.S. government overseas to deal with cultures that see the worth of a women just above that of their cattle and goats?


I'm in firm belief it is a case of “keep your friends close and your enemies closer” for Obama, and for Hillary Clinton a “don't say anything stupid, gain foriegn policy experience” and then run against an inept leader in over his head in the next presidential primary. And I have no reason to believe this coming smear campaign has anything to to with saving Barack Obama's butt, it's all about saving face for the party and Hillary Clinton's chance to run for the White House!


Remember, that smear machine was very powerful and affective as we witnessed in the 90's. A machine that could ruin the reputation of upstanding State Police officers and, despite even recorded evidence against him, was able to smear  accusers with the help of friendly media. The field is much more ripe now, with web sites like The Huffington Post and the wingnuts at Daily Kos as a helpful propaganda arm of the left. The facts aren't always important to these people as we have seen lately.


If indeed there comes this mudslinging campaign, it may be nasty. Just don't say you weren't warned.


.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Just Like Today, the News Media Were Certain Back Then Also

Posted by Diogenes Sarcastica

It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.

The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom. Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature. Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”

Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.” After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.” As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature.

The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.” The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s. Three months before, on January 11, The Washington Post told readers to “get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come,” in an article titled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age.” The article quoted climatologist Reid Bryson, who said “there’s no relief in sight” about the cooling trend.

Journalists took the threat of another ice age seriously. Fortune magazine actually won a “Science Writing Award” from the American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger. That trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. On Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”

Now, news media that once touted the threat of “global warming” have moved on to the more flexible term “climate change.” As the Times described it, climate change can mean any major shift, making the earth cooler or warmer. The effect of the idea of “climate change” means that any major climate event can be blamed on global warming, supposedly driven by mankind. Convenient wouldn't you say?

We have been swamped with climate change hype in every type of media – books, newspapers, magazines, online, TV and even movies. Despite all the historical shifting from one position to another, many in the media no longer welcome opposing views on the climate, going so far as to compare (with blinder firmly in place) climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers.

What can one conclude from 110 years of conflicting climate coverage except that the weather changes and the media are just as capricious? Certainly, their record speaks for itself. Four separate and distinct climate theories targeted at a public taught to believe the news. Only all four versions of the truth can’t possibly be accurate. The media have bombarded Americans almost daily with the most recent version of the climate apocalypse. Global warming has replaced the media’s ice age claims, but the results somehow have stayed the same – the deaths of millions or even billions of people, widespread devastation and starvation.

For ordinary Americans to judge the media’s version of current events about global warming, it is necessary to admit that journalists have misrepresented the story three other times. Yet no one in the media is owning up to that fact. Newspapers that pride themselves on correction policies for the smallest errors now find themselves facing a historical record that is enormous and unforgiving.

It is time for the news media to admit a consistent failure to report this issue fairly or accurately, with due skepticism of scientific claims.

Sources:
New York Times Archives
Library of Congress

.

Monday, February 8, 2010

Scientist Endorses Book Advocating Destruction and Mass Genocide

Posted by Diogenes Sarcastica:

Prominent NASA scientist and global warming alarmist Dr. James Hansen has endorsed an eco-fascist book that calls for cities to be razed to the ground, industrial civilization to be destroyed and genocidal population reduction measures to be implemented in the name of preventing climate change.

Dr. Hansen is a key figure in the global warming movement, known most for his 1988  testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore that really got the ball rolling for the elite in their mission to hijack the environmental movement and promote apocalyptic fears of climate change.  In one recent op-ed, Hansen  called for putting fossil fuel company executives, including the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, on trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature", on the grounds that these and other fossil-fuel companies had actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming.
Hanson is a public employee, paid very well with your tax money.

Hansen said that Keith Farnish, author of a new book called Time’s Up, is correct in calling for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age.

Farnish believes that mankind is a blot on the landscape and that breeding (or for that matter, existence) should be discouraged
 “The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization”.......

“The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”..........
Farnish echoes similar talking points to those featured in the self proclaimed Marxist and disgraced former Obama White House science czar John Holdren’s  Eco-science textbook, which called for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus.
Farnish explains his desire to see rampant population reduction in the name of saving the planet:
“In short, the greatest immediate risk to the population living in the conditions created by Industrial Civilization is the population itself. Civilization has created the perfect conditions for a terrible tragedy on the kind of scale never seen before in the history of humanity. That is one of many reasons for there to be fewer people.”
And how is the collapse of industrial civilization to be achieved? By indiscriminate acts of sabotage and eco-terrorism.
“Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage.”  
  
But surely the respected and authoritative individuals we have been told by the media to trust when it comes to the science behind global warming would rebuke such outlandish, deranged and extreme methods of addressing climate change?
Dr. James Hansen on thepeoplesvoice.org website said in his glowing review of the book:
“Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the ’system’ is the problem”.........
It’s important to remember when we talk about AGW (anthropogenic global warming)  many of the activist-scientists pushing it seem to passionately want the earth to be getting hotter and it for it to be largely man’s fault. Some cases these are fanatics that really don’t want the opposite to be true, because then they wouldn’t have the excuse they so desperately need to destroy the evil capitalist system they believe is a scourge and unjust. The propagandist method of depicting humans as the enemy is perfectly tailored to this agenda, because it elicits the response of making people call for their own kind to be regulated, controlled, and even killed under the contrived pretext of preventing an ecological apocalypse. This approach was again evident in a recent United Nations sponsored poster campaign which depicted humans as evil horror movie monsters intent on slaughtering wildlife and killing the earth.

What makes it all the more galling is that these eco-fascists present their lunacy in such a reasonable and sober tone. In reality, they try to characterize humanity as a virus upon the planet. But the only real cancer upon the earth is their virulently neo-fascist doctrine of warped environmentalism and eugenics population control, and the real threat to humanity’s survival is not climate change, which has naturally occurred for eons since the very incarnation of planet earth, but the insane, self-destructive and monstrous plans to “solve” the issue being proposed by eco-fascists like Farnish and endorsed by people in prominent positions of influence like Hansen. But don’t take my word for it, just look into who these people are.
I used to laugh when someone would say “they won’t give up until we all ride bicycles and live in mud huts.” I don’t laugh at that anymore.
 

Saturday, February 6, 2010

The Peasants are Revolting.

Posted by Publius Minimus

The brilliant Charles Krauthammer perfectly encapsulates the Democrat party's condescending attitude towards voters in his Friday morning op-ed in the Washington Post. Here is a little taste:
..........A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from government involvement in health care, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for a high tax cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a "jobs bill."
This being a democracy, don't Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them right over a cliff? And do they not understand the implications of Massachusetts?
Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly. Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, swift and at times quite condescending. New York Times columnist  Charles Blow recently chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking "in the plain words of plain folks," because the people are "suspicious of complexity.  The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, 'Mr. President, we're down here. "
 And Time Magazines Joe Klein was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining they "are flagrantly ill-informed" and "a nation of dodos" that is "too dumb to thrive."
Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when he chided himself "for not explaining  health care more clearly to the American people." The subject, he noted, was "complex." The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.  Then there are the emotional deficiencies of the masses. Nearly every Democratic apologist lamented the people's anger and anxiety, a free-floating agitation that prevented them from appreciating the beneficence of the social agenda the Democrats are so determined to push upon them.
Really, you’ll want to read the whole piece, from beginning to end Here.  Especially, Krauthammer’s dry observation that to Democrats the expression, “the peasants are revolting” is a pun.
.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

MSNBC host admits “full fake cheerleading mode” for the Democrats

 In case there’s still any question that MSNBC is the official cheerleading squad for the Democrat party, Lawrence O’Donnell (Keith Olbermann with training wheels) has cleared it up once and for all. Read the complete story  Here

Posted via ihatethemedia.com using ShareThis

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

When Are Climate Change Experts Are Not Experts?

By Diogenes Sarcastica

So, another embarrassing revelation exposes climate change experts as confused bumble-heads. The latest? Apparently the UN panel on climate change based recent conclusions regarding vanishing ice from mountain tops on anecdotes found in a “mountaineering” magazine. Uh Huh. Now, this would be hilarious, if it wasn’t for the fact that quadrillions of dollars are at stake. (And just so you know: quadrillions can  buy a lot of votes for some people.) But I’m not going to use this latest revelation to hammer these “experts,” even though they’d do that to a “skeptic” like me, if they had the chance. I just want to nail two key points:

1) this news shows exactly why climate change researchers must release data and reveal methods. If they have nothing to hide, then their work’s credibility will only increase. The fact that they’re trying to avoid that makes me think they’re basing their data on articles from say.....Cosmo Magazine. (FYI: global warming can and does make it harder to find your g-spot, says Darla, age 23, data analyst.)

2) There are few real experts on climate change – only pawns used to justify policies that will inevitably sodomize our economy. By the way, I include myself as a non-expert. I'm a drummer and have spent most of my adult life staring into bright lights and wondering what city I'm in.

But this is a good thing: whether you think humans cause global warming or not, we’re all in this boat of ignorance together, and therefore should be more tolerant of opposing views. If so-called experts are culling mountain ice data from Penthouse Letters (apparently melting glaciers totally cause chicks to remove their tops faster, says Vic, 25, a pizza deliveryman), then we are all so-called experts.

That should make you happy.

But this should make you sad:

HE DID IT AGAIN!


On January 28th, President Obama traveled to Tampa, FL. This is how he greeted the mayor of Tampa, an American city the last time I checked. These gratuitous displays of public humility suggest a deeper narcissism than previous feared.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...