In a speech today in the US Senate, Senator Daniel Inhofe of Oklahoma spent two hours debunking the current state of AGW propaganda and lambasting its disseminators for targeting children with a campaign of fear trying to recruit them and turn them into environmental activists.
In this speech, he refers to this campaign of fear (terror?) as "the Church of Man-Made Global Warming".
Wish I'd thought of that. Of course, it's a church. The AGW militants go at their task with religious zeal, trying to "convert" children to their way. But this is a church that has no god, except for mankind itself, and has only a message of fear and despair.
On second thought, it's hard to give this group the status of a church. Most churches profess to teach the truth. This "church" lies and cheats and terrorizes its way to authority, and then will use that authority to rule with dictatorial and despotic abandon.
Naw, it's not really a church. It's actually a cult.
Only this cult is beginning by forcing us to drink their poisoned Kool-Aid, rather than ending that way.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Blog Action Day 10-15-07-- Al Gore and the Nobel Piece of Fiction Prize
There is a movement trying to promote environmental awareness through blogs called Blog Action Day, and that day this year is today, October 15, 2007. Well, awareness of environmental stupidity, in my book, is also environmental awareness, so here is my entry. (Hats off to Google Blogger for making me aware of this event.)
Friday, October 12, 2007, was a dark day in the annals of environmental stupidity. (A bright day would be one where environmental stupidity would be diminished, 'bright' pun intended.) This was the day that megalomaniac Alfred Gore, Jr. was awarded a Nobel Prize. And a Peace Prize at that. I could have understood it if it had been the Nobel Prize for literature, as An Inconvenient Truth and the entire anthropogenic global warming movement are some of the most impressive pieces of fiction to have been created in both the 20th and 21st centuries. There appear to be others who share my view as well -- even in New Hampshire, where they seem to be quite good at calling kettles black:
Friday, October 12, 2007, was a dark day in the annals of environmental stupidity. (A bright day would be one where environmental stupidity would be diminished, 'bright' pun intended.) This was the day that megalomaniac Alfred Gore, Jr. was awarded a Nobel Prize. And a Peace Prize at that. I could have understood it if it had been the Nobel Prize for literature, as An Inconvenient Truth and the entire anthropogenic global warming movement are some of the most impressive pieces of fiction to have been created in both the 20th and 21st centuries. There appear to be others who share my view as well -- even in New Hampshire, where they seem to be quite good at calling kettles black:
The American public won't accept at face value Gore's self-righteous proclamations or his self-serving predictions of looming global catastrophe. And Gore has to know that, which is why he will almost certainly stick to the world of make-believe -- Hollywood and International Do-Goodery -- where he can pretend to be the great sage and savior he wishes he really were and left-wing Europeans and thespians try to convince us he is.
Any regular reader of this blog (as I continue to delude myself that there are any) knows my opinion of Anthropogenic Global Warming (now and forever in these pages to be abbreviated AGW). For a refresher, take a look at Getting Overheated and its sequel.
There are many other theories regarding why we are seeing apparent changes in the Earth's climate, and almost all of them do not involve human causes, thus making Mr. Gore's Nobel Prize seem more like a cosmic joke. Many of these theories have much more scientific evidence supporting them, and make more sense scientifically, than the AGW hysteria created from the preexisting and unalterable mindset that if something on Earth is changing, then we puny humans must be responsible, since there can be nothing more powerful than humankind. The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarding the prize to Mr. Gore so much as said so, concluding its citation with the statement, “Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.” (emphasis added). This implies that we are now, however unconsciously, in control. But we are so certainly not in control, not now, not in the past, and not in the foreseeable future.
In fact, even some of the data that the AGW militants have used to build their bandwagon turn out to be wrong. Don't forget that An Inconvenient Truth itself has recently been found by a British court to contain inaccuracies and fallacies. Also, I heard several months ago that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies had been forced to correct some of their temperature data, but I could not find any news report about this until now. Why? Because stupidly I was looking in the American news media, and not even the "conservative" Fox News dares to take on the AGW torchbearers and their pitchforks. Thank God we have the Canadian National Post and its online version, where dissenting views can still be published. The above link to the articles about the AGW "Deniers" (a title I bear proudly) also comes from this source.
Correcting the temperature data reveals that the widely-quoted "fact" that the last ten years have been the hottest on record is actually not correct, and that the hottest ten years of the last 130 years have been scattered seemingly randomly throughout the decades, and that 4 of them occurred in the 1930!s! As Lorne Gunter states in the article, "Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression." But does this dissuade the AGW militants? Of course not. Anything that does not fit the "theory" is either ignored, dismissed, doesn't matter, or is being misinterpreted -- such as the issue of whether the atmospheric CO2 measurements taken from ice core measurements (which are the fundamental underpinnings of the AGW argument) are accurate. Turns out they probably underestimate the level of CO2 in the ancient atmosphere by up to 50%, which means our current CO2 levels really haven't increased all that much. And I could go on and on....
We do not have to let the AGW militants control the debate and take humanity down the road to darkness and despair with their completely political agenda. Especially when their theory makes as much sense as "Aliens Cause Global Warming" (thank you, Mr. Crichton!). If you aren't sure what to think, or you want a primer on the evidence against AGW, I suggest you start with Climate Skeptic's A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming; you can read it online or download (for free!) the entire 83 page PDF from the bottom of the page I linked above. Don't want to read 83 pages? Try the 60 second version. And don't forget his ongoing blog also.
Now, I'm not saying anyone has to do what this guy did, but I admire his chutzpah. But we can stand up and demand that the competing theories be discussed and analyzed, and the real causes of climate change be understood before we go off half-cocked and destroy the economies of the entire world. We can insist that there actually be consensus before anything be done. And for those of us so motivated (like the brave Canadian citizen linked to above) we can take the issue to the streets, the billboards, and the blogs (as I am doing). Alternatively, consider supporting an organization you trust and who feels the way you do. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is one example.
There are many other theories regarding why we are seeing apparent changes in the Earth's climate, and almost all of them do not involve human causes, thus making Mr. Gore's Nobel Prize seem more like a cosmic joke. Many of these theories have much more scientific evidence supporting them, and make more sense scientifically, than the AGW hysteria created from the preexisting and unalterable mindset that if something on Earth is changing, then we puny humans must be responsible, since there can be nothing more powerful than humankind. The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarding the prize to Mr. Gore so much as said so, concluding its citation with the statement, “Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.” (emphasis added). This implies that we are now, however unconsciously, in control. But we are so certainly not in control, not now, not in the past, and not in the foreseeable future.
In fact, even some of the data that the AGW militants have used to build their bandwagon turn out to be wrong. Don't forget that An Inconvenient Truth itself has recently been found by a British court to contain inaccuracies and fallacies. Also, I heard several months ago that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies had been forced to correct some of their temperature data, but I could not find any news report about this until now. Why? Because stupidly I was looking in the American news media, and not even the "conservative" Fox News dares to take on the AGW torchbearers and their pitchforks. Thank God we have the Canadian National Post and its online version, where dissenting views can still be published. The above link to the articles about the AGW "Deniers" (a title I bear proudly) also comes from this source.
Correcting the temperature data reveals that the widely-quoted "fact" that the last ten years have been the hottest on record is actually not correct, and that the hottest ten years of the last 130 years have been scattered seemingly randomly throughout the decades, and that 4 of them occurred in the 1930!s! As Lorne Gunter states in the article, "Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression." But does this dissuade the AGW militants? Of course not. Anything that does not fit the "theory" is either ignored, dismissed, doesn't matter, or is being misinterpreted -- such as the issue of whether the atmospheric CO2 measurements taken from ice core measurements (which are the fundamental underpinnings of the AGW argument) are accurate. Turns out they probably underestimate the level of CO2 in the ancient atmosphere by up to 50%, which means our current CO2 levels really haven't increased all that much. And I could go on and on....
We do not have to let the AGW militants control the debate and take humanity down the road to darkness and despair with their completely political agenda. Especially when their theory makes as much sense as "Aliens Cause Global Warming" (thank you, Mr. Crichton!). If you aren't sure what to think, or you want a primer on the evidence against AGW, I suggest you start with Climate Skeptic's A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming; you can read it online or download (for free!) the entire 83 page PDF from the bottom of the page I linked above. Don't want to read 83 pages? Try the 60 second version. And don't forget his ongoing blog also.
Now, I'm not saying anyone has to do what this guy did, but I admire his chutzpah. But we can stand up and demand that the competing theories be discussed and analyzed, and the real causes of climate change be understood before we go off half-cocked and destroy the economies of the entire world. We can insist that there actually be consensus before anything be done. And for those of us so motivated (like the brave Canadian citizen linked to above) we can take the issue to the streets, the billboards, and the blogs (as I am doing). Alternatively, consider supporting an organization you trust and who feels the way you do. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is one example.
(I know CEI has some connections to other groups and industries that are supposed to be bad and evil -- I can use Google too! -- but that criticism is just part of the militant nature of the AGW supporters; Greenpeace and PETA have equally bad "connections" to groups from the other point of view. If you read this and expect to flame me with comments about how evil CEI or anybody else is, don't bother; comment moderation is turned on and, as I stated in my very first posting, I have zero tolerance for anything but spirited [and intelligent] discussion, and I don't consider regurgitating talking points or spewing venom indiscriminately like a blind cobra to fall under either category.)
Lest anyone think I am just a shill for the oil companies, recall my only connection to them and that I hate myself for not buying Exxon stock about three or more years ago. Also, I hate paying the price I'm paying for gasoline just like everybody else. I'm all for reducing or even eliminating our dependence on oil, especially imported oil, but strictly for national security reasons, not environmental ones. I could be there for economic ones also, if an alternative energy source could be made less expensive than hydrocarbons for me and society. Heck, I'm even toying with the idea of buying an Aptera car, but only because I think it could save me over $1000 a year on gasoline. (And because I'm a bit of a gadget freak; after all, I am a blogger!)
Four times in the recent geological past, that Earth has frozen into an Ice Age, and four times it has thawed out, and all of these changes occurred without the intervention of man or "CO2 spewing SUVs". In each of the preceding three interglacial periods the overall temperature of this planet has gotten several degrees warmer than it is on Earth right now, and this level was usually reached at the end of the interglacial period in a spell of rapid (geologically speaking) warming. The pattern we have seen before in those previous periods appears to be happening once again, and if this is so, it is due to the same non-human factors (such as the sun and interstellar cosmic rays) that caused it to occur three separate times before human civilization existed on this planet. If this is the case, humanity's job is not to stop it (as such is beyond our puny powers); our job, like those of the creatures on Earth during those previous warmups, is to simply adapt -- or die.
Personally, I would rather expend the resources of our society adapting as we need to rather than to waste them on the futile task of trying to stop the inevitable and then bitterly wish we had done otherwise as Homo sapiens sapiens follows the dinosaurs into extinction. But that's just me.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
I'm Two for One!
Never thought about the downstream effect of my prediction of a strike against GM due to healthcare issues. Now this past week, the UAW struck ever so briefly against Chrysler for the same reasons. So I'm now two for one -- a 200% accuracy rate in my precognition!
That leaves Ford of the Big Three auto makers. All expectations are that Ford will be even more problematic for the UAW than was GM and Chrysler. But then healthcare costs are only one of Ford's problems.
Three for one, anybody?
That leaves Ford of the Big Three auto makers. All expectations are that Ford will be even more problematic for the UAW than was GM and Chrysler. But then healthcare costs are only one of Ford's problems.
Three for one, anybody?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)