16 More Scientists Deny Global Warming

The more time goes by the more the left's global warming coalition is falling apart. More and more scientist are parting ways with the declared "scientific truth" of global warming. Of course we know these 16 will be decried as no longer being scientists, just like the long list who came before them. You can't possibly be a "scientist" if you don't believe the dogma! You obviously HAVE to be bought out by the petroleum lobby. Right?

Look this has happened before. Galileo was excoriated when he declared that the Earth was round. Scientific dogma at the time insisted that it indeed was flat and anyone who claimed otherwise was deserving of any and all derision that could be mustered. In the end... We all know he was vindicated.

The left touts their "scientific consensus" that man-made global warming is occurring but that is not how science is done. Science isn't a popularity contest for ideas.

Allow me to explain how science is truly done. There is a little thing a fellow named Galileo invented called "the scientific method". The largest hallmark of the scientific method is the insistence that a hypothesis be predictive.

You see, suppose you observe a phenomenon and you wish to prove what is causing it. The scientific method dictates that you form a hypothesis. Then based on that hypothesis you design an experiment intended to test that hypothesis. Your hypothesis, if it is correct, should allow you to predict the outcome of the experiment. So you perform the experiment and objectively compare the results to that prediction. If the experiment's results do not match the prediction, then the hypothesis is flawed. Finally the scientific method dictates that your results be verified by objective third parties, to eliminate any possibility of personal bias.

Global warming theory does not pass the requirement of predictivity. They are consistently revising their predictions and models. That tells us that is is not then settled. For it to truly be predictive, they woould need to declare in advance, "we will see a specific number of degrees of increase in the global average temperature for a given period". They can not and will not do that. They'll give very broad estimates which will vary each time you see them.

Another thing you will find is that the global warming scientists are resistant to releasing their research and findings for third party review... Oh no doubt they'll release their figures and measurements for friendly corroboration, but not to the nay-sayers.

No my friends, this is not settled science. No matter who much they subject one to belittlement for daring to state that fact.

Finally, when they claim that those scientists who decry global warming have sold their souls, then I need to point out the true state of affairs. Global warming is used as the cudgel to force us to invest in "green" energy and technologies. So far, Obama has invested over $6.9 Billion into "green" energy companies. ALL of these companies can be traced back to funding his election campaigns. We also see how well those investments have gone. Between investments in just Solyndra, Beacon Power, Ener1 and Evergreen Solar $650.3 million of American tax payer cash has simply evaporated into liberal campaign funders' pockets. So my friends there is indeed greed at play on both sides of the equation. No matter how much they try to deflect your attention away from it, it is a fact.

News Round Up 1/20/2011

Article: Santorum may have won Iowa; Romney calls results ‘a virtual tie’

I'll bet the establishment intentionally rigged it that way to blunt any momentum that Santorum would have gleaned from a victory that was announced in a timely fashion.

---

Article: Helix Nebula Gleams Like a Golden Eye in New Photo

---

Article: Letting White Voters Choose the Nominee

The order primaries are held in has been set for quite some time now... I seriously doubt that the racial make up of the constituencies is what decided it. But nice attempt at race baiting anyways! Personally I think the order ought to be changed each go-round. I'm tired of carefully seeking out a candidate only to have them removed from the running before I have a say in who should get the nod, let's face it political campaigns are a game of momentum and usually by the time the ability to vote comes around to me it's just a proforma vote.

---

Article: 3 Numbers That Will Determine the Next President

"President Obama and his Democratic backers insist he's the one to bring fairness back to an economy..." Fairness? Who ever said life was fair? If you think life is fair, or even that it ever could be fair then you are a deluded child. Every kid learns from mommy and daddy that life isn't fair so you need to just get used to it. You can't legislate fairness, because "fair" is very much like "perfect"... unattainable! Some liberals might reply, "Tell that to people who pay 25% tax rate while people that are 1000 times richer than them pay a 15% tax rate." Well, that lower tax rate serves a large number of purposes. The two main ones being 1. It spurs investment into companies that provide employment... employment for those who don't qualify for that rate and who otherwise would have no income. -AND- 2. It provides an incentive for people who don't receive it, to want to receive it and to do what is necessary to arrive at that place where they can receive it. Success is hard work and if there's no incentive to succeed people will simply languish in mediocrity forever.

---

Article: U.S. and Iran on Collision Course

Where's all the Paulbots and Obamaniacs to tell us that if we just talk nicely to Iran, they'll stop wanting to nuke us and our allies out of existence... That it has nothing to do with the fact that they are fanatical elevener-shia who believe in Armageddon and that they can hasten the coming of the Mahdi by starting Armageddon.

---

Article: Romney nosediving in South Carolina as Gingrich surges

Wait. I though Mitt was the inevitable winner...

---

Article: The real reason no one impersonates dead voters: high risk, little benefit

Let's assume for a moment the premise that there is virtually no voter fraud... (not that I do, but let's do so for the purpose of a mental exercise). It is conceivable that there *could be* voter fraud. This conceivability of an offense is enough in many cases to enact laws that liberals support. Let's take gun control laws for example. To be more specific, let's take the "cool down" period that many anti-gun people advocate. The sole reason for this law to exist is based on the premise that a gun buyer may be purchasing a weapon to use in a crime of passion. If you look at the entirety of gun purchasers, what percentage of them might fit that description? The percentiles are certainly absolutely, infinitesimally small and yet this is a gun control law that many liberals favor and is in fact espoused very heavily by the Brady gang (it's one factor from their grading system for state's gun control laws). So certainly the conceivability that an offense could occur is a good enough premise upon which to base a law for liberals. That leads one to question why they are against its employment in the case of voter fraud prevention laws. Since there are, as we speak a number of Democrat politicians freshly convicted of voter fraud in New York state, I can only assume that they are concerned about closing this "gun show loophole" in their ability to steal elections.

---

Article: Army reports suicides down, but violent crimes up

You'll notice how they intentionally fail to mention how these numbers compare to the population at large! They do this to reinforce the liberal caricature that they are perpetuating against our veterans. Just FYI and since they fail to mention it... Criminality rates among active duty service members and veterans is LOWER than the population at large. Suicide rates are also lower. Stop slandering our heroes!

---

Article: Pentagon report: Sexual assault in the military up dramatically

Here is yet another article employing the same underhanded tactic where the statistics are not compared to the population at large. If you read the article you'll see: "Mr. Panetta emphasized that 'we assume this is a very underreported crime'". Why would we "assume" that? Further what is the point of this unending bombardment of the character of our troops? Last year according to this article, there were 3,191 "reports" of sexual assault (a very broad category). Not convictions mind you, just accusations. There are 1,466,545 Active duty personnel and 1,458,500 reserve personnel yielding a total of 2,925,045. So that means there are 109 reports (not convictions) per 100,000. Per the government crime statistics the nationwide average per 100,000 for convictions of "forcible rape" (the most serious of sexual assault offenses) in 2009 (the latest available statistics) stand at 158. The rate of this happening is therefore LOWER in the military than in the population at large. I wonder how the number of rapes in the military compares to the rate per 100,000 at Occupy encampments. Stop the assault on the honor of our heroes!

---

Article: World not quite as hot in 2011; ranks 11th warmest

So wait... "Not quite as hot"... That means it's cooler then right? Look, this global warming scam is not science. If our greenhouse gas contributions contributed to atmospheric warming it would have to exhibit a never ending trend of increases in temperature. That is because our output of those gases has not decreased, nor has the atmospheric concentrations of those gases. You see a key factor in determining whether a theory is scientifically valid is that a hypothesis must be "predictive". (for those who don't know what I'm talking about, look up "the scientific method".) That means if you can make a prediction based upon the premise of your hypothesis that is then found to be true based upon the objective measurement of the results of experimentation, then your hypothesis can be assumed to be scientifically valid. The global warming hypothesis however offers no such predictive quality and therefore, despite being quite a popular hypothesis (because we all know science is based on popularity contests right?), must be found to be flawed. Once you can show me an undeniable predictive quality to your hypotheses, then I'll join the band wagon, but not before.

This article then goes on to attempt to blame the unforeseen decline in temperature on the La Niña/El Niño cycle... If greenhouse gas concentrations were truly the cause it should be a simple matter of certain concentrations equating to a certain number of degrees increase averaged across the globe. The La Niña/El Niño cycle has nothing to do with it since the sun presumably delivers a fixed amount of energy to be trapped by those gasses.

Hey Al!

How's that for an "inconvenient truth"?

The Surrender Monkies Strike Again

We all know that president Obama's favorite hobby is surrendering the hard-won victories of others.

He was all set to sacrifice the hard won victory in Iraq, but our brave troops have done so well that that would be extremely hard for the public to swallow. He'd have to actually march troops in to un-do that which has been achieved.

So that surrender was thwarted. He must have called Pelosi & Ried into the Oval Office to have a serious pity party and tie one on over that one.

The spin doctors decided they could recycle this defeat into a victory for him by instead stealing the credit for delivering victory. Quite telling that they like to blame everything bad on Bush and steal the credit for the good. These are truly not honorable men.

Well then the next opportunity to surrender raised its head... Afghanistan.

That however was one of the first true but unrecognized victories for the resurgent conservative majority. Sure, around that time we were fully engaged in the fray against the health care take-over, but the pollsters certainly warned him of the grave consequences that laid in wait if he surrendered Afghanistan.

I'm certain that he wouldn't have allowed any of his many campaign promises regarding Afghanistan to dissuade him from tasting the sweet taste of surrender there. I mean I firmly believe this president has abandoned more campaign promises (a.k.a. "LIED") than any other president before him. The litany of broken promises is long and sordid.

Instead, he was forced to do a stealth surrender in Afghanistan and just announced that we will flee victory with our tails tucked on some future specified date.

This had to have been very difficult for him to bear. Certainly experiencing all of this surrender monkey impotence must have been quite exasperating. I can imagine him retiring to the first family's quarters to have Michelle don her hulking dominatrix garb then bind and flog him to hamburger while belittling him for being such a dismal impotent little failure.

He had to find somewhere where he could experience the joy of an outright surrender of a hard won victory. It was then that he found one. He decided to hand off our preeminence in manned space travel.

If he truly believes all of the "global climate change" hokum, he must see the necessity for manned space missions. He must understand the need for mankind to expand our environment beyond this little ball of mud. Surely, we must have a lifeboat population on some other world to survive the doomsday climate apocalypse (oh god please let there be zombies!). I mean the whole "It's too late to change our inevitable demise" nature of this premise necessitates such a safety mechanism.

Personally I don't believe in global warming but I do believe in the very real possibility of a devastating extraterrestrial object impact.

In Obama's mind, the survival of mankind is obviously going to have to take a back seat to turtle tunnels in Florida and studying why gay men in Latin America tend to have unsafe sex when they are drunk. His "logic" (and I use that term loosely in his case) behind this decision was based strictly on finances. We need more money for liberal clap trap pork and less for REAL science. See that's why I use the term "logic" loosely.

It is one of the favorite progressive past-times, making valiant deaths of others all for naught...

Theodore Freeman, Charles Bassett, Elliott See, Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee, Edward White, Edward Givens, Clifton Williams, Gregory Jarvis, Christa McAuliffe, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Judith Resnik, Francis Scobee, Michael Smith, Stephen Thorne, S. David Griggs, Sonny Carter, Patricia Robertson, Michael Anderson, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Clark, Rick Husband, William McCool, and Ilan Ramon all have now given their lives in pursuit of absolutely nothing.

Oh, and President Kennedy's vision - scrap that too!

Another Clearinghouse Post

There are a number of articles that gained my attention lately that I thought I would post on,

First there's this one:

The liberals in congress aren't just content to impede the CIA's ability to collect intelligence by properly interrogating terrorists. Now they are going after the FBI for listening in to terrorists' conversations. I mean god forbid that we infringe on terrorists' expectation of privacy while they're plotting the murder of American citizens.

Somehow I think if the target were conservative American patriots the libs would have no problem with how intelligence was collected. Harsh interrogation and warrant-less wiretaps would suddenly be back on the table.

Finally, I have a series of two articles (here's the first and second article) regarding the shoddy job the UN is doing attempting to prove the effects of the supposed "global warming" crisis. Turns out that the retreat of the glaciers isn't happening like they say it is. I have already pointed out that there is NO science behind the global warming contentions. This continues to prove that fact How much longer will our tax money be spent to further this fraud?

Oh and in closing, here's a graphic political equation for you that has finally been proven true without a shadow of a doubt (don't make me say I told you so!):

"Human Destruction"

The headline read, "Earth bears scars of human destruction: astronaut". Click the title of this post to see the Reuters news article that was splashed across Yahoo's main page. Seeing a headline such as this drums up dire images in the imagination of the reader. Clearly our Earth is in dire peril! So I took the bait and clicked the link.

In the article Canadian astronaut, Dr. Bob Thirsk is quoted as the authoritative source. Bob is two months into a planned six month stay on the International Space Station. This is his second trip into space. His first was as payload specialist aboard space shuttle mission STS-78 in June and July of 1996. Wow, I would not want to detract from Bob's obvious experience but I wondered how qualified Bob was to speak out on matters revolving around the environment of the Earth. Was he some sort of climate scientist or even a scientist at all?

A little research yielded that Bob had received a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Calgary, a Master of Science in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a Doctorate of Medicine from McGill University and a Master of Business Administration from the MIT Sloan School of Management. Bob was in the family medicine residency program at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Montréal when he was selected to join Canada's space program. Now I ask you, how is a medical doctor with degrees in mechanical engineering and business administration qualified to speak out on matters of the environment?

Reading the article to find its basis yielded this juicy quote from Dr. Thirsk, "This is probably just a perception, but I just have the feeling that the glaciers are melting, the snow capping the mountains is less than it was 12 years ago when I saw it last time". (Emphasis is entirely mine).

So that is what serves as the impetus for a doom and gloom article title like, "Earth bears scars of human destruction"? Beyond that, one questions the validity of the whole premise. Environmentalists have been telling for years now about how "Global Warming" was going to destroy the planet. We've been told that the science is solid and that the consensus has been struck. The dies are cast and we are all going to hell in a hand basket woven of carbon dioxide gases humans have released into the atmosphere.

The problem is, science isn't done by consensus. All due respect to Bob, but science isn't done by mere perceptions or feelings either. The scientific method has been established for damned long time. It is how science is done! There are four basic steps:

1.) Observe the phenomenon in question.

2.) Form a hypothesis that describes the mechanism behind the observations.

3.) Using your hypothesis as the basis, form a prediction.

4.) Perform tests designed to disprove your prediction and thereby your hypothesis.

This is how science is done. Any hypothesis that can withstand these rigors is considered truth any that can not, is discarded. There is no room for feelings, beliefs or voting a consensus. If Bob were a scientist he'd know this. If Reuters were a real "news" agency and not a propaganda arm for the DNC, they'd know this as well. You see the science of "Global Warming" is flawed right at step one. You see the observations of the phenomenon are broken. The temperature is not rising. While it did show a rising trend for a while, that trend reversed 11 years ago according to the NOAA. It's a little hard to observe a trend of rising temperatures when the temperatures are not rising. (Note the flames as this lead balloon descends to Earth with a resounding thud.) That is why the liberals are now calling it "global climate change". It polls better.

Another Collection of Topics

Well to start things off let's start with Sarah Palin. As you probably know, Governor Palin resigned from the governorship. There has been a lot of speculation surrounding this event. The talking heads on Fox have been divided. Half are saying the Sarah has completely sabotaged her political future with this move. The other half are saying that it was not necessarily a bad move. The liberals of course are all frothing all over themselves with witless speculation that Sarah must be attempting to avoid charges. Obviously they are mistaking the governor for a liberal. Well the newest poll of Conservative feelings on the matter is in. Conservatives support her more after her resignation than before and not only that, but her base of support is massive. 71% of all Conservatives would vote for her if she ran for president. Libs of course are hoping she'd leave them alone. Probably because they fear her. Sarah carries with her an air of genuineness and that is something none of their plastic pundits can muster.

Next topic...

At the G8 Summit, ol' Barry has obligated us to keep average global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius. It has already been well established that any temperature increase reported is due to the inclusion of erroneous data. In fact, it has been well proven that temperatures have been declining. Why then does Barry insist on obligating us to this? Simple. He will take the wrong readings and use them to force us to buy "green" (aka Rube Goldberg-esque) technology. Liberals can't do science. It requires logic and a logical liberal is an oxymoron. In truth, this is all about redistribution of wealth. We here in the US are wealthy and that makes liberals cringe. So Barry is set to siphon all of our wealth away until we are just as poor as every other 3rd world shit hole.

Last topic...

The NRA has come out saying that they have "concerns" about Sonia Sotomayor's gun rights beliefs. They say that they will begin to "actually oppose" her nomination if she is evasive or dismissive of questions during the confirmation process regarding gun rights. You see this is an example of why I am dismissive of the NRA. I used to be a member but have instead moved my support to other more active gun rights groups. Sotomayor has already proven that she is hostile to our rights to keep and bear arms. In a recent decision she declared that the Heller vs. DC decision does indeed say that the second amendment is a personal right, but that the decision does not apply to the states. In other words she is insinuating that the states are utterly unfettered in the restraints that they can place on our rights to keep and bear arms. Her nomination must be halted. Any blue-dog dem that votes for her nomination might as well resign from office. Your gun totin' constituency will not forget!

Utter Fallacy

The House of Representatives has pushed through a bill that hands Barrack his much desired "cap and trade". All of us will suffer if this should make its way through the Senate. Obama of course claims that the measure is needed to prevent "global climate change".

You'll notice that the wording on that claim has changed. They used to call it "global warming". Surreptitiously they've smuggled in a change in terms. Now they call it "global climate change". Do you know why? Because the planet isn't warming. In fact, it has been cooling for the last 11 years. We are in the midst of the coldest summer in the Northern Hemisphere in 50 years.

In a previous post I related an article that showed that the EPA was using September temperature figures for October temperature reports for large portions of the globe in order to artificially increase the mean temperature.

Science has a central tenant, that being "predictable and repeatable". If your hypothesis can not be verified by actually predicting the future repeatedly, then you have to assume that your premise is flawed. In other words. If you postulate that increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere will increase temperatures, then the observations do not pan out, your premise is incorrect. In other words mankind is not changing the environment. It is troublesome for the liberals when the pesky environment doesn't cooperate.

Well you see their pet projects are depending on us believing that the sky is falling. I mean they are at the forefront of creating "green" technology. Do you know how one creates green technology? You take a simple straight forward technology. You make a Rube Goldberg version of it that is less efficient, more costly and less dependable. Then you slap a "green/eco-friendly" label on it and ridicule the public into buying it. When ridicule alone doesn't work, then you invent a bogus theory and call it science. Using that "science" as an excuse, you disadvantage the "non-green" technology via legislation.

So it would be problematic of course if one of your top climate scientists suspended his faith and actually looked at the conflicting scientific evidence. Well that has happened. Alan Carlin, the primary author of a 98 page EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) report that questions the soundness of "global warming" science has reported that his findings are being quashed by the EPA. In an e-mail exchange released to CBS news, Carlin's boss, Al McGartland is quoted as saying:

"The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

In other words, "shut up! Don't confuse the public with facts. Just write propaganda to scare them into supporting our stance".

So there you have it. Many of us have known that the science behind global warming is specious at best. I mean when announcements are made about the scientific world arriving at a "consensus". That says it all right there. Science isn't driven by consensus. It's science not American Idol. Science is driven by the ability of a theory to reliably and repeatedly account for and predict the observed facts.

So, if the Senate also passes "cap and trade" they are in effect simply creating a system by which they are leveling the playing field. They are slanting the odds so that their uneconomical, ungainly, ineffective, Rube Goldberg-esque "green" technologies can compete. They do it by raising the cost of conventional technology by means of a tax. This eco-fad will spell ruination for our economy. American family budgets; already struggling with the cost of energy, will be stretched even thinner just to service a lie.

Per Dr. Tim Ball

A renowned Canadian climatologist has taken on the question of "global warming". Click the title of this post to read the entire article. Here are a few quotes of interest:

"Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology..."

"Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars..."

You see that is the truth of the matter. There is power in money and beliefs in global warming cause people to spend inordinate amounts of money. This money then lands in the hands of people who support the politicians who support the notions that caused the money to be spent. It is a downward spiraling, self fulfilling prophecy.

The liberal politicians know that the global warming issue is nothing but a spoof. It has however been swallowed hook line and sinker by their electorate. This means that they can fear monger their way into office so they perpetuate the farce.

They like to call the Republicans' warnings about islamo-facism fear mongering when they themselves tout a far less substantiated fear club. We have frequently seen the acts of radical islam. What we haven't ever seen is any verifiable effect of global warming.

It is interesting that the ones who denigrate others' belief in deities would so hardily espouse a belief in such an equally unfounded, unscientific ruse.

Does this count as an Oops?

Click the title of this post to see the article that prompted it to be written.

It would appear that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has had a small "oops!". This installation, run by Dr. James Hansen is the chief of only four data sets that the UN uses as definitive proof of global warming.

The "oops" occurred when they declared last month the hottest October on record...

To quote the source article:

"This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years."

So leave it to bloggers to set things straight. Two of the leading anti-global warming blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit took the claim to task. It was found upon further investigation that there was an anomalous hot spot in Russia... For some reason Russia was 10 degrees hotter. This hot spot, it was found was due to the fact that data for Russia had not been received, so the GISS simply used September's figures. What is the all too often heard Mythbusters' quote? "Well here's your problem right here!" It's no wonder that the world is getting hotter if you are using September's data for October!

Well the GISS quickly released revised but largely unchanged figures (thanks to a newly found anomalous hot spot in the Arctic and this in spite of the fact that there's 30% more sea ice there than there was at this time last year).

The GISS was quick to push blame off with a lame excuse. They claimed that they had received the data "from another source". This is a utterly flabbergasting admission. The principle source of information for the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has such poor quality control on their data that month-old temperature readings can sneak into the figures unchallenged...

This hardly lends the global warming theory's incontrovertability. Many follow this fad like a religion. A religion that has as heresy the act of questioning its validity.

An interesting thing happens when you begin to penetrate that barrier of incontrovertability with a believer in global warming. It is the same thing that happens when you start penetrating a Christian's religious beliefs. They both will claim, "well it's safer to simply believe than it is to take a chance and be proven wrong in the end". Hallelujah brother and pass the Koolaid.

Another Detractor of Global Warming

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel is calling global warming a scam. In fact, he's calling it the "greatest scam in history". he says that this scam was propagated by "dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives". When asked how he arrived at this conclusion Coleman said that he, "read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril."

Interestingly the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has released ambient average air temperature measurements for the year just concluded that show that temperatures have fallen and did not conform to any predictions of temperature increase.

No Need for Debate

No matter who you speak to on the liberal side of the fence regarding global warming, they will tell you that it is a fore-gone conclusion that global warming is occurring and that it is man's activities that are causing it. They will tell you that no scientist of note dissents from that view so there is absolutely no need for debate.

Then on almost a daily basis, news such as the article linked above shows up in the news:

"There's a natural cause that may account for much of the Arctic warming, which has melted sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Nature. New research points a finger at a natural and cyclical increase in the amount of energy in the atmosphere that moves from south to north around the Arctic Circle."

Or like this one:

"Scientists have discovered what they think may be another reason why Greenland's ice is melting: a thin spot in Earth's crust is enabling underground magma to heat the ice."

The liberals will quickly reiterate that no "real" scientist of note dissents from the consensus view. Anyone who does is obviously a quack or funded by the oil companies.

Then when the NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin claims:

"I have no doubt that global — that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."

They repeat the mantra that debate is no longer necessary. When it comes to the war, debate can continue right up until the war actually ends... It doesn't matter that blood has already been spilled. Debate and dissent can continue and is "healthy" part of the process. But when it deals with global warming, do not even dare debate the "consensus view" or you'll be labeled a member of the flat Earth society or be compared to Hitler.

They continue to rail and whine, but slowly even the very liberal New York Times is beginning to question whether or not global warming is as open and shut of a case as is claimed on the tin.

They will none the less poo-poo this as well. They'll lump ridicule on their detractors but in the end they will be proven absolutely wrong.

This is a pattern my friends it is a pattern that you will see repeated over and over again.
They shriek from the roof tops that the sky is falling and time and time again things are not as dire as they claim. They bellow about how we're losing in Iraq... and what is the end result? We're moving noticeably toward victory... No no no, the jury is out. The war is lost... He's General Betray-Us...

The jury is not out on global warming. The fat lady has not yet belted out her solo. Data is still streaming in and every piece of data begins to paint a very tenuous link between any global warming trend and the activities of mankind.

So when they say that only they are the "real" scientists... Only their findings are the proper ones. One must ask themselves this... Do "real" scientists shun the scientific method of investigation? Observe if you will:

A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record — it was actually lower than any year since 2001 — the BBC confidently proclaimed, “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.”

The scientific method is pretty clear. The scientist forms a hypothesis that may explain an observed phenomenon. Then experiments are designed and outcomes predicted based upon the hypothesis. The results of the experiments are collected and then compared to the predictions and used to either prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. If the predictions ("2007 will be the hottest year on record") do not coincide with the observed results ("it was actually lower than any year since 2001") then the hypothesis is flawed.

Dr. Evil vs the Algore™

So you know all that ice that's melting on Greenland that the Algore™ claims is proof of global warming? Well, it appears that scientists now believe that the ice melt might be due to some extent to the warming effect of molten liquid magma... Click the post title to read the article.

A Little Science to Disperse the Levity

Are you aware that currently there is an object in the solar system larger than the sun... and no it isn't the Algore's Tennessee mansion (although it does come close). The comet Holmes ' coma has now officially been measured and determined to be larger than the diameter of the sun. This little comet has been full of surprises. First it suddenly ramps up its brightness one-million fold overnight, then its coma bloats to these herculean proportions. The image below compares the size of Holmes' coma, the Sun and Saturn (the little blob in the lower right corner).


Now, I know the sudden appearance of such vexing object in the sky may be troubling to you Ron Paul supporters out there, but you can trust me there is no space ship hiding in the tail of this comet that'll whisk you away to paradise... So back away from the rat poison laced KoolAid otherwise the evil Zionists will win this upcoming election...



I mean give me a break if Ron Paul isn't Applewhite reincarnated, then that similarity in appearance has to at the very least be due to some familial relationship.

For everyone else, if you wish to find this thing in the sky to take a look, check out this sky chart courtesy of Space.Com:

I spent a little time out looking at it the other night. If I can get a nice patch of clear sky I may make a point to drag one of the scopes out and snap this guy's picture.

Friday Stuff

There are a few things I'd like to cover.

First off, while technically I have settled in to my new home, the new position has kept me hopping. It seems that they needed someone to fill my position long before they actually got me to fill it... Meaning that there's a lot that's been left un-done. So that means many long days full of late hours at work and consequently less time spent blogging. So, liberals you can quit your little commie river dance. I haven't thrown in the towel and no you certainly have not chased me away. I will eventually work through the back-log and resume my efforts to be a big pain in your your fat, unshaved, patchoulli stinking asses. Since none of you are employed as anything other than professional protesters or burger flippers, I'm sure you can not commiserate.

That having been said, there's been some interesting occurrences in England. Seems a truck driver sued to prevent the Algore's "An Inconvenient Truth" from being added to the school curriculum and has prevailed... In the process of winning it was definitively proven that there are at least 11 glaring inconsistencies/fabrications in the Algore's propaganda flick...

1. It was proven that the snow melting on Kilimanjaro had nothing what-so-ever to do with global warming

2. The film's claim that evidence from ice cores proved a correspondence between historical CO₂ levels and warming periods was proven erroneous.

3. The film's insinuation that hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming was also unhinged.

4. Lake Chad drying up ... not due to global warming

5. Polar bears drowning ... due to a storm not melting polar ice.

6. A halt to the gulf stream throwing Europe into an ice age... a scientific impossibility...

7. Global warming is a cause for species loss and coral blanching, again, bzzt! not supported by scientific evidence.

8. Greenland's ice is melting... survey says: Not for millenia at current rates and following current trends.

9. Antarctic ice is melting away... wrong again, it's increasing.

10. Sea levels will rise by seven meters! again wrong. Actual estimates using their data is 40 centimeters... (about 16 inches)

11. Mass evacuations from Pacific islands to escape the rising tide - wrong again, unfounded and unproven!

...and for this the asshat is awarded a nobel prize. Guess there's another thing that's lost all of its meaning and prestige. You can be sure that you'll hear all about him getting the nobel prize on your mainstream news... but how much do you want to bet that you won't hear a word about the adjudication that the movie is full of outright lies and fabrications?

Now comes the interesting bit... The basis for the truck driver's suit was a law that outlaws political indoctrination in the classroom... Holy shit! We're talking about a country that has outlawed not only guns, but toys that look like guns and even nail drivers and they have a law that prevents political indoctrination in the schoolroom? If only we had such laws here! The schoolroom is the liberals' chief recruiting grounds... brainwash them while they're young is their motto!

Hat tip goes to ALa over at blonde sagacity for that story.

So moving on now to my next topic... The libs would have you believe that we all should be disarmed... rendered defenseless against criminals. We should place our trust in our law enforcement officials to safeguard our lives...

I'd like one of you people to seriously answer the question. Who then will protect you when the police are the criminals? And don't tell me that it doesn't happen. Here's your undeniable proof that yes Virginia, cops can and do sometimes become the criminals. Further, how do we know that they are competent enough to actually protect us? I mean have a look at this picture:


I mean god forbid, you wouldn't want some untrained goon protecting himself right? I mean it's a job that only "trained professionals" can do properly...

Yeah... right.

Oh So True

Found over on Daddio's Dark Side.

Pachyderms on Ice

Scientists recently unveiled a newly discovered baby mammoth that had been preserved nearly intact in Siberia's ice. It is the best preserved specimen found thus far. Alexei Tikhonov of the Russian Academy of Sciences' Zoological Institute said, "The mammoth is an animal that you look at, and you see that there is an entire epoch behind it, a huge time period when climate was changing and of course when we talk about climate change, we must use the knowledge that we will get from them". I guess what he's trying to say is that it just goes to show that cavemen should have been driving more hybrids.

The 6 month old mammoth weighs about 110 pounds. It is about 33 inches tall and is about 51 inches from the tip of the trunk to the hind quarters. One ear and the tail of this 10 - 40,000 year old female appear to have been bitten off by some predator or scavenger. She's been named "Lyuba" after the wife of the reindeer herder who found her.

She will be moved to the Zoological Museum in Saint Petersburg to join a male baby mammoth found in Magadan in 1977.

This specimen is so well preserved that scientists feel it may well be a treasure trove for the study of the mammoth's genome. Tikhonov scoffed at the idea of being able to clone a mammoth from this animal though claiming that the animal's cells would have been too ravaged by time and the cellular damage caused when the animal's tissues froze.

Personally I'd like to hope that at some point in time it will be possible to do so. It would be interesting to see a living specimen of a creature that so symbolizes the mega-fauna epoch, a period I've always been quite interested in.

Could this be Al Gore's House?

4000 square feet, 4 BR heated & cooled by geothermal heat exchangers (Consumes only 25% of the electricity of standard heating & cooling systems), waste water recycling system (waste water is purified and used for irrigation), ecosystem endemic landscaping plants blend the home seamlessly into its surroundings.

Well no, this wouldn't be the self-proclaimed saint of global warming's house. His would be the 20 room mansion heated by natural gas with a swimming pool that consumes more energy in a month than the average American home does in an entire year.

That first home, the eco-friendly one... that would belong to George W. Bush's and it's located in Crawford Texas.

You know the stench of hypocrisy wafting off of the left is enough to sicken even those with the heartiest of constitutions.

Exchanging Milk for Oil

Liberals in congress have levied another feel good mandate to produce more ethanol. Currently ethanol is manufactured from corn. This means that corn is being diverted from food production to ethanol production. Their excuse for doing so is the claim that it will increase America's energy independence.

USDA estimates state that 3.2 billion bushels of corn crop will be used to make ethanol this year. That is a 52% increase over the 2006 level. That means that there is less corn to feed to cows. The law of supply and demand then will kick in, meaning that due to the lower supply, the price will increase to satisfy the demand. Dairy farmer's are not going to simply smile and eat that price increase... They'll of course pass it right along to you and me!

It is estimated that the price of milk will increase by 40 cents per gallon and 60 cents per pound of cheese. These increases are not limited only to dairy either. Some sources say that we will see a 7% across-the-board increase in food prices.

With all of this, there is no proof that increasing ethanol production will decrease the price we pay at the pump. In fact, ethanol production tends to be more expensive than gasoline production. That is the other variable that goes into the projected food price increases; the increase in transportation costs.

The liberals of course do not debate the fact that the increased ethanol production will have a deleterious effect on our pocketbooks. They just use their common line, "everyone just needs to tighten their belts for the common good". Of course that's the same rationale they'll use when they hike your taxes through the roof. Why is it that people support these politicians that insist on reducing personal prosperity? Wouldn't it make more sense to run on a platform of increasing personal prosperity. I just don't understand liberal in the least.

An Inconvenient Truth for the libs

Studies at the University of Colorado have definitively proven that the death penalty does indeed serve as a deterrent to crime. In fact, it's been calculated that the execution of murders prevents eighteen murders on average. The libs are of course debating the validity of the study. You see they believe that only they can use science to prove their point. Any use of science to prove conservative points requires one to use logic and reasoned arguments with liberals and we all know that never ends up well. Logic and reasoned arguments just confuse them as they lack all emotional appeals and sound bites. The enumerated findings of these studies (only the latest two of over a dozen in recent years) are:

• Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).
• The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.
• Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

I suppose I might as well not waste my time pointing these studies out to the libs, but my conservative readers will certainly enjoy a little vindication.

Let's face it. As I've already detailed numerous times before, the libs have no clue how to reduce crime. In fact other studies have proven that 4 out of 5 inmates consider themselves to be liberals. Perhaps that's why they are so abjectly against anything that would deter crime, and endanger the lives of criminals (i.e. the death penalty & private gun ownership). They just don't want to endanger their voter base.