Tag Archives: environment

Politics

Less tornadoes. Less hurricanes. Less droughts. No increase in warming.

3 Comments

So why do the media, Leftist politicians and education establishments keep insisting that we need to give the government unprecedented, unlimited and permanent power over our lives because of global warming global climate change?  See Another failed prediction for global warming: fewer extreme weather events.  The facts are in — and they have been for a long time for anyone who wanted the truth.  Even if carbon output affected the climate the way the warmists claim, given the reduction in extreme weather events you’d think they’d be asking for increased carbon output.

What they call “climate change” is really just weather.  And even if the changes were real they didn’t prove that they were caused by man.  And even if they were real and were caused by man it doesn’t mean the changes would be all bad.  And even if they were real, caused by man and all bad it doesn’t mean we could prevent them now. (Go ahead, make China stop using fossil fuels.  While you are at it, stop them from spying on our military, piracy, currency manipulation, human rights abuses, infanticide, etc.  I’ll wait here.)

Just as with Darwinian evolution, belief in and advocacy for the falsehood of global warming global climate change became a litmus test to maintain credibility, tenure and employment in Leftist establishments.  The hypocrisy and falsehoods of profiteers like Al Gore are well documented, yet aren’t communicated widely.

Please educate your friends and neighbors!

Politics

“Tornadoes are caused by global cooling. Or warming. Either way, it is your fault and you need the government to fix it.”

1 Comment

The entire climate change industry is a shameless tautology* designed to dupe people into thinking that the only solution is to give the government more power, regardless of the costs.  These ghouls will exploit any tragedy, such as the Oklahoma tornadoes, to further their agenda.  Don’t be fooled.

Via Moonbattery » Remembering When Tornados Were Caused by Global Cooling.

newsweek-global-cooling

newsweek-global-cooling

* No matter what happens to the weather or the climate, it is because you use too much energy.

Christian worldview, Favorites, Miscellaneous, Politics

Sheep, wolves and sheepdogs

9 Comments

I updated this in light of the current gun debate and added some thoughts on the spiritual parallels.

A now-defunct blog made some important distinctions between three types of people:

  • Sheep, the “kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep.”
  • Wolves, who “feed on the sheep without mercy.  Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.”
  • Sheepdogs, who “live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.”

“If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf.

But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.”

I’m against war and violence in general, but there are times when it is required.  I find pure pacifism to be unrealistic and actually unloving in many cases.  Note that when I say pacifist I am using the Dictionary.com definition of “a person who is opposed to war or to violence of any kind” (emphasis added). 

In this metaphor, there is nothing wrong with being sheep.  What is wrong is the naive assumption that we will ever be able to live without sheepdogs.  One thing that bothers me about some pacifists is not only their lack of gratitude but their contempt for those who protect them.

A thought from George Orwell:

We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm.

There is a spiritual parallel as well.  Consider all the wolves in sheep’s clothing who eternally danger people with their lies about God.  Not everyone is equipped to battle those wolves, but some of us have worked hard to know how to refute their lies.  We don’t expect everyone to do what we do, but we do appreciate it when people don’t blame us for being “divisive” or some such thing.  We tend to be intrinsically motivated, though I will say that I get the nicest notes from time to time from people who agree completely with the views here but are too afraid to say so publicly.  I’m fine with that.  It is nice to know that they pray and are supportive.

Politics

Reminders about the Human-caused Global Warming / Global Climate Change hoax

12 Comments

Significant global warming / global climate change isn’t true, but if it was, it wouldn’t necessarily be bad.

Even if it was true and bad, we don’t have evidence that humans are causing it

Even if it was true and bad and true that humans were causing it, it still doesn’t mean we can make China and the rest of the world change things to make a difference.

Oh, and did I mention the hypocrites like Al Gore living in multiple mansions, flying personal jets, fathering 4 children, etc., who make hundreds of millions off of this scam, all the while telling you not to do those things?

Why does the Leftist skepticism disappear with those who want to give the government a permanent and unlimited blank check to control your lives?

Why do these people exhibit such transparent coveting?  Remember, coveting isn’t just wanting more, it is wanting to have more than others.  Think about all the politicians and profiteers who have so much yet don’t want the poor of the world to improve their lot in life.

Oh, but X% (insert really big number for “X”) of “real” scientists agree about global warming!!  Yes, they say that because they know their careers will be destroyed if they don’t.

From Ann Coulter:

CRU was regularly cited as the leading authority on “global climate analysis” — including by the very news outlets that are burying the current scandal, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. The CRU alone received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming.

. . .

Most disturbingly, the CRU-affiliated “scientists” were caught red-handed conspiring to kill the careers and reputations of scientists who dissented from the religion of global warming. Indignant that scientific journals were publishing papers skeptical of global warming, the cult members plotted to get editors ousted and the publications discredited.

This video is a great overview of the issue.  Get educated, folks!

Hat tip: Red State

Politics

Don’t be fooled by slippery language about the weather

1 Comment

We see a lot of misleading headlines and editorial cartoons equating “extreme” weather with human caused global warming / global climate change.  It is pure non sequitur.  We have a name for changes in temperature, rainfall, storms, etc.: Weather.  It can be unpredictable.  You may have noticed that people talk about it a lot, and did so long before Al Gore came along with his hypocritical money machine.

For starters, consider that if there are 10 tornadoes hitting remote areas, you’ll heard about it once.  If the same tornadoes happen to hit more populated areas, you’ll heard about it for months.  But the weather wasn’t different, just the locations where it hit.

 

See How to mislead with slippery language : Stop The ACLU for more examples of wordplay and data games used to advance the global climate change agenda.

We read:

“NOAA Makes It Official: 2011 Among Most Extreme Weather Years in History

Just past the halfway point, 2011 has already seen eight weather-related disasters in the U.S. that caused more than $1 billion in damages

The devastating string of tornadoes, droughts, wildfires and floods that hit the United States this spring marks 2011 as one of the most extreme years on record, according to a new federal analysis.”

The key, of course, is that little word “among” and his friend “one of”. To put some flesh on Mr. “among”, consider 1934:

All regions of the country were over 100 degrees.

80% of the US was experiencing drought.

Politics

Human-caused Global Warming / Global Climate Change: Still a hoax by any name

7 Comments

See Where’s the warming? « Hot Air.  Ask yourself, why is the media so keen to be on board with the Global warming fraud? Answer: Follow the money and the power.

Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.

The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case forglobal sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.

If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

Also ask yourself why this will be one of the few promises Obama will keep:

Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.

And electricity prices won’t just hurt one of your bills.  The impact of higher energy costs will impact nearly every element of the economy.

Have you had a lot of fun watching the price of gasoline shoot out of sight this year at the pump?  That will be just the appetizer.  Thanks to new regulations from the Obama administration, power companies will shut down a significant number of coal-fired plants by 2014, and without any other reliable sources of mass-produced electricity, consumers will see their bills go up as much as 60% (via Instapundit andNewsalert):

Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years.

The reason: Pending environmental regulations will make coal-fired generating plants, which produce about half the nation’s electricity, more expensive to operate. Many are expected to be shuttered.

The increases are expected to begin to appear in 2014, and policymakers already are scrambling to find cheap and reliable alternative power sources. If they are unsuccessful, consumers can expect further increases as more expensive forms of generation take on a greater share of the electricity load.

Elections matter, folks.  A radical leftist community organizer was elected Senator and then President and this is all part of his plan: More government control of everything.

You’d think they’d be alarmed that so many companies are claiming they’ll stop providing healthcare to employees when ObamNeycare is fully implemented, but you’d be wrong.  That is exactly what they want: More decisions controlled by the government.  Because you can totally trust them to have your long-term best interests at heart, right?

Politics

The 2nd greatest hoax of our time

12 Comments

(The greatest is Darwinian evolution, and the 2nd greatest is Global Warming / Global Climate Change.  Both have a lot of similarities in how the hoaxes are perpetuated.)

See Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science.  Don’t miss the quote in bold below.  This hoax is costing us countless jobs and creating higher energy prices.  These things are quickly and easily fixable, but not with the current administration.  They are advancing an unprecedented and unlimited power grab over the economy, and doing great harm to the nation.

Read the whole article.  Follow the money.  Don’t let them fool you.

David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine.  He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:

“The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.”

And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.

The politics:

“The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.”

Hat tip: Matthew from Facebook

Politics

Great summary on global warming

8 Comments

From the Hillbuzz Friday Open Thread:

The debate is over.  Global warming is man-made.  

The issue is man-made, the data is man-made, the crisis is man-made . . . and so is the consensus.

Only in a place where journalism is nearly dead could people not be aware of the global warming fraud and the massive hypocrisy of its proponents.

Roundup

Roundup

8 Comments

Thought provoking post about recognizing and dealing with our anger.  This is a serious topic that challenges us all – at least if you hold to Jesus’ definition of unrighteous anger.  One of the questions posed:

Do you stretch and enlarge the category of anger so it includes you? I know a man who doesn’t think he is angry even though every hour or so he threatens to rip off someone’s head. His narrow definition of anger? An angry person actually rips off someone’s head. Since he only wants to rip off someone’s head, he isn’t angry.

Non-serious side note: It reminds me of Andy Bernard from The Office: “They’re sending me to management training.  Well, anger management training.”

—

Do taxpayers benefit from affirmative action in police and army hiring? Short answer: No.  This is just politically correct racism, which like many other PC actions can be unethical, expensive and deadly.

The D.O.J. approved new scoring policy only requires potential police officers to get a 58% and a 63%. That’s the equivalent of an ‘F’ and a ‘D’.

“It becomes a safety issue for the people of our community,” said Dayton Fraternal Order of Police President, Randy Beane. “It becomes a safety issue to have an incompetent officer next to you in a life and death situation.”

Does political correctness provide good value for taxpayers? Shouldn’t taxpayers get the best candidate available? What about the people who will die in life and death situations, because the best candidate wasn’t chosen? Who suffers the most from the effects of political correctness?

—

Michael Moore is wrong again, on many levels.  As tempting as it is to think that if we just confiscate 100% of the wealth of the super-rich that we’ll fix our economy, there are actually some downsides.

The grand total of the combined net worth of every single one of America’s billionaires is roughly $1.3 trillion. It does indeed sound like a “ton of cash” until one considers that the 2011 deficit alone is $1.6 trillion. So, if the government were to simply confiscate the entire net worth of all of America’s billionaires, we’d still be $300 billion short of making up this year’s deficit.

That’s before we even get to dealing with the long-term debt of $14 trillion, which if you’re keeping score at home, is between 10 to 14 times the entire net worth of all of the country’s billionaires, combined. That includes the all-powerful Koch brothers ($40 billion between them), the all-powerful George Soros ($14.5 billion), all the Walton family (of the Wal-Mart fortune), Steve Jobs, Oprah (at a paltry $2.7 billion), the Google Founders, Michael Bloomberg, and the Mars family (of the candy bar empire).

—

A very important distinction on rights.  The word is thrown around far too lightly and usually ends up with someone’s true rights being trampled.

You see, it is the concept of rights that has been bastardized to the point that sycophantic statists now lay claim to other people’s property, their labor, and their money. Moreover, when collectivists don’t get their way, they boycott, they protest, they storm statehouses, and they threaten to kill those who would otherwise disagree.

To union thugs, village idiots, and other collectivists, there is mistaken belief that there is aright to: a job, a house, subsidized transportation, “free” abortions, ”free” health care, high-speed internet, collective bargaining for public unions, and [insert wanton desire here: ______].

There have been many who have debated the subject of Rights for centuries. However, this definition may be the clearest explanation of “rights” as it relates to action and inaction, or the difference between freedom and slavery:

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

There is a simple litmus test, based on the above, which is to ask a single question when being told that something is a right: At whose expense?

—

Obama Demands That Taxpayers Fund Sexual Pleasure Training for Girl Scouts – Planned Parenthood at work again.  It is sad to see that the Girl Scouts let them in.

—

Not surprisingly, false teaching ghouls couldn’t wait until the bodies in Japan were cold before using the tragedy to oppose nuclear energy: A Nuclear Nightmare: Why Japan Should Serve As A Lesson That Nuclear Power Is Not Viable.  Oh, the false teacher there says nukes are fine once the safety of the plants can be “fully guaranteed,” but those are weasel words meaning “never.”  Of course we want safe nuclear energy, but the protests and lawsuits have made this power more costly.  The global warming / climate change lobby is a farce, but even if it was true the Greens should embrace nuclear energy as a viable option.  What they really are is anti-people.  They know they’ll always have plenty of energy and in their hypocrisy they use it in abundance, but they deny it to developing countries and make it more expensive for the average person.  Oh, and they cost people jobs left and right.

—

Dead theory walking “highlights the many ways in which an intelligent design perspective is continuing to have increasingly more explanatory power in the investigation of “natural” systems, while underscoring the epic failure of the evolutionary paradigm to do likewise.”  Go read the whole top 10.

  • No.4: Anything to do with the bacterial flagellum gets my attention and this particular discovery is my favourite on the 2010 list. Despite all the literature we have on this nano-motor inferring its unnatural origin, Nature reported in August on the ability of the motor to undergo rapid changes to its shape while the flagellum is spinning at high speed, causing a rapid change in direction. Try doing that with a man-made motor. “A supplemental movie available free online from Nature shows this process in motion. … The task of explaining how these complex, synchronized biomechanical structures evolved by chance processes just got exceedingly more difficult.” By the way, did I mention this is an actual motor?
  • No.2: A second genetic code is discovered. Explaining one code via completely unguided means is problematic, but two? “The article seems to miss the obvious implication that more codes and algorithms imply more design.”
  • No.1: With respect to Richard Dawkins I’m sure, “new research reveals optimal design of the eye” that “open[s] up potentially fruitful areas for biomimetic research.” One might ask, if it’s so badly designed, as Dawkins would have us believe,[3] why are we trying to copy it?

—

Some important thoughts about the risks of being an outspoken pro-lifer (and by pro-lifer, I mean anti-abortion):

We are always told of reasons why we can’t speak up against abortion. If we speak in Church, we’re told it’s too political; if we speak in the political arena, we’re told it’s too religious. If we speak in the media we’re told it’s too disturbing; in the educational realm, it’s too disruptive. On the public streets, it’s too distressing for children; in the business world it’s too controversial, in the family it’s too divisive, and in social settings it’s just impolite. So if abortion is wrong, where do we go to say so?

The answer is we have to stop looking for a risk-free place to fight abortion, and speak up in all those arenas! There is a calculus in the heavens that says, “Greater love than this nobody has, than to lay down his life for his friends.” If we want to protect the unborn, let’s be willing to give our lives for them. Let’s stop counting the cost for ourselves if we speak up and start counting the cost for them if we are silent. The pro-life movement does not need a lot of people; it needs people who are willing to take a lot of risk.

—

Planned Parenthood Exposed.  Still waiting for the Left to decry the threats and bullying of people like this . . .

HT: All American Girl

—

Nice sendup of global warming. Hat tip: Vern Rigg Kaine

Roundup

Roundup

8 Comments

Was Jesus a Liberal? – Not even close.  God is the ultimate conservative.  Really, read the book.  His moral laws don’t change.

—

From the I am not making this up category, professional climate alarmists blame snow and cold weather on global warming.  They have no shame and no reason.  And this contains the 2000 classic about how they wouldn’t have snow in England by now.

—

99% white group raising funds for abortions in predominately black communities, and yet there is no mainstream media coverage of this.  But they spent countless shows and blog posts on how the TEA Party is totally racist, right?

—

The New York Times explains why the leftist elite supports adultery and divorce – sad but typical story of two people who really like each other and must therefore dump their spouses and ignore kids because their happiness is the most important thing in the universe.

—

What Jesus didn’t say about his mother, Mary – “You know what your problem is?  You don’t think enough about my mother.” [paraphrase]

—

This is a keeper: MUST-READ: Correcting the economic myths that liberals/leftists believe – It will come in very handy when Liberals try to blame Bush for everything.  Facts are pesky things.

—