Counterculture Con HQ

February 3, 2011

GLOBAL WARMISTS GET THEIR SNOW

From the global warming files.

RFK, Jr. 15 months ago: Global warming means no snow or cold in DC

Sen. Jim DeMint twitters: D.C. snow will continue ‘until Al Gore cries uncle’

It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries “uncle”

December 4, 2010

Neo-Pagans Open Cancun Conference on Global Warming

Ixcel, from the pantheon of "Gaia."

Is that a human head she’s holding?  Christ almighty.  The Right didn’t coopt “Jesus,” the Left tossed him in the gutter.  Lest you still thought the activistas of the Green movement were all scientific atheist types offering rational reasons why human population must be drastically reduced and fossil fuels eliminated, rather than the radical feminist, neo- pagan Gaia spiritualists they really are.  These are the opening statements at Cancun, mind you, not just some no-name activista conducting a workshop to an empty room down the hallway.

Cancun talks start with a call to the gods

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also “the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you — because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools.”

“Excellencies, the goddess Ixchel would probably tell you that a tapestry is the result of the skilful interlacing of many threads,” said Figueres, who hails from Costa Rica and started her greetings in Spanish before switching to English. “I am convinced that 20 years from now, we will admire the policy tapestry that you have woven together and think back fondly to Cancun and the inspiration of Ixchel.”

Source

Christina is definitely going to need a goddess of “weaving” to concoct any kind of convincing argument as to why governments should adopt measures to cripple their economies and and usher in the global Depression.  How fitting for the anti-human Warmists to invoke a pagan goddess whose pantheon demanded human sacrifice.

September 1, 2010

Eco Terrorist: ‘Awakened’ by Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Inspired by Al Gore

Remember all that “violence” and “racism” the Tea Party was accused by the Democrats of stirring up?  Recall Katie Couric & Co. lambasting Sarah Palin for saying certain states had to be “targeted”, implying she was using code for violence?  After nearly two years of accusing the Rightwing of racism and stoking violence through anti-Obama, anti-big government rhetoric, it’s on the far Left’s anti-human side of the aisle that the bodies continues to pile up.  First a race massacre the likes of which have not been seen in living memory in this country. And now this.  Pretend it had been a Rightwinger taking hostages in the name of “smaller government.”  How do you think the Left and their MSM lackeys would be spinning this?  Will Keith Olberman, Al Gore, The Huffington Post, the Democrats, the Democrat Black Caucus, et al., be held responsible for all the mayhem and murder their race-baiting and environmental fear mongering is causing?  Why, of course not!  Different rules entirely for Libs.

Police kill Discovery Building Gunman

SILVER SPRING, Md. — Police shot and killed a gunman who held three hostages for several hours Wednesday at the Discovery Communications building in Silver Spring, Md., authorities said. They said the hostages were safe.

At least one explosive device went off when he was shot, and other explosive devices could still be in the building in Montgomery County in suburban Washington, D.C., they said. It was not clear whether there was any damage.  Montgomery County police Chief Thomas Manger said no one was believed to have been injured beyond the gunman, whose condition he said was unknown. Other law enforcement authorities told NBC News that the gunman was dead.

The building in the close-in suburb of Washington was safely evacuated, including the Discovery Kids Place day care center, police said.  Law enforcement authorities told NBC News they believed the man was James Jay Lee or James Jae Lee, 43, a longtime protester at the building who was sentenced to six months of supervised probation for disorderly conduct in March 2008.

‘The planet does not need humans’

Lee appears to have posted environmental and population-control demands online, saying humans are ruining the planet and that Discovery should develop programs to sound the alarm.

“I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so. I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it,” the alleged manifesto reads, adding:

“Nothing is more important than saving … the Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels. The humans? The planet does not need humans.”

Lee said at the time that he experienced an ‘‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.”

Source

August 12, 2010

Global Warmism: NOAA Fakes Temp Data in Wisconsin

600°F in Egg Harbor, Wisconsin!

Global warming data apparently cooked by U.S. government-funded body shows astounding temperature fraud with increases averaging 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit.  The tax-payer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has become mired in fresh global warming data scandal involving numbers for the Great Lakes region that substantially ramp up averages.

A beleaguered federal agency appears to be implicated in the most blatant and extreme case of climate data fraud yet seen. Official records have been confirmed as evidence that a handful of temperature records for the Great Lakes region have been hiked up by literally hundreds of degrees to substantially inflate the average temperature range for the northeastern United States.

Under a scheme called ‘Sea Grant’ NOAA collaborates with national universities to compile an official federal temperature record. In this instance, the partnersip is with Michigan University’s ‘Coastal Watch.’  Together the two institutions show temperature maps for northern Lake Michigan registering an absurd 430 degrees Fahrenheit -yes, you read it right –that’s four hundred and thirty degrees-and this is by no means the highest temperature recorded on the charts.

In the heated debate about Earth’s ever-changing climate you certainly don’t need to be scientist to figure out that the Great Lakes would have boiled away at a mere 212 degrees so something has seriously gone awry inside this well-funded program.  In addition to its civilian employees, NOAA research and operations are supported by 300 uniformed service members who make up the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps. But don’t bet on anyone being court-marshalled over this latest global warming fiasco.  [Wisconsin] really got cooking this July 4th around 9:59AM, according to NOAA and Coast Watch. It was there, at the bottom left row of the temperature data points, that the records reveal on that day a phenomenally furnace-like 600 degrees Fahrenheit.

Source

July 28, 2010

A Modest Proposal

Libs are notoriously stingy when it comes to their charitable giving.  It’s a known and proven fact. In their defense, they might say they believe in government solutions, not private charitable ones.  Fine.  Does that mean they’re paying more to the IRS than the rest of us?  I’ve never seen any evidence of that.  Here’s what I propose.  If Libs decided to give in the form of additional taxes the difference they’re giving to charity, we wouldn’t need to raise taxes.  There’s nothing stopping them from making that additional yearly contribution to their government if they so chose to.  Think of the benefits: our federal deficits would disappear overnight, Libs would finally put their money where their mouth is when it comes to their faith in government, and we’d all finally be paying equally into the public trough, each in our own way.  This column offers a similar solution to man-made global warming.  Put your money where you mouth is:

Manmade Global Warming: The Solution

Manmade global warming, like so many other social and economic issues, has become hopelessly politicized. Each side has dug in its heels and has accused the other of acting irresponsibly and dishonestly. For the believers, the other side has become the equivalent of Holocaust deniers; and for the doubters, the other side has become a cult intent on manipulating mankind to remake the world in some sort of natural Utopian image.

The divide has become so great, it seems virtually impossible to bridge the gap. However, I’m not writing for Ricochet merely to outline problems; I’m here to offer real solutions. And I’m not just blowing carbon dioxide.

Let’s assume that a third of the world’s population really believes mankind has the power to adjust the Earth’s thermostat through lifestyle decisions. The percentage may be higher or lower, but, for the sake of this exercise, let’s put it at one-third. Now it seems to me these people have a special obligation to change their lives dramatically because they truly believe catastrophe lies ahead if they don’t. The other two-thirds are merely ignorant, so they can hardly be blamed for their actions.

Now, if those True Believers would give up their cars and big homes and truly change the way they live, I can’t imagine that there wouldn’t be some measurable impact on the Earth in just a few short years. I’m not talking about recycling Evian bottles, but truly simplifying their lives. Even if you were, say, a former Vice President, you would give up extra homes and jets and limos. I see communes with organic farms and lives freed from polluting technology.

Then, when the rest of us saw the results of their actions—you know, the earth cooling, oceans lowering, polar bears frolicking and glaciers growing—we would see the error of our ways and join the crusade voluntarily and enthusiastically.

How about it? Why wait for governments to change us? You who have already seen the light have it within your grasp to act in concert with each other and change the world forever. And I hate to be a scold, but you have a special obligation to do it because you believe it so strongly. Then, instead of looking at isolated tree rings and computer models, you’d have real results to point to, and even the skeptics would see the error of their ways and join you.

So start Tweeting each other and get the ball rolling. We’ll anxiously await results. See, I told you I had the solution. My work here is done.

Source

July 2, 2010

Whistleblower: IPCC consensus on Global Warming was phoney

Thank God for the interwebs.  More IPCC global warming deception exposed:

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia –  the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.

The real inconvenient truth here is that this story will not be reported in the U.S. media because Obama still has an energy tax to push through.

July 1, 2010

Obama’s “My Pet Goat” Moment

Pick your poison– corporate greed, or government incompetence.  President Obama took to his teleprompters a couple of weeks ago to address the unfolding catastrophe in the Gulf and head the Republicans off at the pass.  The oil spill isn’t “Obama’s Katrina”, as was being insinuated by many, but his 9/11.  That’s a fine choice of imagery on his part.  Politics is the art of defining your enemy, or keeping him from defining you.  If 9/11 is the imagery Obama wants to use, that’s because it’s the imagery of a winner– it’s George W. Bush imagery, if I may be so bold.  And we are thus in agreement with the President.  This imagery, it can be argued, is fair because Obama can claim to be the victim of the previous eight years of oil policy, just as Bush supporters claim 9/11 was the culmination of Clintonian anti-terror policies– an argument with which Obama appears to be in tacit agreement.  The fact is, every president is saddled with the mistakes and omissions of the prior administration.  Every president is therefore judged by how he plays the cards dealt him.  The two catastrophes also share something else in common– a “My Pet Goat” moment, which for Bush lasted a full 7 minutes.  Obama’s paralysis has persisted for going on two full months now.  During the initial stages of this unfolding disaster I didn’t believe there was much Obama could do about it.  His hand was weak.  Could I have been wrong?

Avertible catastrophe

Three days after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico began on April 20, the Netherlands offered the U.S. government ships equipped to handle a major spill, one much larger than the BP spill that then appeared to be underway. “Our system can handle 400 cubic metres per hour,” Weird Koops, the chairman of Spill Response Group Holland, told Radio Netherlands Worldwide, giving each Dutch ship more cleanup capacity than all the ships that the U.S. was then employing in the Gulf to combat the spill.To protect against the possibility that its equipment wouldn’t capture all the oil gushing from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch also offered to prepare for the U.S. a contingency plan to protect Louisiana’s marshlands with sand barriers. One Dutch research institute specializing in deltas, coastal areas and rivers, in fact, developed a strategy to begin building 60-mile-long sand dikes within three weeks.The Dutch know how to handle maritime emergencies. In the event of an oil spill, The Netherlands government, which owns its own ships and high-tech skimmers, gives an oil company 12 hours to demonstrate it has the spill in hand. If the company shows signs of unpreparedness, the government dispatches its own ships at the oil company’s expense. “If there’s a country that’s experienced with building dikes and managing water, it’s the Netherlands,” says Geert Visser, the Dutch consul general in Houston.

In sharp contrast to Dutch preparedness before the fact and the Dutch instinct to dive into action once an emergency becomes apparent, witness the American reaction to the Dutch offer of help. The U.S. government responded with “Thanks but no thanks,” remarked Visser, despite BP’s desire to bring in the Dutch equipment and despite the no-lose nature of the Dutch offer –the Dutch government offered the use of its equipment at no charge. Even after the U.S. refused, the Dutch kept their vessels on standby, hoping the Americans would come round. By May 5, the U.S. had not come round. To the contrary, the U.S. had also turned down offers of help from 12 other governments, most of them with superior expertise and equipment –unlike the U.S., Europe has robust fleets of Oil Spill Response Vessels that sail circles around their make-shift U.S. counterparts.

"A Whale" of an oil skimmer

Why does neither the U.S. government nor U.S. energy companies have on hand the cleanup technology available in Europe? Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn’t good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million — if water isn’t at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.

When ships in U.S. waters take in oil-contaminated water, they are forced to store it. As U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the official in charge of the clean-up operation, explained in a press briefing on June 11, “We have skimmed, to date, about 18 million gallons of oily water–the oil has to be decanted from that [and] our yield is usually somewhere around 10% or 15% on that.” In other words, U.S. ships have mostly been removing water from the Gulf, requiring them to make up to 10 times as many trips to storage facilities where they off-load their oil-water mixture, an approach Koops calls “crazy.”

The Americans, overwhelmed by the catastrophic consequences of the BP spill, finally relented and took the Dutch up on their offer — but only partly. Because the U.S. didn’t want Dutch ships working the Gulf, the U.S. airlifted the Dutch equipment to the Gulf and then retrofitted it to U.S. vessels. And rather than have experienced Dutch crews immediately operate the oil-skimming equipment, to appease labour unions the U.S. postponed the clean-up operation to allow U.S. crews to be trained.

A catastrophe that could have been averted is now playing out. With oil increasingly reaching the Gulf coast, the emergency construction of sand berns to minimize the damage is imperative. Again, the U.S. government priority is on U.S. jobs, with the Dutch asked to train American workers rather than to build the berns. According to Floris Van Hovell, a spokesman for the Dutch embassy in Washington, Dutch dredging ships could complete the berms in Louisiana twice as fast as the U.S. companies awarded the work. “Given the fact that there is so much oil on a daily basis coming in, you do not have that much time to protect the marshlands,” he says, perplexed that the U.S. government could be so focused on side issues with the entire Gulf Coast hanging in the balance.

Then again, perhaps he should not be all that perplexed at the American tolerance for turning an accident into a catastrophe. When the Exxon Valdez oil tanker accident occurred off the coast of Alaska in 1989, a Dutch team with clean-up equipment flew in to Anchorage airport to offer their help. To their amazement, they were rebuffed and told to go home with their equipment. The Exxon Valdez became the biggest oil spill disaster in U.S. history–until the BP Gulf spill.

The Greening of the church: When Ecology Replaces Theology

In the post-christian age, the Church no longer decides what’s moral and what isn’t.  Rather, it follows the social trends playing out in the secular world and jumps on that bandwagon.  That’s how a dying church stays “relevant” in a world where it has become all but obsolete.  It does not challenge the secular world and offer an alternative, but rather affirms the secular world.  The problem is folks don’t need to join a church in order to believe in gay marriage, global warming, or whatever else comes down the secular pike.  Both are offered in spades by the secular world, and Christianity’s eagerness to ditch traditional teaching in favor of secular progressive social norms further perpetuates its own obsolescence.  In the post-Christian era, the Church does not lead, it follows.

Is saving the earth what remains when liberal churches are no longer concerned for the salvation of souls? Have these churches replaced theology with ecology?

Frank Furedi is a British sociologist who teaches at the University of Kent. He is also a controversialist and a public intellectual. In a recent article published at Spike, Furedi suggests that some religious institutions are “busy reinventing themselves by promoting ecological virtues and preaching against the eco-sins of polluters.” He offers a most interesting argument.

Furedi contends that a crisis of authority has shaken many churches, and that modern societies the have largely given up on saving traditional morality. In his words:

Sometime back in the 1980s, Western societies gave up on the project of rescuing ‘traditional values’ and morality. From time to time, conservative politicians and moral entrepreneurs have attempted to launch back-to-basics crusades promoting ‘family values’. However, their lack of popular appeal has only exposed society’s estrangement from these traditions. Indeed by the Eighties, even religious institutions found it difficult to uphold their own authority with conviction. Instead of influencing society many churches began to internalise the attitudes associated with the lifestyles of their increasingly individualised consumerist flock. The last quarter century has seen a steady diminishing of religious authority in Western societies. Debates about the role of women priests, homosexuality and marriage indicated that religious institutions have become confused about their own relationship to traditional values.

Furedi suggests that these churches are now seeking to find a new platform in order to assert a new claim to authority within the culture. This new platform appears to be ecology and the goal of saving the earth.  His argument is compelling:

In recent years, some in the church have sought to gain the public’s ear through the greening of traditional doctrines, and Christ the Saviour is fast becoming Christ the environmental activist. Western society is continually in search of rituals and symbols through which moral probity can be affirmed. It appears that, for many church leaders, the project of saving the planet offers more opportunities for reconstituting rituals and symbols than the saving of souls.

It is not just the odd priest offering absolution through the ritual of eco-confession. Church leaders have embraced the rituals of eco-morality to demonstrate their commitment to a higher good. Absolution through carbon offsets appears to be the way forward.

An observer of church life today, especially within the shrinking domain of liberal Protestantism, will find plenty of evidence for Furedi’s hypothesis. Ecological concerns appear to serve as a replacement for abandoned doctrines and outdated concerns — such as evangelism. Furedi finds plenty of support for his argument within contemporary Roman Catholicism, but here is his analysis of the situation within the Church of England:

In 2006, the Church of England launched an eco-crusade entitled ‘Shrinking the Footprint’. The Archbishop of Canterbury complained that ‘early modern religion contributed to the idea that the fate of nature is for it to be bossed around by a detached sovereign will, whether divine or human’. It seems possible that those misguided early modern religionists received that idea from the Book of Genesis, where God gives Man dominion ‘over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth’.  Now the head of the Anglican church protests about nature being ‘bossed around’ not only by Man, but by God. This year, the Church of England launched a booklet of green tips for the faithful entitled How Many Christians Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb? Its eco-commandments include: share cars on the road to church, use virtuous low-energy lightbulbs but cast out junk mail, and do not flush the loo at night.

So is Christ the Savior fast becoming Christ the environmental activist?  Furedi’s argument is both insightful and troubling. There can be no doubt that his argument is true with respect to many churches and denominations. And there is a clear warning here. When churches abandon or marginalize the central doctrines of the Christian faith, another religion soon takes its place. That religion might be a religion of therapy, social action, or ecology — or any number of other substitutes for the Gospel.

As Furedi explains, this particular temptation can be traced to “the powerful influence that environmentalism exercises over contemporary culture.” When churches lose confidence that they can speak to other issues in terms of right and wrong (sex, personal behavior, etc), environmentalism remains. In effect, it is the only socially acceptable form of moralism.

Read the rest.

June 30, 2010

Rachel Knows Best

Boy genius, Rachel Maddow, piles on the snark here:

June 25, 2010

Innately violent Rightwing Teabaggers Threaten Judge

Oh wait, not rightwing Teabaggers, I meant Leftwing environmentalists.  My bad.

Judge Faces Death Threats After BP Gulf Oil Drilling Moratorium Ruling

New Orleans–While many Americans undoubtedly agree with the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman to overturn the Obama administration’s moratorium on deep water drilling, not everyone is happy. In fact, the Judge is now receiving death threats in the aftermath of his bold ruling.

Last night, Feldman served as a celebrity judge at a cooking contest at a school gymnasium in Uptown New Orleans. Due to the threats, Feldman was accompanied by a federal marshal security team.

It is a sad indictment of our society today that a judge with such a sterling record of integrity and service to his country would be subject to such threats. Feldman was appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan in 1983. Today, he is in the eye of a political hurricane unlike anything he has ever experienced.

In issuing his ruling, Feldman said that the moratorium was faulty because there was no “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” While there is often debate about the merits of judicial decisions, seldom does the criticism focus on the integrity of the judge. Right after he issued the ruling, Feldman came under attack as a tool of the oil industry. Media outlets reporters noted that the Judge held stock in oil and gas companies and implied that his decision was based on his own personal financial considerations. Such a personal attack is unfair and completely unwarranted, especially for Feldman, a distinguished judge known for his commitment to the law and a jurist who has earned the praise of people throughout the legal community.

Much of the sensational reporting on Feldman’s investments was based on outdated information. The Judge was blasted for owning stock in Transocean, Ltd and Halliburton, two of the major companies involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Feldman owned those stocks in 2008; however, he sold those shares long before issuing his ruling this week. In fact, this updated information will be released in the next report on his stock holdings.

The attack was not based on facts, but it was a character assassination as a way to mitigate the influence of the scathing decision. If anyone should be questioned, it is the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar who disregarded the advice of his own scientific experts in declaring the deep water drilling moratorium. In the wake of the Judge’s ruling, Salazar said he would issue a “refined” moratorium, ask for a stay of the ruling and appeal the decision. Some legal experts predicted the preliminary injunction would lead the government to compromise on the moratorium. In fact, Salazar decided to be confrontational instead of working with business interests in Louisiana to find common ground.

Feldman is right on target with his ruling, which is why a constant stream of people thanked him last night for his decision. The final outcome remains in doubt, but Feldman exposed the faulty reasoning that the Obama administration used in banning deepwater drilling. The suspension of drilling in the 33 wells 500 feet or more below the surface could have a major impact on Louisiana’s economy. According to some estimates, the ban could cost the state of Louisiana 50,000 jobs or more. In a horrible economy, these are good paying jobs that no state can afford to lose.

Source

June 17, 2010

CNN: Obama speech too Smart for Stupid Electorate

The Lib Media has a narrative, and here’s how it works:  when Bush’s polls tanked, that was proof he was dumb, incompetent, out of touch, etc.  His unpopularity in the polls reflected positively on the American people who were depicted as rising above their simple-minded and innately boorish inner “Sarah Palin”.  Their anger at Republicans is always to the American people’s credit.  Fast forward to the present.  When Obama’s polls tank, the narrative suddenly changes, and this very same American public is now depicted as greedy, angry, etc., you get the picture.  A variation of this theme is the American public are stupid:

Language guru: Obama speech too ‘professorial’ for his target audience

(CNN)President Obama’s speech on the gulf oil disaster may have gone over the heads of many in his audience, according to an analysis of the 18-minute talk released Wednesday.

Tuesday night’s speech from the Oval Office of the White House was written to a 9.8 grade level, said Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language Monitor.  The Austin, Texas-based company analyzes and catalogues trends in word usage and word choice and their impact on culture.

Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence “added some difficulty for his target audience,” Payack said.

He singled out this sentence from Obama as unfortunate: “That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge — a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s secretary of energy.”

“A little less professorial, less academic and more ordinary,” Payack recommended. “That’s the type of phraseology that makes you (appear) aloof and out of touch.”

The monitor’s chief word analyst found these three sentences insensitive: “Already, this oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced. And unlike an earthquake or a hurricane, it is not a single event that does its damage in a matter of minutes or days. The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years.”

“You shouldn’t be saying that in Katrina land,” said Payack, referring to the 2005 hurricane that devastated the Gulf Coast. “New Orleans lost a third of its population; it’s still recovering.”

But he praised Obama’s phrase “oil began spewing” as active and graphic.

At a micro level, the average word in the speech contained 4.5 letters, a bit longer than is typical for the former constitutional law professor, Payack said.  Obama’s nearly 10th-grade-level rating was the highest of any of his major speeches and well above the Grade 7.4 of his 2008 “Yes, we can” victory speech, which many consider his best effort, Payack said.

“The scores indicate that this was not Obama at his best, especially when attempting to make an emotional connection to the American people,” he added.

Source

The people of which this study presumes to speak aren’t the people who set aside an hour of their lives to listen to Presidents bloviate at length from the Oval Office about national concerns.  Sorry, they aren’t.  These Americans tend to be engaged citizens who are informed and care about the world around them.  But to elitists of the media, if President Obama’s speech was poorly received by his audience, it’s not because he gave a political speech about a problem the American people quite accurately perceive is a technical one.  No, it couldn’t possibly be that.  Rather, it’s because they’re stupid!  They don’t know English, and must be appealed to emotionally.

The truth is, when the American people sat down in front of their TVs that night, they wanted to hear the President talk about solving the oil spill, not a speech about Obama’s green agenda for the second half of his term.  Never let a serious crisis go to waste!  The American people just want the damn hole plugged, and the beaches and Gulf coast livelihoods protected, not speeches about energy taxes and windmills.  That’s it!  That’s all they wanted that night.  When instead of technical solutions to the problem at hand, they got infantilizing “green” speeches more suited to a presidential CAMPAIGN than to a national crisis, they rightly perceived the government was powerless in the face of this disaster, and was basically just WINGING it.  That is why his speech bombed, and that, as far as I’m concerned, reflects extremely well on the American people.

June 11, 2010

The Madness of Prince Charles

Charles the Mad

Inbreeding has always been common among the royal families of Europe, and has been linked to such illnesses as hemophilia, reduced fertility and madness, among others.  Here Prince Charles demonstrates to his audience some of the dangers that characterize this misguided practice.

‘Follow the Islamic way to save the world,’ Prince Charles urges environmentalists

Prince Charles yesterday urged the world to follow Islamic ‘spiritual principles’ in order to protect the environment.  In an hour-long speech, the heir to the throne argued that man’s destruction of the world was contrary to the scriptures of all religions – but particularly those of Islam.

He said the current ‘division’ between man and nature had been caused not just by industrialisation, but also by our attitude to the environment – which goes against the grain of ‘sacred traditions’.

They are not impress...

Charles, who is a practising Christian and will become the head of the Church of England when he succeeds to the throne, spoke in depth about his own study of the Koran which, he said, tells its followers that there is ‘no separation between man and nature’ and says we must always live within our environment’s limits.

The prince was speaking to an audience of scholars at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies – which attempts to encourage a better understanding of the culture and civilisation of the religion.  His speech, merging religion with his other favourite subject, the environment, marked the 25th anniversary of the organisation, of which he is patron.

He added: ‘The inconvenient truth is that we share this planet with the rest of creation for a very good reason – and that is, we cannot exist on our own without the intricately balanced web of life around us.  ‘Islam has always taught this and to ignore that lesson is to default on our contract with creation.’

Source

Prince Charles is a disgrace, and follows virtually the entire multiculturalist European establishment in taking leave of his senses.

In are related matter, the mad Prince no longer wishes to be known as “Defender of the Faith”, as British monarchs have been known for centuries, but as “Defender of Faith.” It is a subtle but symbolic– and significant– shift to reflect the fact that Britain is becoming a post-christian, multicultural hell hole.  Thanks of course to our old friend, Gramsci. To him goes the praise.

The Prince of Wales, who is 60 today, is planning a symbolic change when he becomes King by taking the title Defender of Faith to reflect Britain’s multicultural society.

The move would mean the monarch, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, would no longer be known as Defender of the Faith for the first time since the reign of Henry VIII.

The Prince caused controversy within the Anglican church when he floated the idea several years ago of becoming Defender of the Faiths in an attempt to embrace the other religions in Britain.

Source

Vodpod videos no longer available.

May 28, 2010

Charles Krauthammer Plays the Oil Spill Blame Game…

… and he plays it rather well actually.

Here’s my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?

Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama’s tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we’ve had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

So we go deep, ultra deep – to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That’s a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?

Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they’ve escaped any mention at all.

And he’s just getting started.  Read the rest.

May 7, 2010

“Environmentalism the Highest Religion”

Gaia: new age deity

Lefties admit the Global warming movement is a replacement religion.  From the Daily Kos:

In so far as all morality is fundamentally based on preservation, betterment and continuation of life, there is no higher morality than environmentalism.

All religions pale in comparison.

Morality, when associated with religion, is limited and parochial.  It is primarily focused on preservation, betterment and continuation of humans, but not all humans, only those following a particular belief system.

Even when it pretends to extend beyond that parochial realm – for example, “Love thy neighbor” and “Thou shalt not kill”, religious morality is limited to human life.

Environmentalism, on the other hand, encompasses preservation, betterment and continuation of all life, and, therefore, is the highest level of morality.

It being the highest morality, it is not a surprise that the vast majority of Republicans oppose and mock environmentalism.

This helps explain the Left’s hostility to Christianity.  He forgot to add that most religions/morality give people a choice, while modern environmentalism is determined to shove itself down everybody’s throats.

Any comments, responses, thoughts?  Is morality really about “the continuation of life?  I suppose that would be a utilitarian/evolutionary way of looking at things in a universe without a god.  Does that also apply to the unborn?  Or just to non-human life.  The fact is, if the environmentalist eats, then he kills.  Period.  The only issue is what, and how much does he eat and kill to survive.  While the Environmentalist’s promotion of a stripped-down lifestyle is a laudable one, as a “morality” it is woefully incomplete.  It says nothing about 99.99% of the human experience unrelated to the environment.  The Bible, however, also commands us to be good stewards of the Earth.  The fact that we aren’t isn’t a reflection on the religion, but on those who neglect that religion. Just as Al Gore neglects his, by the way.  He just bought a 9 million dollar villa next to the very ocean he claims is rising.  Way to “strip down”, Al Gore.  It’s safe to say the vast majority of Bible believers live far more simple and stripped down lives than he does.   The truth is modern environmentalism is just rehashed paganism; the latest incarnation of the Forest Religions of old.  It worships trees and hates the humanity that uses those trees.  Here, the most devout of the cultists pray to the forest:

April 21, 2010

Leftwing-Jihadi Convergence: Global Warming Edition

Iranian Cleric: Promiscuous Women Are to Blame for Earthquakes

BEIRUT — A senior Iranian cleric says women who wear revealing clothing and behave promiscuously are to blame for earthquakes. Iran is one of the world’s most earthquake-prone countries, and the cleric’s unusual explanation for why the earth shakes follows a prediction by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that a quake is certain to hit Tehran and that many of its 12 million inhabitants should relocate.

“Many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media.  Women in the Islamic Republic are required by law to cover from head to toe, but many, especially the young, ignore some of the more strict codes and wear tight coats and scarves pulled back that show much of the hair.

Women in the Islamic Republic are required by law to cover from head to toe, but many, especially the young, ignore some of the more strict codes and wear tight coats and scarves pulled back that show much of the hair.

[…]

Study: Earthquakes More Energetic Because Of Global Warming

(AP) New research compiled by Australian scientist Dr. Tom Chalko shows that global seismic activity on Earth is now five times more energetic than it was just 20 years ago.  The research proves that destructive ability of earthquakes on Earth increases alarmingly fast and that this trend is set to continue, unless the problem of “global warming” is comprehensively and urgently addressed.

Dr. Chalko said that global seismic activity was increasing faster than any other global warming indicator on Earth and that this increase is extremely alarming.

“The most serious environmental danger we face on Earth may not be climate change, but rapidly and systematically increasing seismic, tectonic and volcanic activity,” said Dr. Chalko.  “Increase in the annual energy of earthquakes is the strongest symptom yet of planetary overheating.

[…]

April 16, 2010

Politicized Science for a Politicized Age

Good news from The Lancet about the drop in maternal mortality rates around the world.  But not everybody is as thilled about it as you’d think.

(New York Times) For the first time in decades, researchers are reporting a significant drop worldwide in the number of women dying each year from pregnancy and childbirth, to about 342,900 in 2008 from 526,300 in 1980.  The findings, published in the medical journal The Lancet, challenge the prevailing view of maternal mortality as an intractable problem that has defied every effort to solve it.

“The overall message, for the first time in a generation, is one of persistent and welcome progress,” the journal’s editor, Dr. Richard Horton, wrote in a comment accompanying the article, published online on Monday.  The study cited a number of reasons for the improvement: lower pregnancy rates in some countries; higher income, which improves nutrition and access to health care; more education for women; and the increasing availability of “skilled attendants” — people with some medical training — to help women give birth. Improvements in large countries like India and China helped to drive down the overall death rates.

But some advocates for women’s health tried to pressure The Lancet into delaying publication of the new findings, fearing that good news would detract from the urgency of their cause, Dr. Horton said in a telephone interview.

“I think this is one of those instances when science and advocacy can conflict,” he said.

Dr. Horton said the advocates, whom he declined to name, wanted the new information held and released only after certain meetings about maternal and child health had already taken place.

“People who have spent many years committed to the issue of maternal health were understandably worried that these figures could divert attention from an issue that they care passionately about,” Dr. Horton said. “But my feeling is that they are misguided in their view that this would be damaging. My view is that actually these numbers help their cause, not hinder it.”

[…]

Sound familiar?  If it does, that’s because this kind of agenda-driven science is precisely how climate science is treated– as a public relations campaign, instead of a quest for knowledge.

Activistas ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS receive good news as if it were bad news, whether it be maternal mortality, climate science, race relations, etc., you name it, good news is bad news.  That’s because bad news keeps them in the riches, while good news puts them out of business.  And nobody wants to go out of business (CCHQ, on the other hand, cannot wait to go out of business).

Kudos to The Lancet for refusing to bow to the advocates, and shame on the state of climate science which has.

Via Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog

March 30, 2010

IPCC Scientist Now predicts 30 Years COOLING

He’s an “IPCC” scientist, so it must be true!  More global warming news you absolutely will not find in the New York Times.  After all, Obama’s got an energy bill to pass.

“The weather we’ve seen this winter marks the beginning of a mini Ice Age.”

The science is now settled!

March 25, 2010

Victory For Science: London museum abandons efforts to promote global warming

Here's to science!

You wouldn’t know this if all you’re going by is the American mainstream media, but the global warming house of cards is falling faster than Al Gore’s carbon trading stocks in a mini ice age.

Public scepticism prompts Science Museum to rename climate exhibition: Now ‘acknowledges that there are legitimate doubts’

The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.  The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the public’s reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.

The museum is abandoning its previous practice of trying to persuade visitors of the dangers of global warming. It is instead adopting a neutral position, acknowledging that there are legitimate doubts about the impact of man-made emissions on the climate.

Even the title of the £4 million gallery has been changed to reflect the museum’s more circumspect approach. The museum had intended to call it the Climate Change Gallery, but has decided to change this to Climate Science Gallery to avoid being accused of presuming that emissions would change the temperature.

Last October the museum launched a temporary exhibition called “Prove It! All the evidence you need to believe in climate change”. The museum said at the time that the exhibition had been designed to demonstrate “through scientific evidence that climate change is real and requires an urgent solution”.

Chris Rapley, the museum’s director, told The Times that it was taking a different approach after observing how the climate debate had been affected by leaked e-mails and overstatements of the dangers of global warming. He said: “We have come to realise, given the way this subject has become so polarised over the past three to four months, that we need to be respectful and welcoming of all views on it.”

Professor Rapley said that the gallery, which is to open in November before the climate summit in Cancun, Mexico, would refrain from scaring visitors with apocalyptic predictions of rising sea levels and would be honest about the conflicting views on the scale of possible changes to the climate.

[…]

Meanwhile, mum in the U.S. media about such things because President Obama still has a global warming energy tax to weigh down our economy with.

Honey Bees Colony Collapse

While Al Gore has wasted literally BILLIONS of our tax dollars and years of our time on his global warming scam, this is the kind of environmental degradation that scares the crap out of me.  Without honey bees we are looking at a total collapse of our ecosystem and food supply:

MERCED, Calif. – The mysterious 4-year-old crisis of disappearing honeybees is deepening. A quick federal survey indicates a heavy bee die-off this winter, while a new study shows honeybees’ pollen and hives laden with pesticides.

Two federal agencies along with regulators in California and Canada are scrambling to figure out what is behind this relatively recent threat, ordering new research on pesticides used in fields and orchards. Federal courts are even weighing in this month, ruling that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency overlooked a requirement when allowing a pesticide on the market.

Scientists are concerned because of the vital role bees play in our food supply. About one-third of the human diet is from plants that require pollination from honeybees, which means everything from apples to zucchini.

Bees have been declining over decades from various causes. But in 2006 a new concern, “colony collapse disorder,” was blamed for large, inexplicable die-offs. The disorder, which causes adult bees to abandon their hives and fly off to die, is likely a combination of many causes, including parasites, viruses, bacteria, poor nutrition and pesticides, experts say.

“It’s just gotten so much worse in the past four years,” said Jeff Pettis, research leader of the Department of Agriculture’s Bee Research Laboratory in Beltsville, Md. “We’re just not keeping bees alive that long.”

Among all the stresses to bee health, it’s the pesticides that are attracting scrutiny now. A study published Friday in the scientific journal PLOS (Public Library of Science) One found about three out of five pollen and wax samples from 23 states had at least one systemic pesticide — a chemical designed to spread throughout all parts of a plant.

Berenbaum’s research shows pesticides are not the only problem. She said multiple viruses also are attacking the bees, making it tough to propose a single solution.

[…]

Scary.  This is real environmentalism.  The kind that gets no play thanks to Al Gore.

March 15, 2010

Global Warming link to hurricanes falls flat

Hurricane link to global warming in doubt

The “settled science” of global warming becomes more unsettled by the day.

Research by hurricane scientists may force the UN’s climate panel to reconsider its claims that greenhouse gas emissions have caused an increase in the number of tropical storms. The benchmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that a worldwide increase in hurricane-force storms since 1970 was probably linked to global warming.

It followed some of the most damaging storms in history such as Hurricane Katrina, which hit New Orleans and Hurricane Dennis which hit Cuba, both in 2005.  The IPCC added that humanity could expect a big increase in such storms over the 21st century unless greenhouse gas emissions were controlled.

However, the latest research, just published in Nature Geoscience, paints a very different picture.  It suggests that the rise in hurricane frequency since 1995 was just part of a natural cycle, and that several similar previous increases have been recorded, each followed by a decline. Looking to the future, it also draws on computer modelling to predict that the most likely impact of global warming will be to decrease the frequency of tropical storms, by up to 34% by 2100.

“We have come to substantially different conclusions from the IPCC,” said Chris Landsea, a lead scientist at the American government’s National Hurricane Center, who co-authored the report.  He added: ”There are a lot of legitimate concerns about climate change but, in my opinion, hurricanes are not among them. We are looking at a decrease in frequency and a small increase in severity.” Landsea said he regarded the use of hurricane icons on the cover of Gore’s book as “misleading”.

[…]

So much for “consensus.”

This one will not make the U.S. media either because, as I have noted on numerous occasions, Barack Obama still has a global warming energy bill to pass and it’s the MSM’s job to carry his water.

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.