Altered (downgraded) lifestyles, higher taxes, higher energy costs, general inflation, erosion of wealth, greater government control over personal lives, expanded bureaucracy, destruction of growth opportunities in both developed and developing nations, world government, stonings, protection taxes and burkas... those are some of the things that may happen if the warmalarmists have their way. OK, those last three aren't about Global Warming, they're about Global Islam, but both "advocates" want world government, and of the two, Islam is less scary to me. But did you catch the part where I said, "may?" That's the same term, among others like "could " and "if," the alarmists use to couch their warnings. Except that the points I've listed are more believable, more possible... and closer to becoming real than is catastrophic warming. Sunday night, I set my machine to record Chuck on Monday evening on NBC (8pm EST, 7pm Central, repeated this Saturday at 9pm EST, 8pm Central), and on Monday morning, I happened to notice that the recorder was on. At first I thought I'd forgotten to turn it off, but then I realized the record indicator was lit. So I turned on the TV to see what I was getting, and... Oh... my... GOD! There was the already and yet increasingly hideous Al Gore, emboldened by awards and accolades to strive for new heights of pontification, talking about the "consensus" and how dire our prospects are if we don't do what he's telling us to do, you know the speech. And all of it is fueled not by facts, but by fear. It reminds me of that old Twilight Zone episode where the aliens create rumors that result in runaway paranoia that eventually turned neighbor against neighbor - not unlike the runaway paranoia about runaway warming is doing. So the idiot interviewer asked Gore about the credentialed John Christy, a leading critic of the warming hysteria, but when Gore labeled Christy an "outlier," it drew no follow-up questions. You may know Christy by the more familiar term we give people like him - whistleblower. And Gore is an "inliar." Coincidentally, I had read two recent columns, the writers of which had both mentioned Gore in proper context... as a dangerous jackass (my term). For the record, consensus means nothing, "peer reviewed" means nothing, there is no evidence that CO2 causes warming, there is no real world evidence of any imminent catastrophic warming, scientists widely disagree on the future increase in sea level (if any), there is no graph that shows a steep warming trend, and many of the hottest years (including the absolute hottest) have not been recent, rather they were in the the 1930s. Furthermore, all projections of warming are based on laboratory models which not only cannot accurately project the future, they don't even track to past temperature fluctuations, and temperature gathering itself is enormously imprecise. And man's impact on climate is not only insignificant to this point, but anything people might do to their "carbon footprint" would, at best, result in the tiniest dent in any temperature rise. No matter what anyone tells you to the contrary, no matter how loud, forceful and confident they are, those are the facts - and if you look closely, they have none of their own - none whatsoever. Now I've actually been aiding the warmalarmists by calling myself a skeptic - I'm not. Nor am I a denier - because there's nothing to deny. See, a denier is one who, in the face of real evidence and proof, refuses to accept the conclusion. And while I am a skeptic, it's in the same sense that I'm a skeptic about UFOs - I have no doubt they exist, it's just that from what we know about physics and the distances involved, it's not worth considering that any UFO is a ship from another planet... and if you do, you only encourage, empower, and embolden those who consider "the evidence" to be plenty good enough for them. Lastly, about that "carbon offsets" fraud I mentioned a week or two ago but didn't elaborate on. So they pay to plant trees that supposedly sucks up the carbon they heap on the environment with their private jets and other excesses of the rich and conscientious. Well, here's the problem: the trees they plant of saplings. They have to be since full-grown trees are already sucking other older carbon if you see what I'm saying? But these baby trees don't do anything much right now..Oh sure, in a couple decades there will be this giant sucking sound of CO2 leaving the atmosphere, but again, right this moment, it's all quiet on the western front - except for the sound of celebrity emissions, that is.
Political Science Has A Whole New Meaning Thanks To Warmalarmists
Whatever you think about the wonderful prospect of a warmer environment, there's no denying that elitists are trying use scare tactics to gain greater control over you and your money.
The fact that an actual judge has stated that Al Gore's exercise in self-agrandizement is riddled with errors should be enough to cause anyone to take a step back and demand that cooler heads prevail
Here's an article that puts matters in good perspective.
"Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, put a positive spin on Judge Burton's ruling: 'Of the thousands of facts, the judge seemingly took issue with only a handful,' she said."
]]>You'll recall a British judge ordered the film must be accompanied by opposing views when shown to students and he cited nine scientific errors in the movie... Now former adviser to Margaret Thatcher — Christopher Monckton — has published a 21-page rebuttal to the Gore response. He says there are actually 35 errors or exaggerations in the film and he points out the British judge did in fact use the word "errors" throughout his ruling.
As for the contention that the movie contains thousands of facts, Monckton points out that even if the 93-minute film had just 2,000 facts they would have had to be recited at a rate of one every three seconds.
I just saw John Stossel's segment of 20/20 on the global warming debate.
Yes - I said DEBATE.
Not only is there no consensus, those who believe the Earth is warming have no particular standing - of even facts on their side. Gore's movie lecture is an unmitigated fraud, and the IPCC is, as one reputable (because he doesn't support the warming theory) scientist calls it the "inter-governmental panel on climate change." In other wards, not only are they bought and paid for by government entities, but the scientists who oppose the "theory" are not paid by anybody.
In addition, the good guys have been threated - even physically, and one scientist had to sue to get his name removed from the report that bore his name - which he hadn't consented to. The report, that is.
So as far as I'm concerned, the debate IS over. You can believe what you want, just don't bring your nonsense here without some hard evidence, because your opinion is not only not as good as mine, it's baseless.
And if someone does think he has some convincing evidence, in order to present it, I first want to hear what you think will be the benefits of global warming. Fair enough?
Stossel says, "Gimme a break!"
I say, "Put your warming theories where the sun don't shine."
]]>Amid the breathless speculation comes this quote from James Taranto:
"If Gore really believes in global warmism, he couldn't possibly want to be president, a job that would require him to spend most of his time dealing with more important matters."
]]>
Reading today's headlines (just on Drudge alone), you'd think there was a big breakthrough both in proving the seriousness of global warming and in galvanizing people to action. And in a sense that's true. I know that I'm taking it more seriously from now on, and I'm also going to act a lot sooner and with a lot more passion in cutting these morons off at the knees. Let me be perfectly clear: if you think that global warming is an imminent threat to our very existence you need to be euthanized. And to you lesser alarmists, fair warning... don't bring your nonsense here anymore, or if you do, you'd better be able to argue beyond your opening claims and have sensible answers to objections you encounter. Don't worry, I'll do my part to make it clear what it is you need to answer before going any further. I mean, I'm just sure everyone agrees that I've been too nice for too long, and if it's any consolation, I'm angrier at myself than at any of you absolute fools. Meanwhile, here's one of the easiest to understand columns on what's wrong with the warmorons' argument that I've read in a long time - so simple, even a caveman can do it* * Has not been tested on warming wackos.
The title is not a typo, at least not mine... it is, in fact, the headline in today's Arizona Republic online (catch it while you can), and it's so apropos that I decided it was way better than the one I was going to use: Gore Wins Best Leftist Award.
Another I rejected was: The Bright Side Of Global Warming. I mean, sure warming may be catastrophic if the warmalarmists' scenario is true, but on the other hand, there will be a lot more flowers.
So what do you think happened to Erik? Didn't I treat him better than I have all other liberals - combined? I'm sure Erik would say that he saw no reason to continue because I wasn't being reasonable, but in fact, I indulged him far more than I normally would when someone is wedded to ideology and can't argue beyond his talking points.
There was another guy in another venue whom I used to let run on . His name was Hal, and I did it because he was very polite and because I always liked to see where he was going and how quickly it would turn to absolute nonsense.
That's why I'm a bit disappointed about Erik... he was apparently disciplined enough to stop before redundancy degenerated into ridiculous... he probably learned from prior experience. But that alone makes him better than your average lefty.
One last thing about "global warming," have you noticed how similar it is in regard to the Iraq war? No? Then consider that at no time were we ever being defeated in Iraq, but liberals said we were, and they would have literally brought it about... if we bought their scenario.
]]>I've had it. On the one hand, you've got the mainstream far left media, and on the other you've got Fox - in the middle, if ever so slightly right of center. As a result, we're inundated with leftist propaganda, lies, conspiracy theories, and other assorted and sundry distortions, and Fox is trying to give them all a fair hearing.
Because of the "fair and balanced" credo, unionists, Democrats, Gorebalarmists, American Muslims, atheists, and the like are treated as if they were human simply because they are capable of speech. So are parrots, and I've yet to see one on Fox, and they make more sense than the above.
Just today there was a guy on Neil Cavuto's show deriding Walmart for the company's allegedly failing to provide healthcare for 46% of its employees. Never mind the question about why in hell are employers expected to provide healthcare benefits in America. In fact, it should be illegal. But the bigger point is the 46%. Walmart doesn't dispute the figure. That's because so many people get their policies through spouses, for example.
But this wasn't even about healthcare in the overall, it's about unionizing Walmart. See, you manufacture an issue, put it in the worst light possible, and then tell people how you can save them from the agony of disease - even if you do that with a bigger disease - unions, but you don't tell them that.
So here's David Asman sitting in for Cavuto, and he does, in fact, bring up the negatives and the hypocrisy and the deceit, but that doesn't deter union guy, of course, whose job is to ignore facts and stay on message. And what then is a good assman to do?
Well, you could throw the pig out of the studio? But then there goes "fair and balanced." Fox seems to feel that if a particular position has more than a dozen or so advocates, it deserves a fair hearing. So Asman makes his points, Union Jack makes his, and never the twain shall meet.
But it's all very cordial: There's the dig with a smile from Davey, followed by "outrage lite," but in the end, it's all "you've got your troubles, I've got mine," and Satan is told what a brave and stand-up guy he is for being willing to take the heat.
Now, Fox obviously provides a service. I mean, without them, we wouldn't even get a counter argument to positions advocated by the aforementioned scum, except that this dovetails nicely with my criticism of the Republican candidates appearing on Ms. NBC.
On the one hand, the candidates quintuple the audience of America's Most Miserable News Network, and on the other, America's most widely watched news net showcases a liar with an agenda that's bad for the country and innately rotten.
But thanks to everyone for having the courage to come on... Yep, I guess that is the very definition of fair and balanced.
All this proves that Fox doesn't care about you or me - or the environment. I mean all Ms. NBC does for its viewers is cause them to froth. Fox raises your risk of stroke and makes you way hotter than global warming ever could.
So "F" Fair And Balanced... I mean if I were grading it....
]]>Hey loony lefties, what's the ideal temperature? I mean we keep hearing about global warming and how awful it will be, so I wanna know, what thermometer reading is ideal?
Do I sound foolish? Well, that's how you sound to me.
Actually, I'm being charitable. you sound moronic to me, and if I sound the same to you, it's because I'm trying to relate to you on your level.
So how thick should a glacier be?
OK, OK, I know there are no answers to those two questions. I mean if there were, you'd have already embraced my ideas for global air conditioning, a pollution pipeline to space, and dry ice for Greenland.
But now perhaps you can at least answer a general question:
Is the planet already too hot?
Is it right for me to assume that while you don't know what the exact temperature should be, it should be colder than it is now?
The reason I'm asking is that I hate the status quo unless the current quo is perfect. So is the present climate just about right? Or do you want more skiing of the snow variety and less of the water variety?
Because, myself, I'd kinda like to see what a warmer planet brings. That's right, I wanna to stamp out frostbite in my lifetime! I wanna make polar bear grooming a growing entrepreneurial opportunity. I wanna see a Club Med in Anchorage - assuming there still is an Anchorage. Otherwise, I'd like to see a Club Med in Nome.
I want citrus in Calgary and palms in Point Barrow! Can't you just imagine Club Med with a midnight sun? Would that foster or hinder romance, I wanna find out!?!
Where's your spirit of adventure? Don't you wanna go where no man has ever gone before - right here on Earth? Or are you worried about water engulfing the planet?
Because that seems like the crux of the matter, doesn't it? "I can take the heat, but it's the humidity - as in rising water levels?" So then what if we could have a warmer planet without rising sea levels, wouldn't that be loverly?
I really think warmer is better, and I bet you'd agree if I could get you alone. It's like, I moved from Cleveland to Phoenix for God's sake, actually for my own sake, but that's like one extreme to another, and look how well I'm handling it?!?
So instead of mandating carbon reductions, why don't we just legislate sea levels? Do you think that would be harder than an order of barbecued chicken, hold the carbon?
Well, consider that they say the deserts are growing, and that right here in your own West, there's a water shortage. What about massive irrigation and desalination projects? What, the Romans could do it but we can't?
"Won't work," you say, "Because all water would eventually find it's way back to the oceans." Well then, if we have hundreds of millions of gallons of oil in a strategic reserve, how about a strategic water reserve? And maybe we send loads into space with each shuttle launch? How about we build another pipeline into space alongside my pollution one and pump excess water right outa here? I mean, we could locate one at each pole, but wouldn't it be great if they were the new Freedom Towers in Manhattan?
Otherwise, everyone of you believers in the religion of global warming had ought to be taking a cue from Crow & Co. right now. Er... maybe that's not the best example... how about following Al Gore's lead then? OK, again, maybe not. But it's not good enough on this issue to say that you'll start doing your part when everyone else does theirs.
This just in...
New earth-like planet found! Liberals are delighted. "Imagine" will be its constitution. And remember my question sometime back about what happens when Jesus returns and nobody's home? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that there's anything in the Bible that requires us to leave a forwarding address?
Global Warming is like Old Man River... despite climate models not working, it just keeps rolling. Despite Gore's discredited propaganda film, it just keeps rolling. Despite people like Cheryl Crow's naive and inane babbling, it just keeps rolling. It just keeps rolling along.
Meanwhile, what a coincidence - Spinal Tap, a fake band that many believe is a real band is reuniting to help save the planet from a fake problem that many believe is a real problem - global warming. So I'm starting a new pool: how long will it be before the group reunites for an Stop Godzilla Before He Multiplies concert?
On a serious note, Glenn Beck takes on the Gorebalarmists tomorrow, Wednesday, May 2.
]]>
If you've ever subjected yourself to the chore of reading some of my commentary, you're a better man than I. On the other hand, you don't have to cope with my thoughts, so I think we're even. And you know how I feel about President Bush and conservatives, but you may not fully grasp my regard (really lack of same) for liberals. I mean, I know I say things like "they're more dangerous than jihadists," but that doesn't exactly convey my true sentiments. See, we understand that you can't negotiate with jihadists, you have to kill 'em. Now no, I'm not advocating the wanton slaughter of liberals, I'm advocating a carefully targeted euthanasia or even more preferable, designed disease. Or simply do some gene therapy (no, not the Kiss guy) on their asses. Maybe give liberal women blonde hair and big breasts, and make liberal men less gay and more football addicted. Although aren't most liberal women already top-heavy blondes? I'll leave it to the scientists since... Didn't most mad scientists used to be conservative before all this environment and warming nonsense? This one issue could help regain their primacy, and it would do a lot for the environmental-warmers at the same time if you consider that doing it TO them is also doing it FOR them. Think about it, I've got time. Say what I will about Republicans, they understand that it's better for three thousand of our guys die over a period of years while at the same time killing many more thousands of their guys than it is for three thousand of our guys to die en masse at the office while only a super-baker's dozen of theirs perish at the same time. If you're still with me, you're probably wondering what prompted this, and it's actually two specific headlines I read in which the stories that followed were superfluous. The first headline was yesterday: "Bush Success vs. al Qaeda Breeds Long-Term Worries." The second was this morning: "No more GWOT, House committee decrees." I confess that at first I thought GWOT was some sort of hallucinogen proprietary to the ruling class, but as I read I see that the House Armed Services Committee has outlawed the phrase, "global war on terror," though I'm certain it's not the work of the entire committee. Whether due to shortsightedness or political correctness, it's indicative of America approaching the end of its reign atop the world heap. And all you and I are doing is what we're always doing, wringing our hands at each new signpost. Speaking of which, the first headline I cited leads into a story about how we've been so successful at stymieing al Qaeda, that we've actually brought ourselves closer to more devastation: "we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the United States than at any point since 9/11," the article's idiot byte said. I immediately thought of these weather imbeciles who are saying again that this hurricane season will be more active than usual. Since we can't eliminate hurricanes, sooner or later, these fools will be right, but we can continue to thwart al Qaeda. However, since they are ceaselessly trying to destroy us, unless and until we eliminate the last one, there is always the possibility of another attack on our soil. And since time, by it's very nature, adds a new day almost every day, we are absolutely closer to another attack than at any time since the towers fell, and tomorrow, we'll probably be closer still. Even more amazingly, Baghdad is closer now than it was even just moments ago to another suicide bombing. A month back, I got into an argument with Miami John, MiJo, who so typifies what were dealing with that for one brief hideous moment, this very blog became a microcosm of our entire society. John was not unintelligent. He was in fact just the opposite, possibly too smart for his own good, because he couldn't see the conclusion for the premises (that's logic talk for "the forest for the trees). John didn't want to begin at the beginning, and he wanted his version of reality to be the official version. It took me a bit to realize this because he's rather good at what he does, and he's no doubt been bolstered by "successes" in liberal circles. But my experience with John differed significantly from those I have with people arguing religious beliefs who can be infinitely less rational than John - my feeling is that religious advocates mean well, whereas John just wanted what he wanted regardless of consequences. So John got all upset when I wouldn't "debate" him, and he naturally argued that it was because I couldn't. And he was right; you can't debate someone who has already formed his own immutable conclusions. Where I may differ from the William F. Buckleys of this world though is that rather than just admit we can't continue a discussion, I enjoy name-calling and ridiculing, under my All Insults All The Time program. But John did prove something - he proved that anyone, regardless of his level of intelligence, can be an idiot. And no doubt John feels the same about me - or worse. So what's the point? With the world getting dumber and dumber in the reasoning department as evidenced by those headlines I cited, not to mention that Rosie O'Donnell not only still has a prominent network job, but she can actually get applause for her comments and even go out in public without fear of being torn limb from limb... well... I don't know what you think, but I know that you're not going to win a debate with liberals, and I know that were closer now to our demise than we were at any time since 9/11. In fact, liberals use your belief in freedom of speech to undermine you - in the media, in schools, in government, and even on blogs. They are quite bold about it and each success emboldens them even more. You see what I'm sayin'? It's like my friend Mz. Simpson says, "In other words, believe their threats." God be with you... And with your ammunition.
Al may have his talking points down pat when it comes to Gorebal Warming, but "just" 36% of people think he knows what he's talking about according to a new Rasmussen poll. We don't know how many in the 36% have below average IQs, but the poll does say that two thirds of them are women.
Conversely, 31% say Gore doesn't know what he's talking about (the correct answer) and two thirds of THEM are MEN!
Which raises the question: is it any wonder marriage rates are falling?
I mean, men want a wife who's the voice of reason because we don't know the meaning of the word. We don't want someone who's a bigger idiot than we are.
Meanwhile, if you missed it, you should know that countries and business are gearing up to take advantage of the benefits of global warming. That's right, BENEFITS!
They think new Arctic sea routes will greaten shorten shipping times, and the melting ice that Gore hates will allow for access to oil, fish, diamonds and minerals that have been heretofore unreachable.
So what we're already starting to see is that most of the dire predictions (if not all of them) are overblown at best, and the benefits of a warmer planet so outweigh the bad that it just could result in the biggest boon ever for mankind, despite the possibility that some ski resorts might need to be relocated higher and... um... norther.
And whatever the problem, the free market, not government, is far more likely to solve it.
Meanwhile, Gore is living proof that the biggest problem with freedom of speech is that it seems to benefit idiots far more than rational, sensible, practical people.
And mama, don't let your daughters grow up to be kowtowgirls...
]]>