Not likely. The current forecast says 1-3 inches tonight.
1-3 inches tomorrow (Thursday daytime)
1-3 inches Thursday night
Additional snow on Friday.
I wish.
I wish. I'd LOVE another foot.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Overheard on Bob Brinker's "Money Talk"
... that the Treasury Department is talking about (at this point, that's all this is ... talk) converting money from IRA and 401(k)'s into treasury annuities. They take all your money (again, this is just talk at this point, but they have opened the 'discussion' to take public comments) and then send you a monthly cheque.
Mr Brinker called this (correctly, in my opinion) 'confiscation.' Confiscation of all the money that you worked hard for, sweated for, perhaps bled for. Remember, all the money that you put into those accounts to take care of yourself in your older years and those in your family? Yeah, all that money. All that money (if this bone-headed plan goes through) won't be yours anymore, it'll be the government's.
Let's face it, these types of accounts have literally trillions of dollars in them. Trillions.
Do you honestly think the government would use that money to pay down the debt? Do you honestly think the government would use that money to pay for already-existing programs?
Please.
You and I both know they'd find new ways to spend this money ... new programs.
Here's the worst part of this: this wouldn't be an option, this would be mandatory. Mandatory; you'd have no say and no choice.
The sad fact is that Mr Brinker is right: there are two parties in this country when it comes to social issues, but there is only one party when it comes to financial issues.
And that is sad.
UPDATE:
Mr Brinker said this had made it into the mainstream media (MSM) ... and here's the link: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-09/insurers-test-market-as-obama-opens-annuity-door-for-401-k-s.html
UPDATE 2: The link Mr Brinker mentioned. Read it and weep: http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2010/pi2010018_130737.htm
And a note to Mr Brinker: Do you know what the meaning of the word 'teabagger' is? Please don't call the Tea Party Activists 'Teabaggers.' I had to look the sexual meaning of 'teabagging' and 'teabagger' up. I didn't know. Do you?
Please do better.
Mr Brinker called this (correctly, in my opinion) 'confiscation.' Confiscation of all the money that you worked hard for, sweated for, perhaps bled for. Remember, all the money that you put into those accounts to take care of yourself in your older years and those in your family? Yeah, all that money. All that money (if this bone-headed plan goes through) won't be yours anymore, it'll be the government's.
Let's face it, these types of accounts have literally trillions of dollars in them. Trillions.
Do you honestly think the government would use that money to pay down the debt? Do you honestly think the government would use that money to pay for already-existing programs?
Please.
You and I both know they'd find new ways to spend this money ... new programs.
Here's the worst part of this: this wouldn't be an option, this would be mandatory. Mandatory; you'd have no say and no choice.
The sad fact is that Mr Brinker is right: there are two parties in this country when it comes to social issues, but there is only one party when it comes to financial issues.
And that is sad.
UPDATE:
Mr Brinker said this had made it into the mainstream media (MSM) ... and here's the link: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-09/insurers-test-market-as-obama-opens-annuity-door-for-401-k-s.html
UPDATE 2: The link Mr Brinker mentioned. Read it and weep: http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2010/pi2010018_130737.htm
And a note to Mr Brinker: Do you know what the meaning of the word 'teabagger' is? Please don't call the Tea Party Activists 'Teabaggers.' I had to look the sexual meaning of 'teabagging' and 'teabagger' up. I didn't know. Do you?
Please do better.
Monday, February 8, 2010
New Forecast
Tonight's and tomorrow's forecast calls for 8-12 inches of snow total by Wednesday night. However, the heavy accumulation should be over 70 miles north of here.
Personally, I'd love to get another foot.
But, and I could be "shooting myself in the foot again" but I don't think we'll get it. Five inches maybe. If we're lucky. (Personally, I'd love the foot.)
Personally, I'd love to get another foot.
But, and I could be "shooting myself in the foot again" but I don't think we'll get it. Five inches maybe. If we're lucky. (Personally, I'd love the foot.)
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Might We Get More Snow?
To believe the weather forecast, the answer is "quite possibly." As of this posting, Tuesday and Tuesday night say "snow likely" with "moderate snow accumulation" which is the same language that was used before they warned us of the foot of snow that we got.
Personally, I'd love another foot of snow. Like I said last time, BRING IT ON! They're not giving a total accumulation, however. But like I said, I'd love another foot of snow.
Granted, with my last "prediction" I was the one that failed ... and in rather spectacular fashion to boot. I wasn't just "off" I was way off. But - I don't know. I'd love more snow, but I don't know how much (if any) we'll get.
I've learned to be a skeptic. But I'd love another foot. Even 6-8 inches would be nice. :)
Personally, I'd love another foot of snow. Like I said last time, BRING IT ON! They're not giving a total accumulation, however. But like I said, I'd love another foot of snow.
Granted, with my last "prediction" I was the one that failed ... and in rather spectacular fashion to boot. I wasn't just "off" I was way off. But - I don't know. I'd love more snow, but I don't know how much (if any) we'll get.
I've learned to be a skeptic. But I'd love another foot. Even 6-8 inches would be nice. :)
Article: "I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones"
The link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece
" THE scientist at the centre of the “climategate” email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide. "
While I agree that the man should be reprimanded severely, he doesn't deserve the death threats he's getting. I think we can all agree that he shouldn't have crossed the line from scientist to advocate, but he doesn't deserve death threats. Duct taping his mouth shut and keeping him away from a keyboard, possibly.
" In emails that were hacked into and seized upon by global-warming sceptics before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, Jones appeared to call upon his colleagues to destroy scientific data rather than release it to people intent on discrediting their work monitoring climate change. " (emphasis added)
Another "oops."
" THE scientist at the centre of the “climategate” email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide. "
While I agree that the man should be reprimanded severely, he doesn't deserve the death threats he's getting. I think we can all agree that he shouldn't have crossed the line from scientist to advocate, but he doesn't deserve death threats. Duct taping his mouth shut and keeping him away from a keyboard, possibly.
" In emails that were hacked into and seized upon by global-warming sceptics before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, Jones appeared to call upon his colleagues to destroy scientific data rather than release it to people intent on discrediting their work monitoring climate change. " (emphasis added)
Another "oops."
Article: "The Great Global Warming Collapse"
The link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/
" But the claim [that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035] was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF [World Wildlife Fund] itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change. "
Let's distill that down: That now infamous shock claim was based on an anecdotal report, not on peer-reviewed science. The head of the IPCC (the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) shrugged it off as a one-time error, a "one-off."
" “The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.” " said Walter Russell Mead.
Does anybody else remember Alex Jones and others talking about the global carbon tax? The intrusion of UN rules into American politics?
It turns out that this wasn't just a "one-off."
" For example, it warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming because they are extremely susceptible to even modest decreases in rainfall. The sole source for that claim, reports The Sunday Times of London, was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. One scientist contacted by the Times, a specialist in tropical forest ecology, called the article “a mess.”
" Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri's own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits. "
" Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they're bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain's Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC. " (emphasis (and colour) added)
Oops.
So let's review: Several of the IPCC's "shock" claims are based not on peer-reviewed science but on anecdotal reports, some of which came from the WWF, which has a conflict of interest if ever there was one.
The claim about the rain forests was made by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. Another conflict of interest.
The leaked emails have shown that the global body kept contradictory evidence from being published, withheld information from skeptics, and made bad data appear to look better. All this from a body that was supposed to be based on rigorous scientific standards.
They look more like school-yard bullies.
" But the claim [that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035] was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF [World Wildlife Fund] itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change. "
Let's distill that down: That now infamous shock claim was based on an anecdotal report, not on peer-reviewed science. The head of the IPCC (the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) shrugged it off as a one-time error, a "one-off."
" “The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.” " said Walter Russell Mead.
Does anybody else remember Alex Jones and others talking about the global carbon tax? The intrusion of UN rules into American politics?
It turns out that this wasn't just a "one-off."
" For example, it warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming because they are extremely susceptible to even modest decreases in rainfall. The sole source for that claim, reports The Sunday Times of London, was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. One scientist contacted by the Times, a specialist in tropical forest ecology, called the article “a mess.”
" Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri's own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits. "
" Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they're bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain's Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC. " (emphasis (and colour) added)
Oops.
So let's review: Several of the IPCC's "shock" claims are based not on peer-reviewed science but on anecdotal reports, some of which came from the WWF, which has a conflict of interest if ever there was one.
The claim about the rain forests was made by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. Another conflict of interest.
The leaked emails have shown that the global body kept contradictory evidence from being published, withheld information from skeptics, and made bad data appear to look better. All this from a body that was supposed to be based on rigorous scientific standards.
They look more like school-yard bullies.
I Was Wrong About the Snowfall
I was. You'll recall a previous blog posting where I said we'd get an inch ... tops.
I was wrong.
I just got done using the snowblower to remove 12.5 inches of the white stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I still love snow. And, frankly, I'm tickled pink that we got it. This is one time I'm thrilled to be wrong.
The forecast now is calling for more snow Monday night, Tuesday, and Tuesday night. It says "Snow likely" but doesn't say anything about accumulation.
Personally, I'd love to get another 5-6 inches of snow. But that's just me.
I was wrong.
I just got done using the snowblower to remove 12.5 inches of the white stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I still love snow. And, frankly, I'm tickled pink that we got it. This is one time I'm thrilled to be wrong.
The forecast now is calling for more snow Monday night, Tuesday, and Tuesday night. It says "Snow likely" but doesn't say anything about accumulation.
Personally, I'd love to get another 5-6 inches of snow. But that's just me.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
What is an EMP and why should we care?
These are both good questions and both deserve good answers. Unfortunately, to correctly understand what an EMP is, you need to do a bit of reading. Links will be at the end of this posting.
What is an EMP?
EMP stands for Electro Magnetic Pulse (*1). It can be generated in a number of different ways, one is by a CME (Coronal Mass Ejection (*2)) from the sun, another is by the detonation of a nuclear weapon high in the Earth's atmosphere. A third way is by a Gamma Ray Burster (*3) that is within 8,000 light-years of the Earth and has its axis pointed at the Earth.
When a nuclear weapon is detonated it generates not only radiation, it also generates Gamma rays. This is a normal byproduct of such a detonation. But therein lies the problem.
Imagine the following scenario:
A Middle Eastern country attains both the knowledge and the money to build a nuclear weapon. These are then hidden aboard container ships bound for the United States. One arrives in Los Angeles, another in Baltimore, the third makes it into Detroit via the St. Lawrence Seaway.
The ones on the coasts get launched 200 miles into the Earth's atmosphere (and yes, a certain Middle Eastern country currently has this capability) where they detonate. The one in Detroit is also launched from the container ship.
At 200 miles, the Gamma rays create a disturbance known as the Compton Effect (*4). The effect is cumulative, sort of like a snowball being rolled and rolled until it's large enough to build the base of a snowman.
Everything that is electric gets fried. Resisters, capacitors, your computers, your car (pre-1965 vehicles might be OK but nothing past that date) everything electric gets fried.
That will, of course, bring down the power grid. Therein lies the other problem - our dependency on electricity.
You might think "OK...power's out for a while, no biggie. I've got a generator, fuel, and non-perishable foodstuffs, I'll be fine." Will you really? Exactly how long will your generator last on the fuel you've got ... and will it even work? Odds are, it might not.
Meanwhile, the food in your refrigerator spoils after several days, if your local water system is pump-fed you've got no water, and even then the wastewater treatment plant doesn't have electricity. (*5)
In 3 months, the United States is back in the Stone Age. 10% of her population is dead due to violence, the breakdown of law and order and diseases.
In one year, 90% of the U.S. population is dead. Those are the highlights. It gets much worse. (*6)
Our Government doesn't really seem to care about this threat; hell, they can't bring themselves to admit that Radical Jihadists want us dead. Remember the whitewash of the Pentagon's report on the Fort Hood mass-murder?
Instead of throwing massive amounts of money at the porkulus (aka the spendulus and the stimulus) or creating another entitlement program (Osama (er...OBAMA)Care) we should be using part of that money to harden our infrastructure. Try to get your Congressperson to admit to the problem - you'll be met with the 'deer in the headlights' look.
This really is a problem, a deadly serious problem that not many want to talk about. But it does exist and has the very real potential to kill 90% of the U.S. population after one year.
Links:
(*1) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-magnetic_pulse
a) Starfish Prime - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
b) Soviet Test #184 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_K_Project
c) http://www.onesecondafter.com/pb/wp_d10e87d9/wp_d10e87d9.html
(*2) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection
(*3) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_970508
b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_990123
c) WR-104 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WR_104 NOTE: WR-104 is within 16 degrees of axis with the Earth. If WR-104 did go off and if it did produce a GRB and if it were directly on axis, nothing on Earth would survive. Not even bacteria.
(*4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_effect
(*5) Discovery Channel Program "Perfect Disaster: Solar Storm"
a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_storm
b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
c) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm
(*6) Electromagnetic Pulse Attack - http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2009/11/27
a) Effects of Hiroshima - http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2010/01/30
What is an EMP?
EMP stands for Electro Magnetic Pulse (*1). It can be generated in a number of different ways, one is by a CME (Coronal Mass Ejection (*2)) from the sun, another is by the detonation of a nuclear weapon high in the Earth's atmosphere. A third way is by a Gamma Ray Burster (*3) that is within 8,000 light-years of the Earth and has its axis pointed at the Earth.
When a nuclear weapon is detonated it generates not only radiation, it also generates Gamma rays. This is a normal byproduct of such a detonation. But therein lies the problem.
Imagine the following scenario:
A Middle Eastern country attains both the knowledge and the money to build a nuclear weapon. These are then hidden aboard container ships bound for the United States. One arrives in Los Angeles, another in Baltimore, the third makes it into Detroit via the St. Lawrence Seaway.
The ones on the coasts get launched 200 miles into the Earth's atmosphere (and yes, a certain Middle Eastern country currently has this capability) where they detonate. The one in Detroit is also launched from the container ship.
At 200 miles, the Gamma rays create a disturbance known as the Compton Effect (*4). The effect is cumulative, sort of like a snowball being rolled and rolled until it's large enough to build the base of a snowman.
Everything that is electric gets fried. Resisters, capacitors, your computers, your car (pre-1965 vehicles might be OK but nothing past that date) everything electric gets fried.
That will, of course, bring down the power grid. Therein lies the other problem - our dependency on electricity.
You might think "OK...power's out for a while, no biggie. I've got a generator, fuel, and non-perishable foodstuffs, I'll be fine." Will you really? Exactly how long will your generator last on the fuel you've got ... and will it even work? Odds are, it might not.
Meanwhile, the food in your refrigerator spoils after several days, if your local water system is pump-fed you've got no water, and even then the wastewater treatment plant doesn't have electricity. (*5)
In 3 months, the United States is back in the Stone Age. 10% of her population is dead due to violence, the breakdown of law and order and diseases.
In one year, 90% of the U.S. population is dead. Those are the highlights. It gets much worse. (*6)
Our Government doesn't really seem to care about this threat; hell, they can't bring themselves to admit that Radical Jihadists want us dead. Remember the whitewash of the Pentagon's report on the Fort Hood mass-murder?
Instead of throwing massive amounts of money at the porkulus (aka the spendulus and the stimulus) or creating another entitlement program (Osama (er...OBAMA)Care) we should be using part of that money to harden our infrastructure. Try to get your Congressperson to admit to the problem - you'll be met with the 'deer in the headlights' look.
This really is a problem, a deadly serious problem that not many want to talk about. But it does exist and has the very real potential to kill 90% of the U.S. population after one year.
Links:
(*1) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-magnetic_pulse
a) Starfish Prime - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
b) Soviet Test #184 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_K_Project
c) http://www.onesecondafter.com/pb/wp_d10e87d9/wp_d10e87d9.html
(*2) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection
(*3) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_970508
b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_990123
c) WR-104 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WR_104 NOTE: WR-104 is within 16 degrees of axis with the Earth. If WR-104 did go off and if it did produce a GRB and if it were directly on axis, nothing on Earth would survive. Not even bacteria.
(*4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_effect
(*5) Discovery Channel Program "Perfect Disaster: Solar Storm"
a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_storm
b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
c) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm
(*6) Electromagnetic Pulse Attack - http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2009/11/27
a) Effects of Hiroshima - http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2010/01/30
Forecast: 5 - 7 inches of snow
...but only if you believe the Weather Service. Personally, I don't.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have snow. I'd be happy with a foot of snow, if not more. Two feet of snow? BRING IT ON!!
But, frankly, the Weather Service's forecasts for our area have been abysmal at best. They've been laughable at worst.
Granted, predicting how much snow is going to fall and where it's going to fall (and when) is a difficult science at the best of times. Frankly, we don't understand a great deal of what goes on in the upper atmosphere. The short-range forecasts are usually somewhat reliable (except for precipitation for our area which they always seem to miss (and usually in rather spectacular fashion)) in terms of temperature and for cloudiness.
But then we come to precipitation. The past few years when the weather service has said we're about to get blasted by snow, I've said: "Yeah, right. I'll believe it when I see it."
Out of fourteen times I've been wrong twice.
Twice. Lesse ... 2/14 = 0.14285714285714285714285714285714 or 14.29% of the time I've been wrong.
So this time when they're saying we'll get five inches of snow (in some places up to seven) I'm putting out ... before the storm strikes this time ... that we'll get two inches total. Tops. At best. My personal forecast? Some scattered snow showers with little if any accumulation. And this is through Sunday night.
Currently, they're saying snow Friday through Saturday morning. The last number of times they've given time frames they've been forced to push them back. For example, the last time they said Friday through Saturday morning, it became Saturday and Saturday night, then Sunday and then only a dusting of snow.
Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE two feet of snow. Heck, at this point I'd be happy with five inches.
But we won't get it.
I'd LOVE to get blasted by two feet of snow.
But it won't happen this time.
I'd LOVE to get hit with between five and seven inches of snow.
But we won't get that either. Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to be wrong and get blasted by a massive blizzard.
But odds are I'll be right again.
And it sucks, because I love snow.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have snow. I'd be happy with a foot of snow, if not more. Two feet of snow? BRING IT ON!!
But, frankly, the Weather Service's forecasts for our area have been abysmal at best. They've been laughable at worst.
Granted, predicting how much snow is going to fall and where it's going to fall (and when) is a difficult science at the best of times. Frankly, we don't understand a great deal of what goes on in the upper atmosphere. The short-range forecasts are usually somewhat reliable (except for precipitation for our area which they always seem to miss (and usually in rather spectacular fashion)) in terms of temperature and for cloudiness.
But then we come to precipitation. The past few years when the weather service has said we're about to get blasted by snow, I've said: "Yeah, right. I'll believe it when I see it."
Out of fourteen times I've been wrong twice.
Twice. Lesse ... 2/14 = 0.14285714285714285714285714285714 or 14.29% of the time I've been wrong.
So this time when they're saying we'll get five inches of snow (in some places up to seven) I'm putting out ... before the storm strikes this time ... that we'll get two inches total. Tops. At best. My personal forecast? Some scattered snow showers with little if any accumulation. And this is through Sunday night.
Currently, they're saying snow Friday through Saturday morning. The last number of times they've given time frames they've been forced to push them back. For example, the last time they said Friday through Saturday morning, it became Saturday and Saturday night, then Sunday and then only a dusting of snow.
Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE two feet of snow. Heck, at this point I'd be happy with five inches.
But we won't get it.
I'd LOVE to get blasted by two feet of snow.
But it won't happen this time.
I'd LOVE to get hit with between five and seven inches of snow.
But we won't get that either. Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to be wrong and get blasted by a massive blizzard.
But odds are I'll be right again.
And it sucks, because I love snow.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Article: "Scientists broke the law by hiding climate change data"
The link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html
" Scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled.
" The Information Commissioner's office said University of East Anglia researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests from climate change sceptics.
" 'All we are trying to do is make the scientists follow their own professional rules by being open, transparent and honest,' he said. 'We are not trying to show that human beings don't affect the climate, but to show that the science is not settled.' "
That last sentence is telling, probably, at least to me, the most telling. "We are not trying to show that human beings don't affect the climate, but to show that the science is not settled."
Indeed, the science isn't settled, except to those with an agenda, or those who are going to make money through cap and trade or carbon tax schemes. These leaked emails really do contain several "smoking guns," all you need to do is read them with an open mind and without an agenda.
But I guess that an "open mind" only applies to certain people, right? It certainly seems that way to listen to some politicians and to some people on the far-left and the far-right.
And here I thought we were supposed to listen to all viewpoints.
Or was I wrong?
" Scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled.
" The Information Commissioner's office said University of East Anglia researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests from climate change sceptics.
" 'All we are trying to do is make the scientists follow their own professional rules by being open, transparent and honest,' he said. 'We are not trying to show that human beings don't affect the climate, but to show that the science is not settled.' "
That last sentence is telling, probably, at least to me, the most telling. "We are not trying to show that human beings don't affect the climate, but to show that the science is not settled."
Indeed, the science isn't settled, except to those with an agenda, or those who are going to make money through cap and trade or carbon tax schemes. These leaked emails really do contain several "smoking guns," all you need to do is read them with an open mind and without an agenda.
But I guess that an "open mind" only applies to certain people, right? It certainly seems that way to listen to some politicians and to some people on the far-left and the far-right.
And here I thought we were supposed to listen to all viewpoints.
Or was I wrong?
Climate-Gate: Still more 'shenanigans?'
The link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese
" Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.
" A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced. "
Yep. I'd call that a big problem. But it turns out that that's not the biggest problem. For that part, we go here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud
The title? "Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege."
" It is difficult to imagine a more bizarre academic dispute. Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?
" But the argument over the weather stations, and how it affects an important set of data on global warming, has led to accusations of scientific fraud and may yet result in a significant revision of a scientific paper that is still cited by the UN's top climate science body.
" It also further calls into question the integrity of the scientist at the centre of the scandal over hacked climate emails, the director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Dr Phil Jones. The emails suggest that he helped to cover up flaws in temperature data from China that underpinned his research on the strength of recent global warming.
" The Guardian has learned that crucial data obtained by American scientists from Chinese collaborators cannot be verified because documents containing them no longer exist. And what data is available suggests that the findings are fundamentally flawed. "
Again, there's far more material there, but I'll leave it for you to read. This, however, begs a few very interesting questions as well as observations.
1) Alex Jones (yes, that one) has been talking for years about a "Global Tax" and a "New World Order," among other things. Enter the "Global Carbon Tax."
a) http://www.prisonplanet.com/copenhagen-con-men-launch-global-carbon-tax-heist.html (This is Mr. Jones' site.)
b) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122826696217574539.html
c) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/12/carbon-tax-should-replace-kyoto-protocol
Google "Global Carbon Tax" and you'll get about 644,000 results.
2) Many other people have mentioned a "Global Carbon Tax." Can they all be conspiracy theorists?
So here's my question: Why continue to push for a global carbon tax when we're still not exactly sure of the root causes of global warming? Is mankind at all responsible for it, or does the human race bear sole responsibility for it?
The evidence is, to me, overwhelming. Mankind didn't cause global warming in my opinion, all he has done is make a bad situation worse.
But then you add in the fact that nearly everybody who studies the fossil record will tell you that climate change on this planet follows natural cycles. Remember, there have been 15 mass extinctions on this planet, all but one (possibly two if the "Great Dying" turns out to be due to asteroid impact as well) have been shown to have been caused by global warming. Indeed, the fossil record itself suggests that we're in a period of mass-extinction right now. Remember my writing about it yesterday? And earlier than that, even. It's called "The Holocene Mass Extinction Event."
The sun itself follows a cycle.
Add to that the fact that, if the Earth didn't have the moon that we have, the Earth would have its own 10,000 year cycle where the poles and axis would both shift. The moon does a number of wonderful things for us:
1) It gives us moon-lit beaches to walk upon, hand in hand with the person we love,
2) It stabilizes the axis and poles. Without the moon, the Earth would wobble on its axis and shift about every 10,000 years.
3) It slows the Earth down. Without the moon, the Earth would spin a 4-hour day - two hours of daylight and two hours of night.
4) Without the moon (and the tidal forces) surface winds would reach between 350 and 400 kilometers per hour. *
That would make human life hard to sustain on the Earth; the moon's not being there. But you get the point: The moon, the Earth, our sun, the galaxy and our universe all follow cycles.
But to tell me that mankind is solely culpable (at fault) for Earth's global warming is rubbish. Indeed, there is even contradictory evidence that currently points to a coming era of global cooling.
* sources:
Dr. Michio Kaku
Dr. Peter Ward
Dr. Phillip Plait
" Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.
" A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced. "
Yep. I'd call that a big problem. But it turns out that that's not the biggest problem. For that part, we go here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud
The title? "Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege."
" It is difficult to imagine a more bizarre academic dispute. Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?
" But the argument over the weather stations, and how it affects an important set of data on global warming, has led to accusations of scientific fraud and may yet result in a significant revision of a scientific paper that is still cited by the UN's top climate science body.
" It also further calls into question the integrity of the scientist at the centre of the scandal over hacked climate emails, the director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Dr Phil Jones. The emails suggest that he helped to cover up flaws in temperature data from China that underpinned his research on the strength of recent global warming.
" The Guardian has learned that crucial data obtained by American scientists from Chinese collaborators cannot be verified because documents containing them no longer exist. And what data is available suggests that the findings are fundamentally flawed. "
Again, there's far more material there, but I'll leave it for you to read. This, however, begs a few very interesting questions as well as observations.
1) Alex Jones (yes, that one) has been talking for years about a "Global Tax" and a "New World Order," among other things. Enter the "Global Carbon Tax."
a) http://www.prisonplanet.com/copenhagen-con-men-launch-global-carbon-tax-heist.html (This is Mr. Jones' site.)
b) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122826696217574539.html
c) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/12/carbon-tax-should-replace-kyoto-protocol
Google "Global Carbon Tax" and you'll get about 644,000 results.
2) Many other people have mentioned a "Global Carbon Tax." Can they all be conspiracy theorists?
So here's my question: Why continue to push for a global carbon tax when we're still not exactly sure of the root causes of global warming? Is mankind at all responsible for it, or does the human race bear sole responsibility for it?
The evidence is, to me, overwhelming. Mankind didn't cause global warming in my opinion, all he has done is make a bad situation worse.
But then you add in the fact that nearly everybody who studies the fossil record will tell you that climate change on this planet follows natural cycles. Remember, there have been 15 mass extinctions on this planet, all but one (possibly two if the "Great Dying" turns out to be due to asteroid impact as well) have been shown to have been caused by global warming. Indeed, the fossil record itself suggests that we're in a period of mass-extinction right now. Remember my writing about it yesterday? And earlier than that, even. It's called "The Holocene Mass Extinction Event."
The sun itself follows a cycle.
Add to that the fact that, if the Earth didn't have the moon that we have, the Earth would have its own 10,000 year cycle where the poles and axis would both shift. The moon does a number of wonderful things for us:
1) It gives us moon-lit beaches to walk upon, hand in hand with the person we love,
2) It stabilizes the axis and poles. Without the moon, the Earth would wobble on its axis and shift about every 10,000 years.
3) It slows the Earth down. Without the moon, the Earth would spin a 4-hour day - two hours of daylight and two hours of night.
4) Without the moon (and the tidal forces) surface winds would reach between 350 and 400 kilometers per hour. *
That would make human life hard to sustain on the Earth; the moon's not being there. But you get the point: The moon, the Earth, our sun, the galaxy and our universe all follow cycles.
But to tell me that mankind is solely culpable (at fault) for Earth's global warming is rubbish. Indeed, there is even contradictory evidence that currently points to a coming era of global cooling.
* sources:
Dr. Michio Kaku
Dr. Peter Ward
Dr. Phillip Plait
Article: "Still Rolling: Fox News Has Its Best January Ever"
The article says it better than anything I could ever write. Fox News had their best January ever, and Special Report with Bret Baier/Brit Hume was the top rated (#1) for the 100th consecutive month.
Now for those liberals who are math-challenged: Consecutive means one right after another. In other words, 100 unbroken months at #1.
Also for you math-challenged libs, there are 12 months in a year. Dividing this out we find that 100 months is 8.33 years.
But how, pray tell, did it get this way?
For that, we only need to go here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/changing_channels/2010/01/msnbc-to-massachusetts-drop-dead.html
Where we find this: " Watching coverage of the Massachusetts senatorial election Tuesday night, I wondered if MSNBC was getting ready to cut off its cable signal to the state. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, positively enraged that Massachusetts dared to elect a Republican, delivered two hours of nonstop bilious rage toward the state's voters, calling them "irrational" and "teabaggers," engaged in "a total divorce from reality," and hinting that they're vicious racists to boot.
" If you watched CNN or Fox News last night, you got a balanced analysis of how Republican Scott Brown pulled off the political upset of the century (or, if you prefer, how Democrat Martha Coakley blew a dead solid electoral lock). Yes, I said Fox News, without irony. To be sure, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity made it clear they were rooting for Brown. But their shows also included a steady parade of liberal-leaning guests -- former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, former Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, Democratic party strategist Mary Anne Marsh, NPR commentator Juan Williams and radio host Alan Colmes. And pollster Frank Luntz interviewed a panel of two dozen or so Massachusetts voters, most of them Democrats, about how they voted and why. Practically every conceivable perspective on the election was represented." (emphasis added)
" And on MSNBC, you got practically every conceivable expression of venom against Brown and anybody who voted him. From Maddow's dark suspicions that the election was rigged -- she cited complaints about a grand total of six ballots out of about 2.25 million cast -- to Olbermann's suggestion in the video up above that the same Massachusets voters who went for Barack Obama by a 62-28 percent margin had suddenly realized they helped elect a black guy and went Republican in repentance, the network's coverage was idiotic, one-sided and downright ugly. " (emphasis (and colour) added)
That's the Reader's Digest condensed version of the article. At the link above you can get the complete story about why MS(L)NBC and CNN's ratings are falling like rocks.
On average, Fox News really is "Fair and Balanced." On MS(L)NBC you get Maddow and Olbermann's version of 'reality.'
But I keep forgetting where Ms Maddow came from: Air America Radio. " Air America (formerly Air America Radio and Air America Media) was an American radio network specializing in politically leftwing talk programming. The network started programming on March 31, 2004, ending live programming on January 21, 2010 and all remaining operations on January 25, 2010.
" The network featured discussion and information programs with hosts reflecting leftwing points of view and specialized in presentations and monologues by on-air personalities, guest interviews, calls by listeners, and news reports. " (emphasis added. Links are Wikipedia's and are left intact.)
Mayhaps that's why MS(L)NBC's ratings are tanking? Let's not forget Janeane Garofalo's April 2009 diatribe: " Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House. That is racism straight up. This is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks.[12] " (links are Wikipedia's and are left intact.)
Well then, you intellectual libs, how do you explain this?
Article: "Backdoor taxes to hit middle class"
The link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100201/us/usreport_us_budget_backdoortaxes
" NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.
" In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth. " (emphasis added)
Say it ain't so, O!
" NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.
" In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth. " (emphasis added)
Say it ain't so, O!
Will the 'real' 'Ellie Light' please stand up?
You might remember this article from the Cleveland (OH) Plain Dealer about 'Ellie Light.'
First, the link: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/01/ellie_light_dozens_more_sighti.html
You'll notice, I hope, the word 'dozens' in there. Indeed, in following the link from the Plain Dealer's site, we get sent here: http://patterico.com/2010/01/23/ellie-lights-obama-letters/
where we get these totals:
69 publications in 31 states and the District of Columbia,
3 National Publications and a Yahoo link, and,
2 foreign publications.
Most of those 69 publications are newspapers, of which 'Ellie Light' gives a local address as her home. Either:
1) Ms Light (If that is this person's real name ... but I'll give you very very long odds against this,) really does get around or
2) Everything about this 'administration' really is staged. Remember Mrs. Obama's (I won't call her the First Lady. First perhaps, but not First Lady) Vegetable Garden?
" In it [the 3-JAN-2010 Food Network episode of "Iron Chef America"], superstar chef Mario Batali teamed with Emeril Lagasse, and Bobby Flay with White House chef Cristeta Comerford to cook five dishes using the secret ingredient: produce from the White House garden.
" Except for one thing: As first reported on AOL’s Politics Daily blog, the fruits and vegetables used on the show weren’t from the White House. They were stunt produce. Ringers. " *
Oops. No doubt it's "Fake but accurate," a phrase used to describe RatherGate.
So, we have the phoney 'doctors' touting Osama (er...Obama)Care, their staged health care 'towne hall meetings' and our brave soldiers being told "You guys make a pretty good photo op." **
I don't think Mr Osama (er...OBAMA) would know what honesty was if it knocked him over. Note to the Department of Hussein's Sycophants and to the Secret Service, I am NOT advocating violence against Mr Obama. This is used to illustrate a point.
* - http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/chi-talk-white-house-veggiesjan14,0,7560057.story
** - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111900904_pf.html
First, the link: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/01/ellie_light_dozens_more_sighti.html
You'll notice, I hope, the word 'dozens' in there. Indeed, in following the link from the Plain Dealer's site, we get sent here: http://patterico.com/2010/01/23/ellie-lights-obama-letters/
where we get these totals:
69 publications in 31 states and the District of Columbia,
3 National Publications and a Yahoo link, and,
2 foreign publications.
Most of those 69 publications are newspapers, of which 'Ellie Light' gives a local address as her home. Either:
1) Ms Light (If that is this person's real name ... but I'll give you very very long odds against this,) really does get around or
2) Everything about this 'administration' really is staged. Remember Mrs. Obama's (I won't call her the First Lady. First
" In it [the 3-JAN-2010 Food Network episode of "Iron Chef America"], superstar chef Mario Batali teamed with Emeril Lagasse, and Bobby Flay with White House chef Cristeta Comerford to cook five dishes using the secret ingredient: produce from the White House garden.
" Except for one thing: As first reported on AOL’s Politics Daily blog, the fruits and vegetables used on the show weren’t from the White House. They were stunt produce. Ringers. " *
Oops. No doubt it's "Fake but accurate," a phrase used to describe RatherGate.
So, we have the phoney 'doctors' touting Osama (er...Obama)Care, their staged health care 'towne hall meetings' and our brave soldiers being told "You guys make a pretty good photo op." **
I don't think Mr Osama (er...OBAMA) would know what honesty was if it knocked him over. Note to the Department of Hussein's Sycophants and to the Secret Service, I am NOT advocating violence against Mr Obama. This is used to illustrate a point.
* - http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/chi-talk-white-house-veggiesjan14,0,7560057.story
** - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111900904_pf.html
Monday, February 1, 2010
Editorial: "EDITORIAL: Obama won't connect terror dots"
Two things. First, this is an editorial. Second, this is the Washington Times.
The link: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/01/obama-wont-connect-terror-dots/?feat=home_editorials
" Lloyd R. Woodson was arrested Jan. 25 in rural New Jersey. He had been observed behaving strangely, wearing military-style fatigues and a bulletproof vest. He had a weapon modified to fire .50-caliber rounds from beneath his jacket. He had a hotel room full of weapons and ammunition. Despite all these warning signs, the immediate response from the government was that this was "not a terrorism thing." "
Really?
How then do we explain that various law enforcement authorities are now investigating Mr Woodson's possible ties to radical Islam, including to Anwar al Awlaki, the same radicalized Imam who preached at the Mosque that two of the 9/11 hijackers worshipped at ... and at the same time.
No ties? Come on. Pull your PC blinders off already.
One exit question: Exactly how many more bodies will it take before you wake up?
(H/T: Northeast Intelligence Network)
The link: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/01/obama-wont-connect-terror-dots/?feat=home_editorials
" Lloyd R. Woodson was arrested Jan. 25 in rural New Jersey. He had been observed behaving strangely, wearing military-style fatigues and a bulletproof vest. He had a weapon modified to fire .50-caliber rounds from beneath his jacket. He had a hotel room full of weapons and ammunition. Despite all these warning signs, the immediate response from the government was that this was "not a terrorism thing." "
Really?
How then do we explain that various law enforcement authorities are now investigating Mr Woodson's possible ties to radical Islam, including to Anwar al Awlaki, the same radicalized Imam who preached at the Mosque that two of the 9/11 hijackers worshipped at ... and at the same time.
No ties? Come on. Pull your PC blinders off already.
One exit question: Exactly how many more bodies will it take before you wake up?
(H/T: Northeast Intelligence Network)
Article: "UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article"
The link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html
" The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming. "
Which, you might recall, contained five factual errors in the first paragraph. Could you imagine you or I presenting such a 'paper' to our professors? We'd quite literally be laughed off campus.
Their 'conclusions' you'll also recall weren't based on the raw data. It turns out that they'd already destroyed the raw data! Google this, you'll find it. Again, try doing that in a paper for a professor. You and your paper would be dead in the water.
But this is climate change we're talking about, so what the hell, right?
Right?
Turns out that in examining the fossil record, there have been 15 mass-extinctions in the Earth's history. One of the most severe (killing the most species) was 250 million years ago. Called "The Great Dying" it occurred at the end of the Permian Era. There are two prominent theories as to what caused that particular E.L.E. (Extinction Level Event.) (Sorry to channel the movie Deep Impact, but it does fit.)
Theory 1: An asteroid between 6 and 12 km (kilometers) across. Although they have found C60 molecules (carbon-60) in the rocks of that time, they have yet to find definitive proof of this theory. Such proof would either be shocked quartz or iridium.
Theory 2: A massive flood-basalt of lava from the Siberian Traps. This would release an enormous amount of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and many other gases into the atmosphere.
Indeed, in looking at the fossil and geological records we find only one E.L.E. which was definitively caused by asteroid impact: the KT event of 65 million years ago (yes, the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.)
That leaves 14 other E.L.E.'s which were caused by ... global warming. No humans around 250 million years ago to cause "The Great Dying."
But to scare the pants off of people reading this (that is, if anybody actually is reading this) the fossil record supports an ongoing mass extinction happening right now. Seriously. It's called "The Holocene Extinction Event." Honestly.
" However, modern climatology suggests the current Holocene epoch is no more than the latest in a series of interglacial intervals. Furthermore, there is a continuum of extinctions since 11,000 years BCE. If only considering human impact, the vulnerability and extinction rate of species simply rises with the increase in human population, so there would be no need to separate the Pleistocene extinction from the recent one. Nevertheless, the Pleistocene extinction event is large enough and has not been resolved completely. " (Emphasis added.)
But let's go back to the article I linked to at the start of this entry. It turns out that the 'proof' that the UN climate guy was referring to had two sources:
1) Anecdotal reports from mountaineers about the changes they were observing. Two problems with this: These cannot be taken as scientific measurements and therefore are invalid. Each person might see the same event differently and thus use different words to describe it. Again, it is not scientific.
2) The other source was a paper written by a geography student who was studying for the equivalent of a Master's degree.
Neither of these was peer-reviewed. And as already stated, it contained five factual errors in just the first paragraph.
Global warming?
Yes. It is happening. No, mankind is not the only cause.
" ... modern climatology suggests the current Holocene epoch is no more than the latest in a series of interglacial intervals. "
But they have an agenda, so what the hell, right?
Right?
" The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming. "
Which, you might recall, contained five factual errors in the first paragraph. Could you imagine you or I presenting such a 'paper' to our professors? We'd quite literally be laughed off campus.
Their 'conclusions' you'll also recall weren't based on the raw data. It turns out that they'd already destroyed the raw data! Google this, you'll find it. Again, try doing that in a paper for a professor. You and your paper would be dead in the water.
But this is climate change we're talking about, so what the hell, right?
Right?
Turns out that in examining the fossil record, there have been 15 mass-extinctions in the Earth's history. One of the most severe (killing the most species) was 250 million years ago. Called "The Great Dying" it occurred at the end of the Permian Era. There are two prominent theories as to what caused that particular E.L.E. (Extinction Level Event.) (Sorry to channel the movie Deep Impact, but it does fit.)
Theory 1: An asteroid between 6 and 12 km (kilometers) across. Although they have found C60 molecules (carbon-60) in the rocks of that time, they have yet to find definitive proof of this theory. Such proof would either be shocked quartz or iridium.
Theory 2: A massive flood-basalt of lava from the Siberian Traps. This would release an enormous amount of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and many other gases into the atmosphere.
Indeed, in looking at the fossil and geological records we find only one E.L.E. which was definitively caused by asteroid impact: the KT event of 65 million years ago (yes, the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.)
That leaves 14 other E.L.E.'s which were caused by ... global warming. No humans around 250 million years ago to cause "The Great Dying."
But to scare the pants off of people reading this (that is, if anybody actually is reading this) the fossil record supports an ongoing mass extinction happening right now. Seriously. It's called "The Holocene Extinction Event." Honestly.
" However, modern climatology suggests the current Holocene epoch is no more than the latest in a series of interglacial intervals. Furthermore, there is a continuum of extinctions since 11,000 years BCE. If only considering human impact, the vulnerability and extinction rate of species simply rises with the increase in human population, so there would be no need to separate the Pleistocene extinction from the recent one. Nevertheless, the Pleistocene extinction event is large enough and has not been resolved completely. " (Emphasis added.)
But let's go back to the article I linked to at the start of this entry. It turns out that the 'proof' that the UN climate guy was referring to had two sources:
1) Anecdotal reports from mountaineers about the changes they were observing. Two problems with this: These cannot be taken as scientific measurements and therefore are invalid. Each person might see the same event differently and thus use different words to describe it. Again, it is not scientific.
2) The other source was a paper written by a geography student who was studying for the equivalent of a Master's degree.
Neither of these was peer-reviewed. And as already stated, it contained five factual errors in just the first paragraph.
Global warming?
Yes. It is happening. No, mankind is not the only cause.
" ... modern climatology suggests the current Holocene epoch is no more than the latest in a series of interglacial intervals. "
But they have an agenda, so what the hell, right?
Right?
O Bow Ma Bows Again ... To Tampa (FL) Mayor
Don't believe me?
The link goes here: http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//100128/480/b07861589f354ce698c3bf88b741d692/
Where we see this:
The caption reads: " U.S. President Barack Obama bows to Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio at MacDill Air Force Base on Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010 in Tampa, Fla.(AP Photo/Edmund Fountain, Pool) "
Would somebody please explain to president dumbass that he doesn't bow to foreign leaders and sure as hell not to the Mayor of a US city!
Wait!!! I can hear MSNBC, ABC and Janeane Garofalo now. He wasn't bowing you see, he was ... um... admiring her cleavage?
No ... that would channel his inner Bill Clinton again.
Wondering what that ant was doing on her foot? Possible.
Wondering why that dog had run across the tarmac and then stopped right there?
Bowing before the Tampa Florida Mayor.
What a disgrace we have in the White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
