August 01, 2014

Penetrating but a Short Way means Dispersion

Timothy Birdnow

Writing in American Thinker Jeanine DeAngelis argues that the Republican pledge to not impeach Barack Obama falls into the Administration's hands.

According to {link=http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/does_no_impeachment_fulfill_alinskys_rule_4.html]the article:

"Or could it be that Obama’s pathetic attempt to garner sympathy at the expense of Republicans is a Saul Alinsky tactic?

Think about it -– the impeachment chatter on the left may very well ensure that the very thing Obama is accusing the right of wanting to do -– and goading them into vowing not to do it -– will clear the way for the president to do whatever he darn well pleases without obstruction.

After pointedly proclaiming that impeachment is off the table, Republicans will not be able to appropriately respond to impeachable offenses without looking like idiots who can’t keep their word."

End excerpt.

FINALLY someone said it!

Rush Limbaugh has been chewing on the edge of this for a few days, arguing that the GOP is wrong to take impeachment off the table though to actually impeach the president would be politically foolish - and I agree, although perhaps in a less than enthusiastic manner. But he has avoided coming to the heart of the issue, whereas Jeanine has not missed.

DeAngelis continues:

"Here is how the impeachment/no impeachment gambit would work:

Valerie, Barry, and the crew hatch the idea to accuse the Republicans of wanting to impeach Obama, and then they float the rumor that the allegation is just the left’s way of trying to divert attention before the midterm elections.

Responding according to plan, the Republicans crawl to the podium and with a unified front they issue a firm denunciation of impeachment. Pried from his tanning bed, John Boehner proudly calls impeachment talk "all a scam started by Democrats at the White House,” adding, "We have no plans to impeach the president. We have no future plans.”

This smacks of a Saul Alinsky Rule #4 "gotcha” if ever there was one, because John and Mitch may have been abruptly hooked by Barack Obama’s bait."

End excerpt.

After this Obama has the door wide open; either the GOP rolls over whenever he violates his oath of office or they break their pledge. Either way they are caught in a trap.

The Constitution offers two, and only two, remedies available to Congress to rein in an out-of-control President. One way - tried half-heartedly just a little while back - is to defund the Executive Branch. The GOP attempted this first remedy with little courage and great timidity and Obama, ever the bare-knuckle politician, made a very public display of hurting the public. He closed national monuments and threatened to arrest elderly veterans who crossed his "barrycades" to visit their WWII Memorial. He closed roads, wrecking businesses that made their livelihood from the tourist trade. He refused to send checks out to those dependent on government aid. And, with the complicity of the media, the public blamed the GOP. The Republicans caved, and John McCain went on television to the rapture of Democrats, saying with his chattering false teeth "I hope we learned our lesson".

Of course the GOP never did learn their lesson; Saul Alinsky Rule #11 "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative.

When the media lambasted the GOP for "shutting down the government" - something done by Obama, not Congress - the low information voters immediate reaction was to hold a negative view of the GOP. In their usual fashion the linguini-spined Republicans waved the white flag in terror of suffering all manner of electoral horrors. Saul Alinsky #9 "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." The Republicans were overcome by phantom fears of raze and ruin, a fear more terrifying than any backlash they would have suffered. Had they remained steadfast it could well have rebounded in their favor as it would have become obvious to the low info types who was actually doing the harm. Maybe not, too, but the reality is the public just wasn't that angry about the government shutdown. Even if the GOP was blamed, the public saw it really didn't matter that much to them by and large. It was a great teachable moment, one the Republicans squandered.

So remedy #1 failed, primarily out of timidity. Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military philosopher, argued "When he has penetrated into hostile territory, but to no great distance, it is facile ground." and he admonished "On facile ground, halt not." The Republicans, frightened of the polling data, halted almost immediately. In fact, they never truly wanted to invade Obama territory from the beginning.

Sun Tzu warned against this:

"When invading hostile territory, the general principle is, that penetrating deeply brings cohesion; penetrating but a short way means dispersion."

And in fact he advised Generals:

"At the critical moment, the leader of an army acts like one who has climbed up a height and then kicks away the ladder behind him."

The GOP leadership didn't want to make that fight, and they penetrated but shallowly into enemy territory, and ran like scared rabbits at the first sign of trouble. That fear comes from the government shutdown under Bill Clinton. And while the Republicans were blamed in that instance too (not surprisingly, since the Leftist media was driving the narrative in both instances and the Republicans never explain their position, part of their duck and cover strategy) they did not suffer any long-term political backlash then, and they did not suffer any after the Obama shutdown. The fear of the thing was worse than the thing itself.

They never understood Tzu's admonition:

"Place your army in deadly peril, and it will survive; plunge it into desperate straits, and it will come off in safety. For it is precisely when a force has fallen into harm's way that it is capable of striking a blow for victory."

So now we are faced with the use of remedy #2, something that equally terrifies the GOP Establishment. This also was tried with Bill Clinton and failed, and for the same reasons of timidity. The Clinton impeachment was not wanted by the Senate Republicans and they sought to dispose of it as quickly as possible out of political considerations. The rules set for the trial allowed the defense to keep key witnesses off the stand (like Betty Curry, who knew where the bodies were buried and who would have sung like a bird had she been threatened with imprisonment) and allowed the case to rest solely on the meaning of the word is. It was a farce, and in the end the stupid GOP looked ridiculous for having wasted so much time and money on "nothing" when in fact they could have brought Clinton down. They feared putting AL GORE in the Presidency! What buffoons!

An impeachment of Obama would be quite different from the Clinton impeachment, too; Ken Starr referred only two articles against Clinton, and both revolved around his sexual piccadillos. There were crimes committed, but they were related to a salacious sexual appetite and the public, enraptured with Jenny Jones and Jerry Springer, were unwilling to see him tossed for what they perceived as his private sex life. Sex tained the impeachment. Furthermore, the economy was roaring, and the public does indeed vote their pocketbooks.

The same cannot be said of the current situation; Obama will be impeached (if he is) based on massive abuses of power and nothing personal. The public will be more understanding of some of this, as it effects them personally. And Obama will not be shielded by a good economy.

But it is still a dangerous affair, and the GOP leadership is frightened. They are trying to use the extra-constitutional approach of suing the President instead.

There is nothing wrong with suing him, but how can you push this off to the courts if what he is doing is illegal? That is what is wrong with the entire Republican approach; it suggests the GOP knows deep down that there is no there there, that this is simply a political spectacle and not a serious issue of high crimes and misdemeanors. If the Republicans don't have the stones to impeach then they must not really believe Obama guilty! Or at least that is how it will appear to the public.

You do not penetrate shallowly into enemy country.

Actually, Boehner and company are seeking to use what should be the first remedy for an out of control president - the ballot box. They hope to win big in November and then the tables are turned. But they are being manuevered into a position of weakness by Obama in this whole impeachment discussion. Most of these guys were lawyers; they should understand "you have the right to remain silent".

Sun Tzu also said;

"Confront your soldiers with the deed itself, never let them know your design. When the outlook is bright, bring it before their eyes, but tell them nothing when the situation is gloomy."

And yet Boehner and his chums trumpet the bad news that he does not intend to impeach. Strange.

Bringing articles of impeachment now would be foolish, but it is equally foolish to dismiss the idea of impeaching Obama. You never give your enemy that sort of security. Obama is a lawless revolutionary, a man who would be king. Congress alone stands in his way, and Congress is mired in cowardice and indecision. Obama is strong because Obama is unafraid. That must change.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1597 words, total size 10 kb.

July 31, 2014

New EPA Land Grab, Complete Control Over All Private Land In America

A.J. Cameron

Disturbing. http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/04/10/new-epa-land-grab-complete-control-over-all-private-land-in-america/

(by Rick Wells, GOP The Daily Dose) --
Red Flag News
The EPA is in the process, right this very minute, of seizing control over all private land in the United States. They are following the United Nations blueprint, their minion Gina McCarthy is implementing it, and B. Hussein Obama is facilitating it.
Anywhere in America where it rains or where water collects or through which water moves will now, according to this new rule change they are implementing, be under their control. Not because Congress or the people give them that authority or jurisdiction, but simply because they are seizing the power. It is just another component of the illegitimate tyranny which is oppressing the American people.
On Tuesday the agency which operates as the misnamed Environmental Protection Agency unveiled their proposed change to the Clean Water Act, which would extend their regulatory control to temporary wetlands and waterways.
This definition consists of any water, including seasonal ponds, streams, runoff and collection areas and irrigation water. It could include runoff from watering your lawn, or puddles on your own property. They will control the presence of and can prohibit through regulation, your right to the water and your actions regarding water upon your own land. The opportunities for their abuse would be limitless.
Louisiana Senator David Vitter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, offered an understated precautionary objection stating, "The ... rule may be one of the most significant private property grabs in U.S. history.”
The EPA proposal would extend their authority to include "pollution regulations” to "intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands” – which are created temporarily during wet seasons or following rainfall.
Recognize this for what it is America; The EPA is giving themselves legal jurisdiction to replace our rights with their permissions anywhere it rains or water exists.
They are expanding the same kind of California fish-based drought or Nevada tortoise land restrictions or Oregon spotted owl tyranny to every square inch of the United States.
The EPA is asserting that all ground water, whether temporary or not and regardless of size is part of the "waters of the United States.”
Their position is in contradiction to the Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006, restricting the EPA to flowing and sizeable, "relatively” permanent bodies of water such as "oceans, rivers, streams and lakes.” Of course, progressives just keep trying until they get what they want, and they never have enough.
The proposed rule change is now in a 90 day comment period during which they will assess just how much they can get away with, based upon public outcry and pushback.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.

The Carbon Tax Scam


By Alan Caruba

In a recent appearance before a congressional committee, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told them that the agency’s proposed sweeping carbon-regulation plan was "really an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control.”

If the plan isn’t about pollution, the primary reason for the EPA’s existence, why bother with yet more regulation of something that is not a pollutant—carbon dioxide—despite the Supreme Court’s idiotic decision that it is. Yes, even the Court gets things wrong.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is vital to all life on Earth, but most particularly to every piece of vegetation that grows on it. Top climatologists tell me that it plays a very small role, if any, in the Earth’s climate or weather. Why would anyone expect a gas that represents400 parts per millionof all atmospheric gases, barely 0.04% ofallatmospheric gases to have the capacity to affect something as huge and dynamic as the weather or climate?

When something as absurd as the notion the U.S. must drastically reduce its CO2 emissions is told often enough by a wide range of people that include teachers, the media, scientists, politicians, and the President, people can be forgiven for believing this makes sense.

What Gina McCarthy was demonstrating is her belief that not only the members of Congress are idiots, but all the rest of us are as well.

Faking Climate Data

"The science is clear. The risks are clear. We must act…” Sorry, Gina, a recent issue ofNatural News, citing theReal Sciencewebsite, reported"(in) what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a ‘climate change narrative’ that defies reality.”As reported inThe Telegraph, a London daily, "NOAA’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models.”

The EPA has been on the front lines of destroying coal-fired plants that produce the bulk of the nation’s electricity, claiming, like the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth that coal is "dirty” and must be eliminated from any use.

On July 29,CNSnewsreported that "For the first time ever, the average price for a kilowatthour of electricity in the United States has broken through the 14-cent mark, climbing to a record 14.3 cents in June, according to data released last week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

A Carbon Tax

What the Greens want most of all is a carbon tax; that is to say, a tax on CO2 emissions. It is one of the most baseless, destructive taxes that could be imposed on Americans and we should take a lesson from the recent experience that Australians had when, after being told by a former prime minister, Julia Gillard, that she would not impose the tax, she did.They get rid of her andthen got rid of the tax!

As Daniel Simmons, the vice president of policy at the American Energy Alliance, wrote inRoll Call"Australia is now the first country to eliminate its carbon tax. In doing so, it struck a blow in favor of sound public policy.”Initiated in 2012, the tax had imposed a $21.50 charge (in U.S. dollars), increasing annually, on each ton of carbon dioxide emitted by the country’s power plants.” At the time President Obama called it "good for the world”, but Australians quickly found it was not good for them or their economy.

Favored by several Democratic Senators that include New Hampshire’s Jeanne Shaheen, Alaska’s Mark Begich, and North Carolina’s Kay Hagan, the Heritage Foundation, based on data provided by the Energy Information Administration, took a look at the impact that a proposed U.S. carbon tax would have and calculated that it "would cut a family of four’s income by nearly $2,000 a year while increasing its electricity bills by more than $500 per year. It would increase gas prices by 50 cents per gallon. It could eliminate more than a million jobs in the first few years.”

Simmons noted that "It only took (Australians) two years of higher prices, fewer jobs, and no environmental benefits before they abandoned their carbon tax.”

We don’t need, as Gina McCarthy told the congressional committee, "investments in renewables and clean energy” because billions were wasted by Obama’s "stimulus” and by the grants and other credits extended to wind and solar energy in America. They are the most expensive, least productive, and most unpredictable forms of energy imaginable, given that neither the wind nor the sun is available full-time in the way fossil fuel generated energy is. Both require backup from coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy plants.

In addition to all the other White House efforts to saddle Americans with higher costs, it has now launched a major effort to push its "climate change” agenda with a carbon tax high on its list. A July 29 article inThe Hillreported that "Obama is poised to sidestep Congress with a new set of executive actions on climate change.”

If we don’t jump-start our economy by tapping into the jobs and revenue our vast energy reserves represent, secure our southern border, and elect a Congress that will rein in the President, the U.S. risks becoming a lawless banana republic. Carbon taxes are one more nail in the national coffin.

© Alan Caruba, 2014
 
 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 880 words, total size 7 kb.

Mt. Tushmore

Alan Caruba

If you ever wondered what Mt. Rushmore looks like from the Canadian side.

 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Heels Mar UniverSoul Circus Peace Rally


Timothy Birdnow

A march against violence hosted by the UniverSoul Circus was closed down due to fighting by some heels.
http://www.kfvs12.com/story/26156099/m/category/106766/radar-images

The Kansas City event - designed to promote an end to street violence - was cancelled when fighting broke out. According to the article:

"Everything was fine until the rally reached 31st and Prospect.

"Someone hollered out 'no!' and everyone turned around and there were these two guys fighting," Ivy said. "I was like 'no they didn't, no they did not do this.'"

Bishop Tony Caldwell helped organize the rally. He said there was not just one fight, but seven. He jumped in to help break up a few of the fights and now he has a message for those involved in the violence."

End excerpt.

How sad; some people just can't toe the line.

I suppose it was to be expected; whoever hasn't seen some clown acting like a fool at the circus?




Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

Immigration Poll Dancers

Timothy Birdnow

Here is how the media does advocacy while pretending to be doing journalism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/30/most-americans-see-unaccompanied-minors_n_5632390.html

Reuters has found a poll claiming 70% of Americans want the U.S. to provide charitable relief to the "refugees" coming across our border.

First, they aren't refugees are never were, but the Obama Administration seeks to redefine them as such in order to allow them to stay.

Second, the poll was conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, a group that is not, uh, exactly well known. In fact SPRR is notorious for partnering with leftist groups like the Brookings Institute as well as the Berkeley center for Peace and World Affairs, and they have been a strong advocate for "comprehensive immigration reform" for a long time. See here http://24ahead.com/another-misleading-public-religion-research-institute-immigr for a discussion of previous biased polling.

And a survey of their research illustrates two main themes; gay marriage and open borders. These two seem to be their top agenda items. Their About page says:

...PRRI’s mission is to help journalists, opinion leaders, scholars, clergy, and the general public better understand debates on public policy issues and the role of religion and values in American public life by conducting high quality public opinion surveys and qualitative research...

End excerpt.

Pleaase note their stated purpose is to help JOURNALISTS and Opinion leaders - in short, it is to provide adequate propaganda. And, interestingly enough, they were founded in 2009, at the heighth of the Obama era.

I strongly suspect this is a group funded by one of George Soros' organizations, but haven't seen any proof.

Over at Hot Air Ed Morrissey shows the duplicity used to coax the desired answers by PRRI:
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/07/29/poll-69-of-americans-think-the-border-kids-should-stay-if-its-not-safe-for-them-to-return-home/

"In case you’ve been wondering why Democrats have been pounding the idea so hard that this is a "refugee” crisis at the border, not an "illegal immigration” crisis, here’s what happens when people are asked which statement comes closest to their view:

stay

In fact, under current U.S. law, the kids don’t qualify as "refugees.” That’s one of the sticking points in the White House’s proposal to send envoys to Honduras and start processing asylum applications there: How can we grant "refugee” status to someone who’s fleeing street gangs, not racial/religious/political persecution? If this result is accurate, the public doesn’t much care. Danger, at least with respect to kids, may be sufficient to move someone from the "illegal” column to the "refugee” category. What the limiting principle on that is for future waves of illegal border crossings, I have no idea.

How much should we trust this data, though? Here’s another result from the same poll that suggests people are … "conflicted,” I guess, is a nice way to put it".

refugee

Sixty-nine percent think the kids should stay if it’s not safe for them to go home and 71 percent completely or mostly agree that we should shelter anyone who’s facing danger in their native country, but 59 percent think we shouldn’t let the kids stay lest it encourage further illegal immigration. Okay then. Also, my pal Karl notes on Twitter that other polls seem to contradict the "let them stay” result here. From Pew:"

End excerpt.

The heads of this outfit also slam the Tea Party. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/05/our-take-the-tea-partys-surprisingly-powerful-religious-side/

This is, in my opinion, a sneaky, underhanded trick to push the GOP Establishment. We have to make sure it does not work.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 561 words, total size 5 kb.

July 30, 2014

Climate Alarmists Never Quit!


By Alan Caruba

In the same way Americans are discovering that the Cold War that was waged from the end of World War Two until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 is not over, Americans continue to be subjected to the endless, massive, global campaign to foist the hoax of global warming--now called climate change—on everyone.

The campaign’s purpose to convince everyone that it is humans, not the sun, oceans, and other natural phenomenon, and that requires abandoning fossil fuels in favor of "renewable” wind and solar energy.

"It is not surprising that climate alarmists, who desire above all else blind allegiance to their cause, would demand all school teachers toe the ‘official party line’ and quash any dissent on the subject of man-made global warming in their classroom,” saysCraig Rucker, the Executive Director of co-founder of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). "What is absurd is that any teacher or free-thinking person for that matter would listen to them.”

These days when I am challenged regarding my views about global warming, climate change or energy I send the individual towww.climatedepot.comandwww.energydepot.us, two constantly updated websites filled with links to information on these topics. Both are maintained by CFACT.

It’s not just our classrooms where Green indoctrination goes on. It is also our news media that continue to distort every weather event to advance the hoax. Guiding and feeding them is a massive complex of organizations led by the United Nations—the International Panel on Climate Change—that maintains the hoax to frighten people worldwide in order to achieve "one world order.”

On September 23, heads of state, including President Obama, will gather in New York City for what the Sierra Club calls "a historic summit on climate change. With our future on the line, we will take a weekend and use it to bend the course of history” to save the world from "the ravages of climate change.” This is absurd. Suggesting that humans can alter the climate in any way defies centuries of proof they do not.

One of the leading Leftist organizations, the Center for American Progress, focused on the July 14 Major Economics Forum in Paris, offered four items for its agenda. Claiming that "the Arctic is warming two times faster than any other region on earth”, they wanted policy changes based on this falsehood. They blamed climate change for "global poverty” and wanted further reductions in so-called greenhouse gas emissions from energy use. The enemy, as far as they were concerned was energy use.

Mary Hutzler, a senior research fellow of the Institute for Energy Research, testified before a July 22ndmeeting of the Senate Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, that due to Europe’s green energy (wind and solar) policies, industrial electricity prices are two-to-five times higher than in the U.S. and that, by 2020, 1.4 million European households will be added to those experiencing energy poverty.

There are lessons to be learned, for example, from Spain’s investment in wind energy that caused the loss of four jobs for the electricity it produced and 13 jobs for every megawatt of solar energy. In Germany, the cost of electricity is three times higher than average U.S. residential prices. Little wonder that European nations are now slashing wind and solar programs.

Billions Wasted to Combat Global Warming

In the U.S., the Obama administration used its "stimulus” to fund Solyndra—$500 million dollars—and fifty other Green energy projects that have failed or are on their way to failure. Undeterred with this appalling record, on July 3 the Energy Department announced $4 billion for "projects that fight global warming.”

But there is no global warming. The Earth has been in a cooling cycle for seventeen years and it shows no indication of ending anytime soon. This is the same administration that has waged a war on coal, forcing the closure of many plants that produced electricity efficiently and affordably, and had throughout the last century.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 2014 weather highlights showed that, from January to June, the temperature in the U.S. has risen by a miniscule 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit compared with the average temperature for the 20thcentury. NOAA also noted that recorded temperatures for the first half of 2014 are the coldest since 1993 when the cooling cycle began. The exception to this has been California.

Brainwashed for decades about global warming, 20% of likely voters, according to a July Rasmussen poll, still believe that global warming is not over, colder weather or not, 17% were not sure, but fully 63% disagreed!

The results of a Pew Research Center poll in June revealed that 35% of Americans say there is not enough solid evidence to suggest mankind is warming the Earth while another 18% says the world has warmed due to "natural patterns”, not human activity. Pew found that liberals remain convinced that humans are to blame, but the bottom line is that 53% disputed the President’s claims.

That means that a growing number of Americans are now skeptics.

In the months to come we will see marches and meetings intended to further the global warming lies. The good news is that fewer Americans are being influenced by such efforts.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 875 words, total size 7 kb.

July 29, 2014

"You Didn't Build That!" Unless you are a Musim

Timothy Birdnow

Obama says muslims built this country:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/27/statement-president-occasion-eid-al-fitr

Statement by the President on the Occasion of Eid-al-Fitr

As Muslims throughout the United States and around the world celebrate Eid-al-Fitr, Michelle and I extend our warmest wishes to them and their families. This last month has been a time of fasting, reflection, spiritual renewal, and service to the less fortunate. While Eid marks the completion of Ramadan, it also celebrates the common values that unite us in our humanity and reinforces the obligations that people of all faiths have to each other, especially those impacted by poverty, conflict, and disease.

In the United States, Eid also reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy. That is why we stand with people of all faiths, here at home and around the world, to protect and advance their rights to prosper, and we welcome their commitment to giving back to their communities.

On behalf of the Administration, we wish Muslims in the United States and around the world a blessed and joyous celebration. Eid Mubarak.

End

Strange; the people who have built businesses, factories, etc. he says "didn't build that" yet the muslims get credit?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

Who’s really waging the ‘war on science’?

Paul Driessen

Global warming alarmists constantly claim they are being "harassed” by climate chaos skeptics. The Climate Armageddon-istas proclaim they are victims, and the American Geophysical Union has even created a "Climate Science Legal Defense Fund,” to pay mounting legal bills that alarmist scientists like Michael Mann have incurred. But the real war on honest science and scientists is being waged by those who have garnered billions of taxpayer, foundation and corporate dollars for alarmist research, and thus have the most to lose when the public finally figures out what’s been going on. No wonder they are in a tizzy.

My article this week explores these issues – primarily by reviewing two cases where scientists really have been singled out, vilified and persecuted: Dr. Patrick Michaels from the University of Virginia, and Dr. David Legates at the University of Delaware.

Who’s really waging the ‘war on science’?

When it comes to attacking climate scientists, the alarmist Left has the market cornered

Paul Driessen

Left-leaning environmentalists, media and academics have long railed against the alleged conservative "war on science.” They augment this vitriol with substantial money, books, documentaries and conference sessions devoted to "protecting” global warming alarmists from supposed "harassment” by climate chaos skeptics, whom they accuse of wanting to conduct "fishing expeditions” of alarmist emails and "rifle” their file cabinets in search of juicy material (which might expose collusion or manipulated science).

A primary target of this "unjustified harassment” has been Penn State University professor Dr. Michael Mann, creator of the infamous "hockey stick” temperature graph that purported to show a sudden spike in average planetary temperatures in recent decades, following centuries of supposedly stable climate. But at a recent AGU meeting a number of other "persecuted” scientists were trotted out to tell their story of how they have been "attacked” or had their research, policy demands or integrity questioned.

To fight back against this "harassment,” the American Geophysical Union actually created a "Climate Science Legal Defense Fund,” to pay mounting legal bills that these scientists have incurred. The AGU does not want any "prying eyes” to gain access to their emails or other information. These scientists and the AGU see themselves as "Freedom Fighters” in this "war on science.” It’s a bizarre war.

While proclaiming victimhood, they detest and vilify any experts who express doubts that we face an imminent climate Armageddon. They refuse to debate any such skeptics, or permit "nonbelievers” to participate in conferences where endless panels insist that every imaginable and imagined ecological problem is due to fossil fuels. They use hysteria and hyperbole to advance claims that slashing fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions will enable us to control Earth’s climate – and that references to computer model predictions and "extreme weather events” justify skyrocketing energy costs, millions of lost jobs, and severe damage to people’s livelihoods, living standards, health and welfare.

Reality is vastly different from what these alarmist, environmentalist, academic, media and political elites attempt to convey.

In 2009, before Mann’s problems began, Greenpeace started attacking scientists it calls "climate deniers,” focusing its venom on seven scientists at four institutions, including the University of Virginia and University of Delaware. This anti-humanity group claimed its effort would "bring greater transparency to the climate science discussion” through "educational and other charitable public interest activities.” (If you believe that, send your bank account number to those Nigerians with millions in unclaimed cash.)

UVA administrators quickly agreed to turn over all archived records belonging to Dr. Patrick Michaels, a prominent climate chaos skeptic who had recently retired from the university. They did not seem to mind that no press coverage ensued, and certainly none that was critical of these Spanish Inquisition tactics.

However, when the American Tradition Institute later filed a similar FOIA request for Dr. Mann’s records, UVA marshaled the troops and launched a media circus, saying conservatives were harassing a leading climate scientist. The AGU, American Meteorological Society and American Association of University Professors (the nation’s college faculty union) rushed forward to lend their support. All the while, in a remarkable display of hypocrisy and double standards, UVA and these organizations continued to insist it was proper and ethical to turn all of Dr. Michaels’ material over to Greenpeace.

Meanwhile, although it had started out similarly, the scenario played out quite differently at the University of Delaware. Greenpeace targeted Dr. David Legates, demanding access to records related to his role as the Delaware State Climatologist. The University not only agreed to this. It went further, and demanded that Legates produce all his records – regardless of whether they pertained to his role as State Climatologist, his position on the university faculty, or his outside speaking and writing activities, even though he had received no state money for any of this work. Everything was fair game.

But when the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a FOIA request for documents belonging to several U of Delaware faculty members who had contributed to the IPCC, the university told CEI the state’s FOIA Law did not apply. (The hypocrisy and double standards disease is contagious.) Although one faculty contributor clearly had received state money for his climate change work, University Vice-President and General Counsel Lawrence White claimed none of the individuals had received state funds.

When Legates approached White to inquire about the disparate treatment, White said Legates did not understand the law. State law did not require that White produce anything, White insisted, but also did not preclude him from doing so. Under threat of termination for failure to respond to the demands of a senior university official, Legates was required to allow White to inspect his emails and hardcopy files.

Legates subsequently sought outside legal advice. At this, his academic dean told him he had now gone too far. "This puts you at odds with the University,” she told him, "and the College will no longer support anything you do.” This remarkable threat was promptly implemented. Legates was terminated as the State Climatologist, removed from a state weather network he had been instrumental in organizing and operating, and banished from serving on any faculty committees.

Legates appealed to the AAUP – the same union that had staunchly supported Mann at UVA. Although the local AAUP president had written extensively on the need to protect academic freedom, she told Legates that FOIA issues and actions taken by the University of Delaware’s vice-president and dean "would not fall within the scope of the AAUP.”

What about the precedent of the AAUP and other professional organizations supporting Dr. Mann so quickly and vigorously? Where was the legal defense fund to pay Legates’ legal bills? Fuggedaboutit.

In the end, it was shown that nothing White examined in Legates’ files originated from state funds. The State Climate Office had received no money while Legates was there, and the university funded none of Legates’ climate change research though state funds. This is important because, unlike in Virginia, Delaware’s FOIA law says that regarding university faculty, only state-funded work is subject to FOIA.

That means White used his position to bully and attack Legates for his scientific views – pure and simple. Moreover, a 1991 federal arbitration case had ruled that the University of Delaware had violated another faculty member’s academic freedom when it examined the content of her research. But now, more than twenty years later, U Del was at it again.

Obviously, academic freedom means nothing when one’s views differ from the liberal faculty majority – or when they contrast with views and "science” that garners the university millions of dollars a year from government, foundation, corporate and other sources, to advance the alarmist climate change agenda. All these institutions are intolerant of research by scientists like Legates, because they fear losing grant money if they permit contrarian views, discussions, debates or anything that questions the climate chaos "consensus.” At this point, academic freedom and free speech obviously apply only to advance selected political agendas, and campus "diversity” exists in everything but opinions.

Climate alarmists have been implicated in the ClimateGate scandal, for conspiring to prevent their adversaries from receiving grants, publishing scientific papers, and advancing their careers. Yet they are staunchly supported by their universities, professional organizations, union – and groups like Greenpeace.

Meanwhile, climate disaster skeptics are vilified and harassed by these same groups, who pretend they are fighting to "let scientists conduct research without the threat of politically motivated attacks.” Far worse, we taxpayers are paying the tab for the junk science – and then getting stuck with regulations, soaring energy bills, lost jobs and reduced living standards … based on that bogus science.

Right now, the climate alarmists appear to be winning their war on honest science. But storm clouds are gathering, and a powerful counteroffensive is heading their way.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1492 words, total size 11 kb.

July 27, 2014

Pat Buchanan, Political History, & the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Brian Birdnow

Last week, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the troubled bastion of mainstream liberal journalistic thought in the great American heartland published a short, but typically piquant editorial piece slamming Patrick J. Buchanan for his soon-to-be released memoir of the 1968 Presidential campaign entitled, "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create a New Majority.” The Post-Dispatch, anticipating the release of Buchanan’s work launched what may be charitably labeled a pre-emptive strike on Buchanan, even though his new book does not concern the PD. Tony Messenger, the newspaper editor, picked an unnecessary fight with Pat Buchanan, and, like a good modern liberal, Messenger ignored reasoned debate, filled his piece with snarky personal attacks, questioning of opponents motives, and an overpowering sense of preening moral superiority.

The reader might, at this point, legitimately ask: Who cares about the St. Louis Post-Dispatch? Actually, very few people care about the PD if one considers their sinking subscription and readership numbers. This anti-Buchanan editorial does, however, offer a clear window into the liberal mind at work in a major metropolitan daily newspaper. It is not a pretty picture.

First of all, a little background is in order here. Patrick J. Buchanan, the conservative titan, is certainly familiar to all Townhall readers. Buchanan started his career as an editorial writer at the old St. Louis Globe-Democrat. After three years as an editorial page assistant editor, a debater against student radicals at Washington University, and a general man about town, Buchanan, chagrined that his employer had declined to endorse Barry Goldwater in the 1964 Presidential campaign, decided that he had accomplished as much in St. Louis as possible, and he began to explore other employment options. He signed on as a media liaison to the nascent Nixon-For-President-in-’68 campaign at the beginning of 1966, after meeting the former Vice-President at a house party in Belleville, Illinois. Buchanan has now written his book on the 1968 campaign, using as his primary sources the thousand pages of memos he wrote to Nixon as a senior advisor, and the candidate’s responses.

For some unknown reason, the Post-Dispatch has decided that this is their business. They begin their editorial piece by lobbing personal insults at Pat Buchanan, the target of their ire. As the editorial states, "We’re not sure that there’s room in St. Louis for yet another blowhard editorial writer, particularly one with a worldview as skewed as Pat Buchanan’s…” Why is that the case? Does the PD believe that they already have a monopoly on that particular position? The editorial then states, "…Buchanan recalls his time in St. Louis as an editorial writer for the long defunct Globe-Democrat…” The Globe-Democratis indeed defunct. The venerable paper was the main casualty of a collusion agreement, in violation of anti-trust laws, involving SI Newhouse, Inc. the parent company of the Globe-Democrat, and Pulitzer Publishing Inc. the parent company of, yes, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The collusion agreement, which brought Newhouse into a fifty year profit sharing arrangement with Pulitzer Publishing, put the Globe-Democrat out of business in late 1986.

At any rate the editorial continues in the same insulting and charged tone. Buchanan explains, in his book, that he was losing interest in the daily grind of editorials, mainly on state and local issues. The PD response was characteristically harsh, "For those in our business who have been at the craft for much longer than three years, and who still maintain a high level of enthusiasm for making the world a better place, we say: Good Riddance.” Note the undiplomatic nature of this slam. The Post-Dispatcheditor says nothing about a former colleague making a jump into politics, does not congratulate this man for finding his calling outside of journalism, does not note that he has succeeded beyond a mere editorial writer’s wildest dreams, it simply applies a disdainful and summary epitaph to the man’s career.

The editorial goes on to state, "…we’re not sure he would have cut it as an editorial writer much longer anyway.” This is quite a possibility since the late 1960s was the heyday of post-war American liberalism, and most of the major newspapers were surrendering to the New Left, leaving little room for conservative firebrands like Pat Buchannan. The editorial finished with a flourish, stating that Buchanan fed Globe-Democrat publisher Richard Armitage a 2,000 word feature on putative candidate Nixon, which the Globepublished under Armitage’s own byline. The PD take on this episode was characteristically smarmy: "A career writing stale talking points was launched.” In his finish to the editorial Mr. Tony Messenger unwittingly shows his own petulance and contempt for reasonable debate. He challenges Buchanan’s motives, and his overall ethical base. He contrasts his own moral superiority ("…trying to make the world a better place.”) with his adversaries moral bankruptcy. Finally, he takes a slap at Buchanan’s abilities, stating that he would not have lasted long in the newspaper business, so he fled to the world of politics.

Do we sense a dollop of professional envy in this editorial? Is Tony Messenger slightly jealous of the fact that Pat Buchanan left St. Louis for fame and fortune, while Messenger remains stuck in the heartland? Those few people who read the Post-Dispatchnote the paper’s continuing lament that St. Louis is not New York, San Francisco, Washington, or Boston and the corresponding exhortation to the area to become more like the aforementioned cities. It seems that Tony Messenger seems uncomfortable with his own position and he resorts to attacking Pat Buchanan.

Yes, last week the Post-Dispatch picked an unnecessary fight. They waded into something that was none of their own business, and created an "issue” with Patrick J. Buchanan. This seems to have been motivated solely by the petulance of the PD editor, Tony Messenger, and his desire to bash PJB. Finally, when we consider the conclusion to the editorial, we realize that Tony Messenger is clearly wrong in his assessment. Patrick J. Buchanan, the originator of the phrase "The Silent Majority”, and the best-selling author of many books, and countless commentaries and opinion pieces never wrote "talking points”. That practice and the silly name applied to the practice was a creation of Bill Clinton, perjurer, petty criminal, serial sexual harasser, and Democratic Party folk hero. Still, no one ever expects factual accuracy from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:50 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 1069 words, total size 9 kb.

The Next Great War

Al Qaeda on the march

By Alan Caruba

In the July 24 edition of The Wall Street Journal there was a commentary, by the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Arnold M. Eisen. I thought to myself that this was an extraordinary time to be suggesting conversion to a faith that is literally under attack in Israel and being attacked by the reemergence of anti-Semitism in Europe. Here in America we are witnessing the most pro-Islamic and anti-Semitic administration in the history of nation.

In the wake of the Holocaust following World War Two what anti-Semitism existed in the U.S. gave way to an era of good will toward Jews. In Europe open expressions of anti-Semitism were out of favor. Eisen’s concern is the extensive inter-marriage between Christians and Jews in which Judaism is often abandoned in our historically Christian society. The news about Jews in the post-war years was largely about the nation of Israel and the wars it fought to re-establish and maintain the Jewish state.

What those wars should have told us was that Islamic hatred of Judaism extends to Christianity as well.

For Americans that lesson was driven home on September 11, 2001, but even the memory of that event has begun to fade to such an extent that Americans have twice elected a President who has never hidden his admiration for Islam, whose father was a Muslim, and who spent part of his youth in the Islamic nation of Indonesia. In office, his antipathy to Israel has been in stark contrast to the decades of support for Israel that presidents since Harry Truman have demonstrated.

A curious trend has emerged in America that runs counter to its entire history. The celebratory elements of Christian holy days, particularly Christmas, came under attack with demands that holiday scenes of crèches and even crosses be removed from public areas. Being religious was not encouraged and the tradition of starting the school day with a prayer was banned.

It is not too far a reach to say that the West, America and Europe, has been abandoning the depth of faith that distinguished it as church attendance fell off and resistance to attacks on the practice of religion declined. Home to some of the most beautiful churches on Earth, those in Europe are too often virtually empty.

This has not been the case in the Middle East and parts of Africa where Islam has awakened from its passive existence due in part to the colonization that preceded and followed World War One. The riches that oil provided have played a role and today a nation like Qatar is funding the emergence of ISIS, the self-declared caliphate calling itself the Islamic State.

Other oil-rich Middle East nations have supported al Qaeda only to discover that they were among its targets. ISIS has turned on Muslims in the area between Syria and into northern Iraq whom they declare hypocrites and apostates. In Mosul, Christians have been told to convert, pay a tax, or die.

While the rockets that have rained down on Israel are dramatic, the attacks on Christians throughout the Middle East have received less attention, but Christian Arabs have been driven from their homelands in the same way the establishment of Israel saw Jews forced to abandon homes in which they had lived for generations.

While Americans, joined by European negotiators, attempt to get Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, they remain blind to the role Iran has played for decades, using Hezbollah and Hamas, two Palestinian terrorist organizations, to wage war on Israel and, by extension, the U.S. Not a day goes by without the calls, "Death to America” and "Death to Israel.” There is only one way to end Iran’s nuclear program and that is to destroy the facilities that enrich uranium and plutonium. At some point, it will come to that because it must.

Israel is making it clear to the world that there is only one way to rid itself of Hamas and that is a military operation. Its troops are finding an astounding matrix of tunnels whose only purpose is to attack it.

Utterly devoid of any moral standards, Hamas uses homes, schools and hospitals to hide its arsenal of rockets and Palestinian civilians are forced to act as human shields. The world’s media focuses on the deaths of their men, women, and children, but little notice of the rockets and missiles that continue to be fired at Israel. Meanwhile Hamas has been abandoned by Egypt and most other Middle Eastern nations other than Iran and Turkey.

The so-called Palestinians have been led by men like the late Yassir Arafat and currently by Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, Fatah. Abbas has recently moved his family to a home in Jordan in the face of criticism that he has been too "cooperative” with Israel. OnQuds Day last week, an event organized throughout the Middle East by Iran, an estimated 10,000 protesters gathered in the West Bank to protest Israel’s control of Jerusalem, a holy city to Jews and Christians, claimed as well by Islam. It was founded by King David.

Even so, the European business sector was quick to engage with Iran following the news of the negotiations which have been extended and which have granted Iran billions in return for sitting at the table to discuss an end to the nuclear program that it will never abandon.

In 1913, no one in Europe or America would have ever predicted the beginning of World War One in 1914. It began on July 28, 1914. As the historian Charles Emmerson said of the unanticipated war, "Humanity looked into the abyss and peering into the depths, found its own dark, disfigured reflection staring back.”

In 2014, a century later, humanity needs to take a look at the fascistic, utterly immoral objectives and practices of Islam, and understand that it is at war with us, with moderate Muslims, and with all other faiths. It’s not "if” will shall have to deal with it military as Israel is doing, but "when.” That day is not far off.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1027 words, total size 10 kb.

July 26, 2014

Muddled Thinking from Charles Krauthammer

Timothy Birdnow

Charles Krauthammer has a first-rate mind; of that there can be no dispute. But the good doctor has been around Washington too long and perhaps has lost that capacity for original thinking that marks truly great thinkers.

One example of this was his inability to grasp who Obama was until after the Immaculation; Dr. Krauthammer admits it was several weeks into the Obama Presidency before he realized Obama was really a socialist. This prompted gasps of shock from Rush Limbaugh, who had been warning (along with many others) that Obama was a wolf in sheeps clothing for quite some time. www.americanthinker.com/...limbaughkrauthammerwill_tiff...

Well, we are witnessing this lack of appropriate discernment from Dr. Krauthammer again.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/383694/vacant-presidency-charles-krauthammer

Dr. Krauthammer, writing in National Review Online, makes the argument that Obama's seeming inaction while the world burns is demonstrative of a worldview that sees history as immutable - much like Karl Marx - and seeks to allow things to run their course. "Putin is on the wrong side of history" so there is no need to intervene in the Ukrainian crisis, since "history" will win out in the end.

According to the NRO article:

"The preferred explanation for the president’s detachment is psychological. He’s checked out. Given up. Let down and disappointed by the world, he is in withdrawal.

Perhaps. But I’d propose an alternative theory that gives him more credit: Obama’s passivity stems from an idea.

When Obama says Putin has placed himself on the wrong side of history in Ukraine, he actually believes it. He disdains realpolitik because he believes that, in the end, such primitive 19th-century notions as conquest are self-defeating. History sees to their defeat.

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” is one of Obama’s favorite sayings. Ultimately, injustice and aggression don’t pay. The Soviets saw their 20th-century empire dissolve. More proximally, U.S. gains in Iraq and Afghanistan were, in time, liquidated. Ozymandias lies forever buried and forgotten in desert sands."

End excerpt.

This is, I believe, a far too charitable view, one that ignores Obama's domestic history.

IF Dr. Krauthammer's explanation is correct, why has the Obama Administration risked political catastrophe with a hyper-aggressive domestic agenda? Why did he ram Obamacare through Congress despite the illegality of the way it was done (Harry Reid simply rewrote the House bill and then voted on THAT, overruling the House's authority to author spending bills). A man who believed in historical inevitability would not have endangered his party's power so, yet Obama did precisely that. How about EPA regulations? These are not popular, and if this is the inevitable tide of history Obama would not want to offend the voting public. How about this whole open border business? He risked angering the American People, and yet he did it anyway.

What about the IRS intimidation scandal? Why use the power of government to stop a foe who has already been beaten by history?

In foreign affairs too Mr. Obama has not been static; consider his aggressive approach in Libya, in Egypt, in Syria. Obama offered military aid in the "Arab Spring" to the rebels. This does not bespeak a man mired in inaction because of a belief in the inevitability of historical trends.

Mr. Obama has been VERY active, just in a peculiar way.

Dr. Krauthammer continues:

"Remember when, at the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, Obama tried to construct for Putin "an off-ramp” from Crimea? Absurd as this idea was, I think Obama was sincere. He actually imagined that he’d be saving Putin from himself, that Crimea could only redound against Russia in the long run.

If you really believe this, then there is no need for forceful, potentially risky U.S. counteractions. Which explains everything since: Obama’s pinprick sanctions; his failure to rally a craven Europe; his refusal to supply Ukraine with the weapons it has been begging for."

End excerpt.

Here we see the unwillingness of the inside-the-beltway crowd to point out imperial nudity; Krauthammer cannot ascribe malice to Mr. Obama, since that would be ungentlemanly to do to a fellow insider. Instead of reaching the obvious conclusion - that Obama, like most good leftists, was angry at the fall of the Soviet Union and would like to see Putin reconstitute it - Dr. Krauthammer wades in a mire of excuses, saying Obama believes that Putin will lose in the end. He has it exactly backwards; Obama believes WE will lose in the end, and his tepid response to Putin is an effort to see to it that Ukraine is brought back into the neo-Soviet orb. He is trying to illustrate to the world that WE are the toothless ones, powerless before other nations.

Obama's "weakness" is the classic weakness of Leftists. The Left always sought to appease the Soviets, the Maoists, the thugs and tyrants while fighting the "real" battles against the reactionary right wing. WE are the true enemies. That Krauthammer failst o see this is shocking.

That people like Charles Krauthammer are our intellectual leaders is illustrative of the huge problem we face; our leaders do not understand the nature of the political/philosophical war we have been forced to fight. They think it is a disagreement between well-meaning individuals, when it is a war of extermination, a battle to the intellectual and political death (and if the hard Left - of whom Mr. Obama is a member - get their way they may well employ William Ayers' liquidation strategy for the 25 million Americans who won't be "re-educated" www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3175524/posts?page=36 ) Krauthammer cannot, will not, believe this of an attractive fellow like Obama, with his perfect pants crease and whatnot.

The goal of fundamentally transforming America means weakening our power abroad and strangling dissent at home. It really is that simple. Too few Republicans seem to understand this simple fact.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 976 words, total size 6 kb.

Marine freed from Mexico!

Jack Kemp

The story title refers to him as an ex-Marine. There is really no such thing as an ex-Marine. And this is great news.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/21/ex-marine-freed-from-mexico-prison-at-last-back-in-u-s-with-his-family/

BEGIN QUOTE

MIAMI (AP) — A Marine veteran jailed for months in Mexico after trying to carry a family heirloom shotgun across the border has been freed, U.S. officials and his lawyer said late Friday.

The attorney for 27-year-old Jon Hammar tweeted Friday night that his client had been released from a detention center in Matamoros, Mexico.

"Jon is out, going home!” Eddie Varon Levy tweeted.

Patrick Ventrell, the acting deputy spokesman for the State Department, confirmed Hammer’s release and return to the U.S. in a statement Friday night.

END QUOTE

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

July 25, 2014

Cupid's Error Bars

Timothy Birdnow

Spring, the time when a young man's fancy turns to - global warming! In this instance the young men at NOAA and the Japan Meteorological Agency have, smitten with l'amore for the computer game known as global warming/climate change/climate disruption have boldly pronounced their love to be the fairest in the land, claiming we witnessed the warmest June anyone has ever seen. Apparently June was busting out all over with heat.

Writing at American Thinker, Sierra Rayne rains on their Easter parade.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/07/the_climate_horse_race_is_a_statistical_tie.html

Here are a few snippets:

"NOAA's global temperature anomaly history for June is available here. June 2010 was 0.69°C, and June 2014 was 0.72°C, for a difference of only 0.03°C (or 0.05°F – i.e., "one-twentieth of a degree”). Here is the problem: NOAA fails toinclude error bars on its estimates of global temperature. And make no mistake: there should be error bars on any and all discussions of local, regional, national, and/or global temperatures. Not to include error bars is simply bad science.

The U.K. Met Office includes error bars on its global average temperature anomalies, and they are quite large. The 95-percent confidence range on the standard HadCRUT4 and HadCRUT3 datasets are plus-or-minus 0.09 to 0.10°C. For example, the HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomaly for 2012 was 0.45°C, with a 95-percent confidence range from 0.35 to 0.55°C. In other words, there is a 95-percent probability that the global temperature anomaly for 2012 is somewhere between 0.35 and 0.55°C.

Back to the NOAA-NCDC data that Arndt is using. One reasonably presumes that NOAA's global temperature anomaly has about the same error range as the U.K. Met Office. Thus, the June 2014 global temperature from NOAA likely has a 95-percent confidence interval of about plus-or-minus 0.10°C. The difference between the June 2010 and June 2014 global temperatures was, according to NOAA, just 0.03°C. This hardly seems like "winning a horse race by several lengths.” Actually, it appears that the global temperatures for these two months are a statistical tie – otherwise known as no significant "

[...]

".have also previously discussed the significant differences between among global temperature anomaly datasets, which I termed anomalies in the global temperature anomaly. In some cases, the differences among various climate science organization datasets are massive. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has 1998 as the warmest year on record for the planet, and by a mile, whereas other datasets such as NASA-GISS have 2010 as much, much warmer than 1998."

End excerpts.

Love is blind, the old saying goes. Where Global Warming is concerned it is also deaf, dumb, and neuropathetic.

We hear this every year at least once "hottest (fill in the blank) on record" and it really is wearing thin, because we HAVE HAD NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING SINCE 1995!!! Yet the science media breathlessly reports claims of hottest x on record as though it is some sort of ironclad proof that Man is rushing to doomsday, all the while ignoring that there is nothing actually happening. Of course, these same wizards of smart ignore the fact that nature may play a role in any sort of record breaking.

It's rather like asking someone how much they weigh; you aren't going to get an ironclad response "143.467 lbs.) but rather "around 145". Nobody says they are gaining too much weight if they put on .012 lbs. Except we seem to want to do that in climate science.

And our smitten young men are thrilled with this weight gain, apparently being enamoured of large girls and unhappy that their loves just aren't fattening up appropriately. So they make her weigh herself every day and thrill at any deviation of the scale.

But sometimes it's just water weight, and climate change certainly bears little resemblence to permanent obesity.

I wonder how long before NOAA quietly updates this claim, as they had to downgrade July 2012?
dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly- reinstates-july..

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:25 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 649 words, total size 4 kb.

July 24, 2014

BHO Knew the Invasion was Coming



Timothy Birdnow

The Obama Administration KNEW the alien invasion was coming as far back as 2011, according to e-mails retrieved by News 4 Tucson.
http://www.kvoa.com/news/n4t-investigators-emails-show-u-s-was-warned-about-migrant-crisis-in-2011/

More and more this appears to be a staged event.
Hat tip: Breitbart.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:58 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Going to Pot


Timothy Birdnow

Snoop Dog, Bob Beckel, smoked dope in the White House.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/fncs-beckel-ive-done-dope-white-house

When we say the Presidency is going to pot we mean that literally...

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:39 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

A Great Plan to Replace the EPA



By Alan Caruba

For years now I have been saying that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must be eliminated and its powers given to the fifty states, all of which,have their own departments of environmental protection. Until now, however, there has been no plan put forth to do so.

Dr. Jay Lehr has done just that and his plan no doubt will be sent to the members of Congress and the state governors. Titled" Replacing the Environmental Protection Agency” it should be read by everyone who, like Dr. Lehr, has concluded that the EPA was a good idea when it was introduced in 1971, but has since evolved into a rogue agency threatening the U.S. economy, attacking the fundamental concept of private property, and the lives of all Americans in countless and costly ways.

Dr. Jay Lehr
Dr. Lehr is the Science Director and Senior Fellow ofThe Heartland Institute, for whom I am a policy advisor. He is a leading authority on groundwater hydrology and the author of more than 500 magazine and journal articles, and 30 books. He has testified before Congress on more than three dozen occasions on environmental issues and consulted with nearly every agency of the federal government and with many foreign countries. The Institute is a national nonprofit research and education organizations supported by voluntary contributions.

Ironically, he was among the scientists who called for the creation of the EPA and served on many of the then-new agency’s advisory councils. Over the course of its first ten years, he helped write a significant number of legislative bills to create a safety net for the environment.

As he notes in his plan, "Beginning around 1981, liberal activist groups recognized EPA could be used to advance their political agenda by regulating virtually all human activities regardless of their impact on the environment. Politicians recognized they could win votes by posing as protectors of the public health and wildlife. Industries saw a way to use regulations to handicap competitors or help themselves to public subsidies. Since that time, not a single environmental law or regulation has passed that benefited either the environment or society.”

"The takeover of EPA and all of its activities by liberal activists was slow and methodical over the past 30 years. Today, EPA is all but a wholly owned subsidiary of liberal activist groups. Its rules account for about half of the nearly $2 trillion a year cost of complying with all national regulations in the U.S. President Barack Obama is using it to circumvent Congress to impose regulations on the energy sector that will cause prices to ‘skyrocket.’ It is a rogue agency.”

Dr. Lehr says that "Incremental reform of EPA is simply not an option.” He's right.

"I have come to believe that the national EPA must be systematically dismantled and replaced by a Committee of the Whole of the 50 state environmental protection agencies. Those agencies in nearly all cases long ago took over primary responsibility for the implementation of environmental laws passed by Congress (or simply handed down by EPA as fiat rulings without congressional vote or oversight.”

Looking back over the years, Dr. Lehr notes that "The initial laws I helped write have become increasingly draconian, yet they have not benefited our environment or the health of our citizens. Instead they suppress our economy and the right of our citizens to make an honest living. It seems to me, and to others, that this is actually the intention of those in EPA and in Congress who want to see government power expanded without regard to whether it is needed to protect the environment or public health.”

Eliminating the EPA would provide a major savings by eliminating 80% of its budget. The remaining 20% could be used to run its research labs and administer the Committee of the Whole of the 50 state environmental agencies. "The Committee would determine which regulations are actually mandated in law by Congress and which were established by EPA without congressional approval.”

Dr. Lehr estimates the EPA’s federal budget would be reduced from $8.2 billion to $2 billion. Staffing would be reduced from more than 15,000 to 300 and that staff would serve in a new national EPA headquarters he recommends be "located centrally in Topeka, Kansas, to allow the closest contact with the individual states.” The staff would consist of six delegate-employees from each of the 50 states.”

"Most states,” says Dr. Lehr, "will enthusiastically embrace this plan, as their opposition to EPA’s ‘regulatory train wreck’ grows and since it gives them the autonomy and authority they were promised when EPA was first created and the funding to carry it out.”

The EPA was a good idea when it was created, the nation’s air and water needed to be cleaned, but they have been at this point. Since then, the utterly bogus "global warming”, now called "climate change”, has been used to justify a torrent of EPA regulations. The science the EPA cites as justification is equally tainted and often kept secret from the public.

"It’s time for the national EPA to go,” says Dr. Lehr and I most emphatically agree. "All that is missing is the political will.”

© Alan Caruba, 2014
 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:21 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 877 words, total size 7 kb.

the Hypocrite in Chief


Wil Wirtanen

The big Zero in his zeal to bring down gun violence has decided to prosecute 25% less gun crimes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/23/despite-rhetoric-gun-prosecutions-plummet-under-ob/

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

July 23, 2014

Anthony Kennedy Disdains U.S. Constitution Publicly



Timothy Birdnow

Anthony Kennedy says the Constitution is flawed. According to Breitbart:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/07/22/Justice-Kennedy-Says-Constitution-Flawed

"Most of Kennedy’s nearly hour-long speech focused on the Magna Carta, originally signed in 1215 and due for its 800th anniversary next year. But he couldn’t resist taking a swipe at the Constitution, noting, "The Constitution of the United States is a flawed document,” its "thinly veiled language… basically reaffirmed the legality of slavery.” Kennedy was referencing the section of the Constitution in which each slave was defined as three-fifths of a person in the estimation of how many congressional delegates each state was allotted. He added that the soldiers who died in the Civil War were "one of the things it cost for having a Constitution that was flawed.”

Turning to those who champion originalism, Kennedy lectured that the drafters of the Constitution wanted principles that could be reinterpreted by justices of the future. He said, "The framers were wise enough to know that they could not foresee the injustices” of the future, "so they used general language.”

Tweaking fellow justice Antonin Scalia, a stout originalist, Kennedy defended Scalia’s 2008 ruling that reversed a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. He added that the Second Amendment protects the rights of citizens to own certain firearms at home. The Second Amendment had been interpreted up until 1939 to protect only the right to bear arms in a "well-regulated militia.”


End excerpt.

First, I'm not sure why the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is spending taxpayer money to host a convention; I don't recall this as a function of any court. Kennedy was speaking at this same convention.

Second, if this jackass wants to legislate he should run for Congress, not sit in judgement of laws duly passed. He either does not understand what his duties entail or, more likely, seeks to usurp powers not granted to him because, like Obama, he sees the Constitution as an impediment to "progress". His comments make it plain he has no business on the Court.

It's no wonder America is in such trouble.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:59 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 3 kb.

Electron-eating Bacteria

Timothy Birdnow

Bacteria that live off electrons!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25894-meet-the-electric-life-forms-that-live-on-pure-energy.html#.U8_QrTvryCl

This makes me wonder; if they can process electricity directly for energy, is there perhaps a way for us to utilize this?

From the article:

"Unlike any other living thing on Earth, electric bacteria use energy in its purest form – naked electricity in the shape of electrons harvested from rocks and metals. We already knew about two types, Shewanella and Geobacter. Now, biologists are showing that they can entice many more out of rocks and marine mud by tempting them with a bit of electrical juice. Experiments growing bacteria on battery electrodes demonstrate that these novel, mind-boggling forms of life are essentially eating and excreting electricity."

End excerpt.

Perhaps these critters can be used for electrical storage? A batter of such bacteria may well prove more efficient than any we currently have.

Food for thought!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 1 of 472 >>
175kb generated in CPU 0.1, elapsed 0.1121 seconds.
36 queries taking 0.0209 seconds, 189 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.