This user hasn't shared any biographical information
Posts by Father
A top UN panel (which is like saying the winningest looser) today called for increased taxes on carbon emissions and international transport to raise $100 billion a year to “combat” Global
Warming Climate Change Disruption.
Led by the prime ministers of Norway and Ethiopia, they also said there could be a tax on international financial transactions.
They have changed the name again of Global Warming. Since “Climate Change” was not vague enough, Obama’s science czar came out and said that there should be a new word for it:
Global Climate Disruption
“In fact, Holdren pointed out, the changes that are occurring are highly nonuniform, not only about temperature, occurring rapidly, and quite harmful to the environment. The correct term, he said, should be ‘global climate disruption.’”
On Sept. 13, 2007 during a presentation at the World Affairs Council of Northern California, Holdren said, “The widely used term of global warming is in fact a misnomer.”
“I like to use the term ‘global climatic disruption’ in preference to ‘global warming’ or even ‘global heating,’ which is maybe a little better,” Holdren said.
When addressing the issue during a Harvard symposium on Nov. 6, 2007 Holdren said, “The first message is that ‘global warming’ is a misnomer. It implies something gradual, something uniform, something quite possibly benign. And what we are experiencing is none of those. It is rapid in relation to the capacity of societies and ecosystems to respond. It is highly non-uniform and it is certainly not benign. And that’s why I prefer the term ‘global climate disruption’ to ‘global warming.’”
This is re-branding is much like the name-change to Climate Change… The more vague they make it, the more they are right. With a name like “Global Climate Disruption”, they can point at any storm, or sunny day as proof of Global Warming.
Maybe the readers here should try to do something constructive for the environmental movement for once. Let’s hear your suggestions for other names for “Global Warming”. Using the Thesaurus, lets see what we can make.
This is one we might see next:
All-Around Meteorological Character Confusion.
There, that feels better.
The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following
1. The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn’s “My Ishmael” pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other’s inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order. Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation. Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!
2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.
3. All programs promoting War and the technology behind those must cease. There is no sense in advertising weapons of mass-destruction anymore. Instead, talk about ways to disassemble civilization and concentrate the message in finding SOLUTIONS to solving global military mechanized conflict. Again, solutions solutions instead of just repeating the same old wars with newer weapons. Also, keep out the fraudulent peace movements. They are liars and fakes and had no real intention of ending the wars. ALL OF THEM ARE FAKE! On one hand, they claim they want the wars to end, on the other, they are demanding the human population increase. World War II had 2 Billion humans and after that war, the people decided that tripling the population would assure peace. WTF??? STUPIDITY! MORE HUMANS EQUALS MORE WAR!
4. Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed. Broadcast this message until the pollution in the planet is reversed and the human population goes down! This is your obligation. If you think it isn’t, then get hell off the planet! Breathe Oil! It is the moral obligation of everyone living otherwise what good are they??
5. Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)
6. Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don’t build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!
7. Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!
8. Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies! You’re the media, you can reach enough people. It’s your resposibility because you reach so many minds!!!
9. Develop shows that will correct and dismantle the dangerous US world economy. Find solutions for their disasterous Ponzi-Casino economy before they take the world to another nuclear war.
10. Stop all shows glorifying human birthing on all your channels and on TLC. Stop Future Weapons shows or replace the dialogue condemning the people behind these developments so that the shows become exposes rather than advertisements of Arms sales and development!
11. You’re also going to find solutions for unemployment and housing. All these unemployed people makes me think the US is headed toward more war.
Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what’s left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.
For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human’s lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease!
It is the responsiblity of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices. Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis. Even one child born in the US will use 30 to a thousand times more resources than a Third World child. It’s like a couple are having 30 babies even though it’s just one! If the US goes in this direction maybe other countries will too!
Also, war must be halted. Not because it’s morally wrong, but because of the catastrophic environmental damage modern weapons cause to other creatures. FIND SOLUTIONS JUST LIKE THE BOOK SAYS!
Humans are supposed to be inventive. INVENT, DAMN YOU!!
The world needs TV shows that DEVELOP solutions to the problems that humans are causing, not stupify the people into destroying the world. Not encouraging them to breed more environmentally harmful humans.
Saving the environment and the remaning species diversity of the planet is now your mindset. Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.
The humans? The planet does not need humans.
You MUST KNOW the human population is behind all the pollution and problems in the world, and YET you encourage the exact opposite instead of discouraging human growth and procreation. Surely you MUST ALREADY KNOW this!
I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so. I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it.
These are the demands and sayings of Lee.
governments in thrall to special interests, corporations intent on monopoly control, politically motivated attacks on the scientific method, and a growing chorus of ranters who wear ignorance as their coat of arms and shout down all those with whom they disagree. We probably have the tools to solve the big problems that face us this century, but our own stupidity may well prevent us from properly using them. That’s truly crazy making and we’d better get used to the collateral damage.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
We’ve talked about this before. Record cold temps don’t count for anything and are shunned, but the moment there is record heat, that is definitive proof as far as the Church of Global Warming is concerned. Not only are temperatures down now compared to the last fourteen years, but they are also down compared to the last 1000 years and the last 65 million. We’ve also pointed out here the record cold that we experienced all throughout the United States and the world, so it’s not just us saying this.
But as predicted, the Church is using high temps now as more proof of Global Warming.
From USA Today:
March, April, May and June set records, making 2010 the warmest year worldwide since record-keeping began in 1880, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says.
“It’s part of an overall trend,” says Jay Lawrimore, climate analysis chief at NOAA‘s National Climatic Data Center. “Global temperatures … have been rising for the last 100-plus years. Much of the increase is due to increases in greenhouse gases.”
Lets first dispute what he is saying.
The claims “Part of an overall trend” and “Rising for the last 100-plus years” are easily dealt with. Anyone can find a trend anywhere if the limit their data enough. In this case, he is limiting his data to the last 100 years (or rather the 100 years before the temps started going down.) If I, for example, Looked at the temps and their trend between 4:00am and 11:00 am, I could say the temps are going up, and would be accurate. If however I looked at the temps for the last 24 hours, a different story is told.
They are looking at the last 100 years because that is what fits their claims, and anyone who believes this hog-wash apparently doesn’t question the fact that the process used to record world-wide temperatures in the 1880s were not as accurate as the 1950s. And the 1950s were not as accurate as the 1970s. The 1970s were not as accurate as now.
To quote myself:
Eco-Fascist: warmest in a hundred years bla bla bla, I love Al Gore bla bla bla
Me: 100 years eh?
Me: Think those temperature records of 1908 are accurate?
Me: Like… Satellite accurate?
Eco-Fascist: ummmm… sure.
Then there are other issues with temperature records like pulling the stations in Siberia from the global temperature averages, but I digress. As ClimateGate has shown us, those who have much to gain on the Church of Global Warming, are willing to manipulate data to fit their preaching.
From the same article:
Marc Morano, a global-warming skeptic who edits the Climate Depot website, says the government “is playing the climate fear card by hyping predictions and cherry-picking data.”
Joe D’Aleo, a meteorologist who co-founded The Weather Channel, disagrees, too. He says oceans are entering a cooling cycle that will lower temperatures.
He says too many of the weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas.
“The only reliable data set right now is satellite,” D’Aleo says.
Jay Lawrimore, climate analysis chief at NOAA‘s National Climatic Data Center also said: “Much of the increase is due to increases in greenhouse gases.”
Um yea, for a rebuttal of this, you can look anywhere on the Church of Global Warming.
Take note how very few (if any) of the ‘cooling’ articles mention Global Warming or Climate Change. Three others from USA Today in January (here, here, and here) talk of the record cold, but do not dare to mention Global Warming or Climate Change at all.
It is amazing that while there are tens of thousands of scientists who don’t subscribe to this religion, the people who do are in absolute disbelief of their existence, or continue to belittle us for daring to look outside their window of dogma. Speaking of which, I have talked with Dr. Art Robinson on this issue before. Who the hell are we to even say that 280ppm of CO2 is “normal”?
But I digress. Keep an eye on the news and how they report this religion. Then note, as I did during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 winters how little you hear about it. Every summer is proof of Global Climate Change and an excuse for larger government to those who are looking for reasons for their God (Al Gore) to be right, and every winter means absolutely nothing.
Part of the whole Church of Global Warming movement is to demonize and our technology at every turn. If it wasn’t for our machines, the earth wouldn’t ever warm. It would stay nice and cool, at the same temperature forever. And one of the greatest threats to mother Earth is not your car, but your Air Conditioner.
From the Washington Post:
Washington didn’t grind to a sweaty halt last week under triple-digit temperatures. People didn’t even slow down. Instead, the three-day, 100-plus-degree, record-shattering heat wave prompted Washingtonians to crank up their favorite humidity-reducing, electricity-bill-busting, fluorocarbon-filled appliance: the air conditioner.
This isn’t smart. In a country that’s among the world’s highest greenhouse-gas emitters, air conditioning is one of the worst power-guzzlers. The energy required to air-condition American homes and retail spaces has doubled since the early 1990s. Turning buildings into refrigerators burns fossil fuels, which emits greenhouse gases, which raises global temperatures, which creates a need for — you guessed it — more air-conditioning.
A.C.’s obvious public-health benefits during severe heat waves do not justify its lavish use in everyday life for months on end. Less than half a century ago, America thrived with only the spottiest use of air conditioning. It could again.
So, you’re doing it, you air conditioning using bastards. I hope you’re happy with yourselves.
Actually, upon reading this article, my AC will remain at 66 for the next week. Why would I do that? To spite them? Well, yes. I would. But more importantly, I am going to up my energy usage because of this other bit of news:
From the Telegraph.co.uk:
Alice Springs: coldest day on record
The Outback Australian town of Alice Spring is suffering what is likely to be its coldest day on record, with temperatures struggling to reach more than 42.8F (6C).
I know I know what you’re saying. “But a record cold doesn’t mean anything” or “it’s the trend that matters.”
Well, it doesn’t matter, does it? Because if the “Trend” mattered, then the current trend of downward temps over the last 12 years would matter right? What about Temps? If we shouldn’t be paying attention to the record “cooling” temps (because its not proof of cooling), then any heat-wave news or or all of the record heat wouldn’t matter because its not proof of Global Warming.
To say the “Cooling” isn’t proof of no AGW but the Warming is, is like saying a TV station title White Entertainment Television is raciest but Black Entertainment Television is not.
So, while the Eco-Hipsters are sweltering in the heat and reading this, I’d like them to read something else while they’re at it:
–noun, plural -sies.
- a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
- a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
- an act or instance of hypocrisy.
I’m not a Colbert fan. Usually I avoid whatever he is saying due to the fact that he is a left-wing asshat. But even broken clock is right twice a day.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart|
|An Energy-Independent Future|
This video helps me do to things:
- Say “I Told You So”
- Use the same source against those who love it most
In here, Johnny Boy basically says something I’ve been saying here for over five years.
Alternatives are great. They are. The free market makes them all the time. A person sees a profit (oooh, so evil) to be made because of a need, and goes at it with all they’ve got.
However, this “Let’s get off of oil” because “They are inventing new technologies” thing is simply crap. You don’t stop eating just because there is talk of an alternative to food.
Every time you hear someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about bring up our dependence on oil as something we need to break, they usually cite vague ’alternatives’ or ‘new technologies’. They have been doing so for the last 30 years. Let’s see them last through a 30 year hunger strike waiting for that new alternative technology for food.
But as you know, if we simply reduce our dependence on oil without government intervention, then environMental lobbyist groups won’t be able to rape us for money.
Part of the reason these “new technologies” are nowhere to be found in a form that will do any good is blindingly obvious. What do all of these “Fixes” have in common? Government.
So, to sum up this rant: I Told You So. I said many times that just because there are pipe dreams for “new technologies” doesn’t mean we should get off of oil right now.
By James M. Taylor
Efforts to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by replacing coal and natural gas with wind power appear to be doing more harm than good. A new study shows replacing coal and natural gas with wind power increases carbon dioxide emissions. Government policies designed to fight global warming by encouraging, subsidizing, or mandating renewable power may be making global warming worse.
In a paper published at the free-market Web site Master Resource, electrical engineer Kent Hawkins shows when wind power surpasses 5 percent of power generated, the frequent ramping up and ramping down of other power sources to compensate for wind’s unpredictable variability causes such inefficiency in power generation that overall carbon dioxide emissions rise.
For a good analogy, consider this: A driver who keeps his or her speed at a consistent 60 miles per hour will get better gas mileage than one who frequently accelerates and decelerates between 45 and 75 miles per hour. The inefficiency of frequently ramping up and ramping down vehicle speed is substantial enough that the vehicle driving at variable speeds will burn up more gasoline than many vehicles with a lower fuel economy rating.
The same appears to hold true for power generation. Power plants in the Netherlands, Colorado, and Texas switched some of their generation from coal and natural gas to wind power. Because wind speeds are variable and unpredictable, plant operators were forced frequently to vary the ordinarily steady, constant generation of baseload power to back up variable wind power. Whereas a small amount of wind power generation helped reduce carbon dioxide emissions, those emissions began surpassing prior levels once wind power exceeded 3 percent of the power mix.
If the proponents of federal legislation to force reduction of carbon dioxide emissions are sincerely concerned more about alleged global warming than the accumulation of government power to hand out money and favors to preferred industries and contractors, these real-world carbon dioxide facts should put an immediate freeze on renewable power subsidies, renewable power mandates, and cap-and-tax global warming plans. How Congress responds to these new findings will tell us much about the true motivation behind proposed global warming legislation.
The apparent failure of wind power to reduce carbon dioxide emissions should come as no surprise given the record of failure for other global warming schemes. Congress has long mandated and subsidized ethanol and other biofuels to reduce greenhouse gases, but studies these biofuels create more greenhouse gas emissions over their lifecycles than does gasoline. Global warming activists are now racing to rewrite legislation to eliminate counterproductive biofuel programs. A better course of action would have been not to have enacted the subsidies and mandates in the first place.
In the lawmaking process, as in life itself, rushing to enact “solutions” to speculative problems before the facts are known usually produces more harm than good. Keeping this axiom in mind, Congress need not rush to enact carbon dioxide restrictions on the American economy. After all, total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are falling, not rising, and they have been declining for the past decade. To the extent global emissions are rising, the fault does not lie with the United States.
Before hamstringing the U.S. economy with expensive mandates that may cause more harm than good, Congress owes it to the American people to get the facts.
Now I know the environMentalists hate HATE HATE BP right now, so… they’re not a fan of anything BP does right?
From the Green Market:
Like all great corporate villains, BP has covered its misdeeds with deceit.
In several instances, these decisions appear to violate industry guidelines and were made despite warnings from BP’s own personnel and its contractors. In effect, it appears that BP repeatedly chose risky procedures in order to reduce costs and save time.
And its not just those posting this stuff. The readers feel the same way. A subscriber of Mother Jones:
BP execs are criminally habitual pathological liars whose only concern is their own personal enrichment. This is a well-documented fact.
A subscriber of the Huffington Post:
It’s a complete waste of time to listen to anything BP or the government has to say. They’ve been caught out and exposed by a situation too big to spin. THEY ARE ALL LIARS, and have no credibility at all, none. Nothing but pathetic, worthless, incompetent LIARS, all of them, from top to bottom.
So with all of that, it doesn’t sound like environMentalists would be huge on supporting anything BP is pushing for right? I mean, they’re just a bunch of evil free-market lying liars who lie.
From the Washington Examiner:
As BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig was sinking on April 22, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was on the phone with allies in his push for climate legislation, telling them he would soon roll out the Senate climate bill with the support of the utility industry and three oil companies — including BP, according to the Washington Post.
But the Kerry-BP alliance for an energy bill that included a cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gases pokes a hole in a favorite claim of President Obama and his allies in the media — that BP’s lobbyists have fought fiercely to be left alone. Lobbying records show that BP is no free-market crusader, but instead a close friend of big government whenever it serves the company’s bottom line.
While BP has resisted some government interventions, it has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels.
Now that BP’s oil rig has caused the biggest environmental disaster in American history, the Left is pulling the same bogus trick it did with Enron and AIG: Whenever a company earns universal ire, declare it the poster boy for the free market.
Two patterns have emerged during Obama’s presidency: 1) Big business increasingly seeks profits through more government, and 2) Obama nonetheless paints opponents of his intervention as industry shills. BP is just the latest example of this tawdry sleight of hand.
More about the millions (Yea, with an ’S') Obama hs gotten from BP here.
From Star magazine:
In the June 28 issue of Star, on sale Wednesday, we report that Al and Tipper’s breakup didn’t come as much of a surprise to one Hollywood player — Laurie David. Star has learned that Al has been having an affair with Laurie, who divorced Seinfeld creator and Curb Your Enthusiasm star Larry David in 2007 amidst reports she was cheating with the caretaker of their Martha’s Vineyard summer home.
“Al and Laurie went from friends to lovers,” an insider tells Star. “It couldn’t be avoided.”
I know it’s too easy, but I’m just going to go out and say it. For Al Gore, this is quite the inconvenient truth. So, I know Clinton was defended, but can the nation trust someone that cheats on their spouse and lies about it? I don’t know that we can.
2 years old but still very much worth a read. From the Wall Street Journal:
Why I Left Greenpeace
By PATRICK MOORE
April 22, 2008; Page A23
In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.
But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.
At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.
The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.
My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.
Opposition to the use of chemicals such as chlorine is part of a broader hostility to the use of industrial chemicals. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, “Silent Spring,” had a significant impact on many pioneers of the green movement. The book raised concerns, many rooted in science, about the risks and negative environmental impact associated with the overuse of chemicals. But the initial healthy skepticism hardened into a mindset that treats virtually all industrial use of chemicals with suspicion.
Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.
Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children’s toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.
Phthalates are the new bogeyman. These chemicals make easy targets since they are hard to understand and difficult to pronounce. Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm. DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.
Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys “R” Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure.
It may be tempting to take this path of least resistance, but at what cost? None of the potential replacement chemicals have been tested and found safe to the degree that DINP has. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently cautioned, “If DINP is to be replaced in children’s products . . . the potential risks of substitutes must be considered. Weaker or more brittle plastics might break and result in a choking hazard. Other plasticizers might not be as well studied as DINP.”
The hysteria over DINP began in Europe and Israel, both of which instituted bans. Yet earlier this year, Israel realized the error of putting politics before science, and reinstated DINP.
The European Union banned the use of phthalates in toys prior to completion of a comprehensive risk assessment on DINP. That assessment ultimately concluded that the use of DINP in infant toys poses no measurable risk.
The antiphthalate activists are running a campaign of fear to implement their political agenda. They have seen success in California, with a state ban on the use of phthalates in infant products, and are pushing for a national ban. This fear campaign merely distracts the public from real environmental threats.
We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.
Mr. Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.