May 04, 2016

Missouri State Expels Student from Counseling Program for Christian Beliefs

Jack Kemp forwards this:

Missouri State booted student from counseling program over Christian beliefs, says lawsuit

Todd Starnes
By Todd Starnes
Published May 03, 2016

Should Christians who oppose same-sex marriage based on religious beliefs be allowed to obtain degrees in counseling?

That’s the question at the heart of a lawsuit filed in federal court by a former student at Missouri State University who claims he was kicked out of a master’s program in counseling because of his religious beliefs.
Andrew Cash claims he was "targeted and punished for expressing his Christian worldview regarding a hypothetical situation concerning whether he would provide counseling to a gay/homosexual couple.”

MSU spokeswoman Suzanne Shaw told the News-Leader that the "university strictly prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion or any other protected class.” She would not comment on specifics of the case.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Kristi Perryman, the counseling department’s internship coordinator, confronted Cash about his views toward counseling gay people.
Cash told her he would counsel them individually on a variety of issues but not as a couple. He said he would refer them elsewhere.

Cash explained to Perryman that his approach to counseling is centered on his "core beliefs, values and Christian worldview and these would not be congruent with the likely values and needs of a gay couple, who, for these reasons, would be best served by a counselor sharing their core value system and core beliefs,” the lawsuit states.

Perryman then told Cash that he "could not hold these views, which she deemed to be unethical, and which, she asserted, contradicted the American Counseling Association’s code of ethics as discriminatory toward gay persons.”

"It made me angry,” said attorney Tom Olp with the Thomas More Society – a law firm that specializes in religious liberty issues. "She took offense at his religious beliefs and then essentially kept dwelling on those until he was drummed out of the program.”

Olp is suing Perryman and a host of other university officials – including Tamara Arthaud, the head of the counseling department and faculty member Angela Anderson.

"We have this very dangerous trend towards allowing the government to shut down religious expression,” Olp told me. "That is contrary to the First Amendment. A democracy requires vibrant expression of various points of view and it really needs robust religious expression.”

Cash’s troubles began in the spring of 2011 when he began a university-approved internship at the Springfield Marriage and Family Institute, a Christian organization. It was during a classroom presentation that the director of the Christian group was asked about counseling gay persons.

A week later, Cash was informed he would no longer be allowed to intern at the institute. He was also grilled about his personal views regarding counseling homosexuals, the lawsuit states.

In 2014 Cash was just a few courses shy of graduating with a M.S. in Counseling. He had a 3.81 grade point average and was a student in good-standing with the school.
Olp told me it’s not the first time Christians have been thrown out of counseling program in public universities – citing cases in Michigan as well as Missouri.
"It’s an extremely intolerant and almost puritanical approach and more and more prevalent in secular universities,” he said.

Cash wants to be re-admitted to the program so he can finish his studies and obtain his degree.

That’s the least the university can do for a man who has been targeted and bullied because of his Christian faith.

It’s unfortunate that we live in a nation where one’s faith in Christ is now considered a career-killer.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 609 words, total size 5 kb.

Limbaugh Says Trump will Beat Hillary in a Landlside

Jack Kemp forwards this:

My Gut: Trump Beats Hillary in Landslide May 04, 2016

RUSH: Hold your horses, Trump supporters. Hold your horses. When I say, "We'll examine what went wrong," come on. You know exactly what I'm talking about, from the standpoint of Cruz supporters. They're the ones trying to figure out what went wrong today. They are looking for explanations, and I'm sure they have their own at the same time. But we'll get into all that. Let me give you one little thing: My instinctive feeling right now is that Trump is gonna win, beat Hillary badly, that it could be landslide proportions.


Somebody's gonna have to tell 'em how bad it is. I mean, they instinctively know things are not great. But look at the Millennials. My point is, the millennials think the country's seen its best days. They don't blame the Democrats for it 'cause nobody tells them. Nobody explains to them that the reason they are in great suffering and have (in their own minds) no future is because of Democrat Party left-wing policies. But nobody tells 'em that. So they are left to assume that America is flawed.
"America was flawed from its founding, and all these flaws -- and all this racism, bigotry, self-hatred, all that -- is coming to the fore now, and America has caught up with itself." This is, sadly, what some of these people think. So a guy comes along and tells 'em he'll make America great, identifies problems, and then proposes solutions; doesn't hold back. It's not hard to figure any of this out. Against a message like Trump's, if your counter message is, "I'm the most conservative guy running," that's not going to work.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

Birdbrain 'Bama to Kill Birds with Wind Turbines

Dana Mathewson

Zippy's a birdbrain, if you ask me.

The Obama administration is revising a federal rule that allows wind-energy companies to operate high-speed turbines for up to 30 years, even if means killing or injuring thousands of federally protected bald and golden eagles.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Mr. T for the GOP!

Jack Kemp

This insures Trump carries California with a big majority and gets the nomination.

The U.S. has chosen the white "Mr. T" for its GOP "A Team." I hope Trump can get enough votes to beat Hillary but...The only thing I can say is: pray harder. Trump is probably better than Hillary - and today I think I might just vote for other offices down the ticket in November. I wonder who Trump's VP choice will be. My crystal ball just clouded over. I could make a case for Hillary being better than Trump but I won't vote for her - and I don't know if that case would be true.

Right now, I feel like I'm watching a broadcast of "The Munsters" Visit "Hee Haw" - but it is actually the evening news.

If Trump loses in November, it could easily be the end of the Republican Party and a new one being created. Come to think of it, if Trump wins in November, it could also mean the same thing.

Dana Mathewson replies:

True -- on both counts. What nobody seems to mention is that the Democratic Party, as we all used to know it, is already dead.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

A Poverty of Good Intentions

Wil Wirtanen forwards this:

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Real World energy and climate

Paul Driessen

My friend and colleague John Coleman has sent me his fascinating personal perspective on climate and weather reality and insanity, the energy systems that have so improved our lives over the past 150 years, and the sunny future he predicts for our children … if we don’t let misguided policies and regulations get in the way.

I think you will enjoy his article as much as I did.

Real World energy and climate

"The sky is falling” scare stories have no place in public interest science or policy

John Coleman

Earth Day 2016 brought extensive consternation about how our Earth will soon become uninhabitable, as mankind’s activities of civilization trigger unstoppable global warming and climate change. President Obama used the occasion to sign the Paris climate treaty and further obligate the United States to slash its fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth.

I love this little blue planet and do all I can to preserve it for my children and grandchildren.

If I thought for even a second that the civilized activities of mankind are producing a threat to our planet, I would spend the rest of my life correcting the problems. However, after devoting a decade to carefully studying mankind’s impact on our climate, I am firmly convinced that the entire global warming/climate change campaign is based on a failed scientific theory.

In short, there is no dangerous manmade climate change problem.

"Who cares about your scientific study,” many people respond. "This is about loving a native environment. This is about escaping from the horrors of so called civilization.”

That response is understandable because for fifteen years the Greenpeace-Sierra Club crowd has been constantly decrying the "ugliness” of civilization: cars, planes, trains, trucks, factories, power plants and all the rest. It seems they think things were better in pre-industrial times, or perhaps the world of Tarzan or modern-day central Africa.

There certainly has been a steady barrage of "research” that finds everything going drastically wrong with Planet Earth because of our civilized life. The media join in, of course, proclaiming "the sky is falling,” and Al Gore’s book, movie and "climate crisis tipping point” mantra stirred the media into an even bigger tizzy. Now almost the entire Democrat Party has climbed aboard.

As a result, billions of dollars in annual government funding keep the alarmist climate research and environmental campaigns marching on. Tens of billions more subsidize wind, solar and biofuel energy that is supposedly more "sustainable” and "climate friendly.”

Today, a high percentage of Americans accept climate change as a valid problem, even though the vast majority rate it at the bottom of their top ten or twenty concerns. Many accept news reports that tell us the United Nations through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) has "settled” the science in the last fifteen years.

In fact, President Obama and others say the matter is so proven that 97% of scientists agree on climate change. But this oft-quoted phrase has been totally debunked as fabricated or bait-and-switch. A group of scientists is asked, "Do you agree that Earth has warmed in recent years and Earth’s climate is changing?”

Probably every honest, competent scientist would answer "Yes.” But then the "survey” team changes the question to have them say, "Yes, humans are causing dangerous climate change.” Since 100% agreement would look suspicious, they back off a little and make it a "97% consensus.”

This leaves a somewhat David and Goliath situation for those of us climate experts who agree that Earth’s climate is changing, has always changed, and humans have some effects today – but do not believe that mankind’s emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide have replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate change, or that any current or future changes must necessarily be dangerous or cataclysmic. We are frequently insulted and dismissed as Deniers.

Our side is not as small as the media may have you think. Many notable scientists totally reject claims of a manmade climate crisis. Over 31,000 have signed a statement that rejects the manmade global warming scare and says we see "no convincing evidence” that humans are causing dangerous climate change. They and other experts have widely discredited the IPCC and other assertions about the climate.

There is even a Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). It has published several impressive 4,000-page books of scientific papers that totally dismantle IPCC claims. The NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered and other books are also published on-line.

Even the late, great author/physician/scientist Michael Crichton (of Jurassic Park fame) debunked global warming and wrote about it in his novel State of Fear.

Our fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric powered civilization has made billions of lives much healthier, longer and more pleasant than in previous times. Heating and air conditioning, power for lights and computers and smart phones, and modern hospitals and schools are just a few of the blessings that bring incalculable value to our lives. What we enjoy today is the result of hundreds of generations of hard working men and women, each one moving us forward by inches or miles.

In my 80s now, I think about the world into which I was born. Radio was just beginning. Phones were few and far between and very primitive, requiring hand cranks and operators. Cars and trucks were slow and produced awful soot, smoke, carbon monoxide and other pollutants. Factories, power plants and home furnaces fueled by dirty unprocessed coal with un-scrubbed smoke billowing from their chimneys, left us all in smoggy, unhealthy air.

Doctors had few medicines to offer, and only primitive x-ray devices to peer inside us. Jet airplanes, computers, televisions, rockets, satellites and so much more had not yet been invented. Most people died in their late 40s or 50s. In this one man’s lifetime, civilization has made amazing progress.

Now think about what life on Earth will be like when you are my age. I predict the fossil fuel-powered society will have been replaced by systems only a few geniuses are even thinking about today. A long list of now fatal diseases will have been conquered, and people will live healthy life into their late nineties.

I predict our cars and planes will not need drivers or pilots, and space flight will become common. Robots will do much of the work, so people can enjoy their lives much, much more.

And I predict that anyone who looks back on the threat of climate change/global warming and all the threats to life on Earth will have a hearty laugh, as mankind will have progressed beyond accepting any such silliness.

Life is good. Enjoy it. And stop worrying about climate hobgoblins.


Weather Channel founder John Coleman is the original meteorologist on ABC’s Good Morning America. He has been studying weather and climate for over 60 years.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1145 words, total size 8 kb.

May 03, 2016

Strange Technical Difficulties at Premier of Climate Hustle Documentary

6abdec7a 9cf4 46f4 9b93 73e697b08ed9 02

Timothy Birdnow

Last night was the opening and closing of the documentary "The Climate Hustle; Are They Trying to Control the Climate, or You - a documentary hosted by Marc Morano of Climate Depot and produced by the committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). For regular Aviary readers CFACT should be very familiar; our own Paul Driessen is a senior policy advisor, as are many of the essay writers we post. CFACT has been on the front lines of the Climate Change, Global Warming, Climate Disruption, Climate Flatulence battle for some time, and Climate Depot is an invaluable resource for understanding why this issue is at best a dubious proposition. Morano and company set out to produce a documentary that speaks to those not informed on the skeptical position, on why many people are convinced the whole global warming issue is a farce, or at least a non-issue that has been conflated for money and political power.

The film goes through a series of bullet points, showing how those who promote the theory that carbon dioxide is heating the world to doomsday are using tried-and-true marketing and sales tactics, or confidence man techniques. Much care is taken to interview solid scientists in the field, such as Judith Curry, Roger Pielke Jr. and Sr., and some radically liberal characters as well who disagree with the AGW position. Most damning of all is the words of the Global Warming promoters themselves, and they are not taken out of context.

The film is at times light-hearted (such as the over-the-years cuts of Prince Charles predicting the end of the world in five years) and sometimes a bit scary as people like Robert Kennedy Jr. call for Gestapo tactics to be employed against "deniers". Bow Tie Bill Nye has the courage to come on with Morano as well (making a fool of himself, in my view, but then an engineer who dubs himself the "science guy" and dons a bow tie doesn't have far to go) There was a panel discussing the film at the end which included Brent Bozell from the Media Research Center and Sarah Palin.

Judith Curry posted a number of reviews at her website Climate Etc. See them here.

I would have emphasized the science a bit more, but this was a film for the general public and simply couldn't spent the time on it. I think they did a fine job with what they had to work with.

Which brings us to the point of this essay; the Climate Hustle only appeared one night, and only in three theatres in the greater St. Louis area. All three were in far flung suburbs of town, and I had to drive the better part of an hour to get the Chesterfield Mall AMC. As it turned out the wife and I made a fun time of it, booking a room at the Drury Inn (with my eye troubles I couldn't really drive home) and having a fun little getaway. The hotel - and the restaurant we ate in after the movie - were just across the parking lot from the theatre, so we didn't have to go very far.

Part of why I wanted to see this movie at the theatre (and not just buy a DVD) was because I suspected there could be problems. (I know all the information in there already, after all.) The Gang Green - those radical environmentalists who have hijacked science funding and who promote a radical agenda - receive a lot of funding from groups like the Tides Foundation, the George Soros backed outfit that has also funded the Ferguson riots/Black Lives Matter groups, and I thought perhaps the movie would at least be heckled or there would be an attempt at intimidation of movie-goers. That was not the case, and the theatre was almost packed (a rare thing on a Monday night.)

But the movie began acting up shortly after it started. If it were a DVD I would have taken it out and cleaned it; we were seeing broken pixels and soundtrack problems. The movie locked up at one point, and lost sound at another. The theatre management didn't react for a long time, not until people went out and complained. They did something and the film improved for a while, but started acting up again. I find it interesting that the film had it's worst problems during the "meat" of it, as though someone purposely wanted to block the information.

About halfway through someone from the theatre announced that the film was bad, it was not the fault of AMC. Half of the patrons walked out.

Eventually the movie cleared up and I saw it through to the end, but many people had already gone. Later I overheard a conversation at the ticket office where the clerk said they refused to refund anybody's money because it was a technical glitch and not their fault - as if that is an excuse to provide a poor product and refuse to compensate customers. If this were a restaurant it would be closing by the weekend.

I smell a rat. Now, I don't know how modern movie equipment works, if it is an actual tape, a DVD style disc, or a live feed, but the woman who announced it wasn't their fault used the generic "tape". I don't know, but it seems to me to be acting like a dirty disc, as though someone purposely smudged it to break up the film.

Now, this was a low-budget documentary and it may indeed have been a bad disc, but I wonder; I had expected some sort of skullduggery and here we had a "technical glitch" the likes of which I have never witnessed in a movie theatre since the days of reel to reel film. Very peculiar.

I've asked Paul Driessen to inquire about problems at the theatres last night. I will definitely keep everyone informed.

At any rate, it was a fine film and one worth having. It exposes the internationalist agenda and how this was a scheme to redistribute wealth all along - wealth that will be lost as energy consumption, the primary measure of wealth, drops to reduce carbon emissions and thus starves the poor of this world, the very people who this redistribution is supposed to help.

Here is the film's website.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1069 words, total size 6 kb.

The Quiet Digitizing of American Dollars

A.J. Cameron

American money is going digital in the shadows.

From the article:

"Last month, a "secret meeting” that involved more than 100 executives from some of the biggest financial institutions in the United States was held in New York City. During this "secret meeting", a company known as "Chain” unveiled a technology that transforms U.S. dollars into "pure digital assets”. Reportedly, there were representatives from Nasdaq, Citigroup, Visa, Fidelity, Fiserv and Pfizer in the room, and Chain also claims to be partnering with Capital One, State Street, and First Data. This "revolutionary” technology is intended to completely change the way that we use money, and it would represent a major step toward a cashless society. But if this new digital cash system is going to be so good for society, why was it unveiled during a secret meeting for Wall Street bankers? Is there something more going on here than we are being told?

None of us probably would have ever heard about this secret meeting if it was not for a report in Bloomberg. The following comes from their article entitled "Inside the Secret Meeting Where Wall Street Tested Digital Cash"…

On a recent Monday in April, more than 100 executives from some of the world’s largest financial institutions gathered for a private meeting at the Times Square office of Nasdaq Inc. They weren’t there to just talk about blockchain, the new technology some predict will transform finance, but to build and experiment with the software.

By the end of the day, they had seen something revolutionary: U.S. dollars transformed into pure digital assets, able to be used to execute and settle a trade instantly. That’s the promise of a blockchain, where the cumbersome and error-prone system that takes days to move money across town or around the world is replaced with almost instant certainty.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

Common Core Switcheroo in Missouri

A.J. Cameron

Missouri pulls a fast one, replacing Common Core with, well, Common Core:

The attack upon education is but one segment of the Common Core‎/Theft of Local Control attack that is blanketing the country. The ultimate goal is the destruction, even the abortion of a child's individualism. This is why I maintain that anyone who is pro-life must be anti-Common Core/Theft of Local Control.

How do circus trainers of elephants prevent adult elephants from roaming away from the circus? They 'train' them as babies, tying one leg to a post that is pounded into the ground. The baby elephant will try to break loose, but, being a baby, it hasn't the strength to do so. After awhile, the baby elephant tires of the futility of his/her efforts, and comes to see the post as part of life. As it matures, it no longer attempts to break loose, even though it would take very little effort to do so.

Now, consider P-20W (Pre-K to Work) and how limiting this will be for generations, because they will know nothing but the 'posts' used to restrict them from their pre-K years, and reinforced every year following.

The predatory puppeteers have recruited downline, and are determined to force Common Core/Theft of Local Control upon all children, save their own children and those gifted children who are coercable.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.


Joe Leatherwood


Well the conservatariate is at it again, this time, they are playing the "loyalty card” against otherwise loyal republicans and conservatives because they support Donald J. Trump? Debra J. Saunders, writing at town hall, is only the latest in a long line of these "smart people” who have unified with other conservatarians saying "loyal" republicans are worried and angry. O really, I have been a loyal republican and conservative for over fifty years, in my case, and I am not the least bit worried or angry.

But of course that is not the reaction, this conservatarian is after. She wants people to believe the overwhelming numbers of "loyal” republicans oppose Trump, which is not true and they are sitting around wringing their hands in worriment and building up a slow anger because their party is being "hijacked,” also not true.

Her implications are straight forward: (1) those of us, who have supported the Republican Party for more than fifty years, in my case, are now disloyal republicans because we support Trump and (2) those new voters Trump has brought into the process (the party) are commandeering the Republican Party.

In other words those of us who have "... gone to the lunches and supported candidates..." up and down the ballot for years are now disloyal because we support Donald Trump? And those who are being drawn into the Republican Party are miscreants and vulgarians?

According to Saunders, we Goldwater-Reagan conservatives who have supported the party for years with our money and volunteerism no longer care about "…conservative values…” only the loyalists do and we no longer understand how important it is to win general elections? O Really?

Additionally, she castigates Trump’s insurgent faction as being "entitled” and "unreliable.” As I recall, these are the very people the Republican Party – and these same conservatarians – months ago were clamoring for – yearning for the return of the "Reagan Democrat.”

I only note the sheer hypocrisy of conservatarians and RINOs alike for now attacking those who have participated in the process and driven the Trump movement within the Republican Party. The simple fact is these establishmentarians - conservatarians and RINOs - do not like the outcome, thus a new attack has been fired across the bow of the Trump insurgency.

Readers should understand this is just another attack by those who think themselves the smartest person in the room, if they are in a room. Saunders is just another member of the conservatariate. This group of elites include the likes of: Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowery, Eric Erickson, Katie Pavlich, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Cal Thomas, George Wills, et. al.

What bothers them – causing worry and anger – is the fact republican voters have not followed their instructions as to who to vote for and support. Incidentally, all of the conservatarians are Cruz advocates. They simply cannot believe you have not followed them – been loyal to their self-proclaimed "conservatism,” therefore, you are disloyal now.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 513 words, total size 3 kb.

Dark Days

Fay Voshell

Yes, this is where we are.

A Dark Time in America


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 2 kb.

May 02, 2016

The Climate Hustle Today Only!

Timothy Birdnow

The Climate Hustle opens - and closes - in theatres today. See the website for details on showtimes.

Hosted by Marc Morano, this film was produced by CFACT and our very own Paul Driessen. Make sure to see it today!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Indiana to Decide it All

Jack Kemp

If Trump wins Indiana, he has the nomination just about sewn up and will get the 1237 delegates needed - assuming party leaders don't somehow take it from him.

If Trump loses the winner-take-all-state Indiana primary, Cruz stops Trump from getting the nomination before the convention and could well be the nominee on the second ballot.

This endless political in-fighting and torture, not unlike water boarding, should be a lot cleared up by late Tuesday night.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Creator of Bitcoin Comes Forward

Jack Kemp forwards this:

I invented Bitcoin

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

August Surprise?

Timothy Birdnow

At American Thinker Joe Herring posits a scenario where Hillary Clinton bowes out of the race this summer and is replaced by Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren.

I concur; I've said all along that the Obama Chicago mafia isn't going to cede power to the Dixiecrats, and Obama isn't about to let his work go into outsider hands. He hates Hillary, by the way. So there has to be a third Obama term, or a surprise with a flunkie of his. Obama won every election until his presidential run solely by tricks of this very sort. He unsealed private legal documents, blackmailed opponents, and generally cheated his way to the top. A last-minute replacement would pull the rug out from under the gOP, who will be unready to fight a "fresh face". Suddenly everyone will be talking about the new candidate and the GOP will have a tired old guy in there, one who has had to fight for months to get the nomination, thus wearing out his appeal.

There is the little matter of filing deadlines, but the Democrats have overturned those in court in the past. If Hillary withdraws they will argue the People are being disenfranchised, and no doubt an Obama judge will order the new ticket be placed on the ballot.

That is if Mr. Obama doesn't figure out a way to place himself on the ballot. That could be done; he could put himself up as vice president then have the president resign after inauguration day.

Any way you slice it, expect some really dirty trick in the next few months.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

Nork EMP Threat Grows

Timothy Birdnow

The dangers of an EMP attack are discussed at American Thinker.

I warned of this threat years ago, and it has only increased with N. Korea launching a second satellite in polar orbit. Thanks to Obama's killing the Strategic Defence Initiative we have no way of dealing with this type of threat. Granted, we have satellite killer technology (probably) but what good does it do while two satellites orbit above our heads? Employing a satellite killer after the first EMP would be pointless; it is high enough to take the whole country down the first strike.

For those who do not know, an electromagneetic ppulse is generated when an atomic bomb is burst above the stratosphere. The bomb generates a burst of gamma rays which strip electrons off the air molecules, sending the electrons down and away in a massive electromagnetic surge (the Compton Effect). The surge is too powerful and too fast for standard surge protection gear, and all the electronics that are unprotected *usual protection would require being deep underground or stored inside of a Faraday cage) will blow out. Since everything uses complet electronics these days an EMP would be absolutely devastating. ALL power would go out - and that includes any care built after 1980, which have computers that regulate them. No communications, no radio, no television, no computers, no cars or any means of transport, no pumps for gasoline or water, no shipments, no farmers plowing, no nothing. America would be sent back into the stone age; we don't have the 19th century technology available anymore, and we don't have horses for transport, nor kerosene lamps in any major capacity, nor anything. What is in your home will be IT for you. And, given the altitude that a satellite can explode at, one bomb should be sufficient for taking down the Continental U.S.

It really is that serious. A Congressional Report issued in 2007 estimated an amazing 90% kill rate within the first year; nine out of ten people will die as a result of starvation, dehydration, disease, and murder. And we must ask if liberals like Obama would bother to retaliate, and if we did what good would it do to smash North Korea? It's already smashed, and our own emp attack would accomplish nothing; we would have to actually use ground nukes on them - something the Chinese and Russians wouldn't tolerate much. Obama and the U.S. government no doubt will be safe in bunkers, at military bases especially prepared for it, in Cheyenne Mountain. It's the little people who will suffer. But Obama is not going to want any trouble with these other nuclear powers, so perhaps they will help us after Babylon has fallen.

For decades the U.S. government denied there was any such thing as the EMP affect. They knew about it from the original Starfish Prime nuclear test on Johnston Atoll in 1959, but always claimed nothing happened, even though the 1.5 megaton fission bomb blew out lightbulbs in Hawaii and took out radios and electrical equipment. That was a small bomb airburst just a few thousand feet above the target. When I wrote EMP and the Unfought Victory I was roundly chastised by people claiming to have been part of Starfish Prime who said I was completely wrong, yet a year later Congress warned of the frightful dangers of this very thing. Misinformation, clearly, and no doubt paid for with your tax dollars. i suppose it's an honor to be rebuked by the government, but at the time it was hard for me to refute. But it turns out I was right all along.

That'll be cold comfort if the bombs blow.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 620 words, total size 4 kb.

May 01, 2016

Inside climate propaganda

Paul Driessen

InsideClimate News likes to say it has received prestigious awards for being an influential "pioneer of nonprofit advocacy journalism.” In reality, it is funded by wealthy far-left foundations and excels at creating "self-sustaining environmentalist echo chambers.” Its active partnerships with the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel and other media outlets enable it to orchestrate one-sided stories on climate change, fossil fuels, renewable energy and other environmental issues.

My article this week delves into ICN’s inner workings, alliances and funding arrangements. It gives citizens and voters new reasons to question the narratives purveyed by "public interest” environmental groups and the "mainstream” media.

Inside climate propaganda

InsideClimate News excels at propagating environmentalist and Obama thinking and policies

Paul Driessen

Have you ever wondered how the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel and your local media always seem to present similar one-sided stories on climate change, fossil fuels, renewable energy and other environmental issues? How their assertions become "common knowledge,” like the following?

Global temperatures are the hottest ever recorded. Melting ice caps are raising seas to dangerous levels. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts have never been more frequent or destructive. Planet Earth is at a tipping point because of carbon dioxide emissions. Fracking is poisoning our air, water and climate. 97% of scientists agree. A clean renewable energy future is just around the corner.

It’s as if a chain of command, carefully coordinated process or alliance of ideological compatriots was operating behind the scenes to propagate these fables. This time, conspiracy theorists have gotten it right.

A major player in this process and alliance is one that most citizens and even businessmen and politicians have never heard of. InsideClimate News (ICN) has been called "highly influential,” a "pioneer of nonprofit advocacy journalism,” the recipient of "prestigious awards” for "high-impact investigative stories” on important environmental issues.

The Washington Free Beacon, National Review and Energy in Depth offer detailed and far less charitable assessments. Less friendly observers, they note, call ICN a "mouthpiece” for extreme environmentalist groups, because it is run by and out of a deep-green public relations consultancy (Science First) and is funded almost exclusively by wealthy foundations that share its and the PR firm’s anti-fossil fuel, pro-renewable energy, Bigger Government agenda. ICN was founded by David Sasoon, a true believer in catastrophic manmade climate change who wants to do all he can "to usher in the clean energy economy.”

Even praise from its supporters underscores the dark side of this "influential” force in eco-journalism. Its approach is "advocacy,” not fairness, accuracy or balance. Its goal is to drive a monolithic, hard-line, environmentalist narrative and political agenda, with little suggestion that other perspectives even exist.

Some of its awards come from an organization that has itself become politicized and too closely allied with Big Green views and organizations: the Society of Environmental Journalists. They increasingly operate too much as mutual admiration societies and support groups, say outside observers.

ICN and its Science First alter ego received their 2007 startup grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, where Sasoon once served as a consultant. They now derive the bulk of their funding from the RBF, NEO Philanthropy (aka, Public Interest Projects), Marlisa Foundation and Park Foundation. These and other sugar daddies are covered in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee staff report, which describes a "Billionaire’s Club” of "left-wing millionaires and billionaires [which] directs and controls the far-left [US] environmental movement.”

The same foundations also give major tax-exempt donations to the Sierra Club, Earthworks, NRDC, EarthJustice, the climate crisis coalition, and many other anti-coal, anti-drilling, anti-fracking, anti-Keystone pressure groups that together form the $10-billion-a-year US environmentalist industry.

ICN has active partnerships with the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel, Bloomberg News and other media organizations that help coordinate and disperse stories. The Times promotes the "dangerous manmade climate change” meme and refuses to print letters that reflect skeptical views.

The Associated Press has likewise become a reliable purveyor of manmade climate chaos stories. The Weather Channel and ICN teamed up in 2014 on a series of "investigative reports” that claimed hydraulic fracturing was causing serious environmental and human health problems in Texas.

The partners team up and coordinate to "have one group write on an issue, another quote them or link to them, and so on,” Media Research Center VP Dan Gainor explains. "It keeps going until they create this perception that there’s real concern over an issue, and it bubbles up to top liberal sites like Huffington Post, and from there into the traditional media,” which itself is too predisposed to the green narrative.

The foundations "have incorporated ostensibly dispassionate news outlets into their grant-making portfolios,” says the Free Beacon’s Lachlan Markay, "creating what some describe as self-sustaining environmentalist echo chambers.”

They make it look like widespread public concern and spontaneous grassroots action – when in reality it is loud but small Astroturf activism, orchestrated by the ICN brigade and the foundations behind it.

InsideClimate News now brags about its involvement in the extensive collusion among the leftist foundations, environmental pressure groups and state attorneys general that are devising, coordinating and advancing AG prosecutions of ExxonMobil, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other groups for alleged "racketeering” and "fraud,” to hold them "legally accountable for climate change denial.”

The efforts "stretch back at least to 2012,” ICN notes, when a meeting was held in California to develop legal strategies. In late 2015, letters from several Democrat members of Congress called for investigating and prosecuting climate skeptics; the letters cited independent journalism "investigations by the Los Angeles Times and InsideClimate News” to back up their request.

However, the intrepid Times and ICN investigators had conducted no investigation. They simply parroted and amplified "research” from a group of activist professors and students at the Columbia School of Journalism – without disclosing who had funded the CSJ studies. Transparency for thee, but not for me.

It was George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, along with the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Family Foundation, Energy Foundation, Lorana Sullivan Foundation and Tellus Mater Foundation – all of which virulently oppose hydrocarbon production and actively promote climate change alarmism.

Emails subpoenaed by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute later revealed that many of the same environmentalist groups and lawyers met again in January 2016 at a secret meeting in the Rockefeller Family Fund’s Manhattan offices. Yet another secret meeting was held in March 2016, between climate activists and state attorneys general – hours before the AGs announced that they were launching RICO and other prosecutions of "climate skeptic” companies and think tanks.

The success of this campaign thus far, says ICN, has persuaded the activists to "step up efforts to pressure more attorneys general to investigate [more climate crisis skeptics] and sway public opinion, using op-eds, social media and rope-line questioning of [Republican] presidential candidates at campaign stops.”

This collusion among activists, foundations and attorneys general seeks to silence, bankrupt and defund organizations that challenge their catechism of climate cataclysm. These conspirators want to deprive us of our constitutional rights to speak out on the exaggerated and fabricated science, the coordinated echo- chamber news stories, and the pressure group-driven policies that impair our livelihoods, living standards, health, welfare and environmental quality. We will not be intimidated or silenced.

As CFACT’s new Climate Hustle film notes, manmade plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide has not replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven Earth’s temperature, climate and weather.

The problem is not climate change. It is policies imposed in the name of preventing climate change.

That’s why Climate Crisis, Inc. wants to silence and jail us. Just imagine how much more they’ll be foaming at the mouth after throngs go to and buy tickets for its May 2 one-night-only showing in hundreds of theaters across the United States.

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

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1325 words, total size 10 kb.

Fiorina Flubs and Foibles

William Been

Ted Cruz has demonstrated behavior that defies his own professed beliefs through hateful and dishonest accusations involving fellow Republicans and their supporters throughout the campaign. He has clearly shown that his personal ambitions are more important to him than the needs of America, the Republican Party, and the voters in the Primary elections. However, his desperation choice of Carly Fiorina as the potential Vice President is blatantly irresponsible and unacceptable on multiple fronts.

The following Fiorina comments were made in a 2001 speech delivered shortly after the 911 attacks on the World Trade Center:

"There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world.”

"While modern Western civilization shares many of these traits, the civilization I’m talking about was the Islamic world from the year 800 to 1600, which included the Ottoman Empire and the courts of Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, and enlightened rulers like Suleiman the Magnificent.” (emphasis added)

"Leaders like Suleiman contributed to our notions of tolerance and civic leadership.”

Then, in Fiorina’s closing paragraph, she insults our country with the following declaration:

"In dark and serious times like this, we must affirm our commitment to building societies and institutions that aspire to this kind of greatness.”

Now, consider the following history taken from Book VI of Will and Ariel Durant’s The Story of Civilization concerning Fiorina’s Muslim hero Suleiman the Magnificent.

Will Durant cites several attributes that explain why Suleiman was named "the Magnificent.” First listed was "the size and equipment of his armies.” Second was "the scope of his campaigns.” Twice his armies were repulsed near Vienna as he attempted to conquer and subject Europe to Muslim rule. He died leading his armies against Christian Rhodes of Greece.

Durant closes the life of Suleiman relating how Suleiman, when age 59, did his succession planning. He summoned his son Mustafa from his first wife to his tent and "had him killed as soon as he appeared.” Then Suleiman had Mustafa’s son killed "lest the youth should seek revenge.” This left only the chosen one named Selim and his brother Bajazet. Bajazet "was strangled” and his five sons were also put to death to insure Selim would be the successor.

Cruz must certainly be aware of the Muslim Brotherhood presence in the current Administration, and yet he has named Carly the Magnificent to be his Vice Presidential candidate. That she left the presidential race being clearly rejected by voters and was announced by Cruz on the day that he was mathematically eliminated by Republican voters is bizarre enough. However, to name a Muslim sympathizer that thinks Suleiman the Magnificent was an "enlightened ruler” of a "civilization that was the greatest in the world” is not only bizarre but reflects an unfitness that should awaken even the most resolute ideologically challenged Cruz supporters.

Prepared by: William Been May 1, 2016

Author of Masters of Audacity and Deceit

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 486 words, total size 3 kb.

Fedcoin is Coming

Timothy Birdnow

Fedcoin is coming. Yes, the Fed is about to go digital, and when they do look out! Cash deposits will quickly go out of fashion. We are about to see the end of money as we know it.

And when that happens it will be impossible to hide from the all-seeing eye of the government.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

Ocean Acidifiication? Fuggitaboutit!

Timothy Birdnow

Answer me quickly; what is an atoll? Beep! Times up!

An atoll is an island formed from coral. When an undersea volcano pushes up a volcanic island, corals begin building a reef around the volcanic island. Eventually they build right up out of the water, and get covered with dirt, and eventually colonized by plants. The volcanoe itself drops out and what is left is a circular island with water in the center - a lagoon. The south Pacific is dotted with atolls, tiny islands that sit just a couple of feet above sea level.
See more on coral reef formation here and read about seamounts and guyots here.

That is important, remember it.

Writing in The U.K. Spectator James Dellingpole - Britain's analogue to Tim Ball - writes a devastating column about the so-called "ocean Acidification" and how it is simply another scare tactic, one designed to save the old Global Warming hysteria.

From the article:

"First referenced in a peer-reviewed study in Nature in 2003, it has since been endorsed by scientists from numerous learned institutions including the Royal Society, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the IPCC. Even the great David Attenborough — presenter of the Great Barrier Reef series — has vouched for its authenticity: ‘If the temperature rises up by two degrees and the acidity by a measurable amount, lots of species of coral will die out. Quite what happens then is anybody’s guess. But it won’t be good.’

No indeed. Ocean acidification is the terrifying threat whereby all that man-made CO2 we’ve been pumping into the atmosphere may react with the sea to form a sort of giant acid bath. First it will kill off all the calcified marine life, such as shellfish, corals and plankton. Then it will destroy all the species that depend on it — causing an almighty mass extinction which will wipe out the fishing industry and turn our oceans into a barren zone of death.

Or so runs the scaremongering theory. The reality may be rather more prosaic. Ocean acidification — the evidence increasingly suggests — is a trivial, misleadingly named, and not remotely worrying phenomenon which has been hyped up beyond all measure for political, ideological and financial reasons."

End excerpt.

And indeed "Ocean Acidificication" - a horrible misnomer as the oceans are alkaline and not acidic and won't be made acidic outside of geological ages if that were possible at all - has become the new rallying cry for the Gang Green. Remember Al Gore's poem?

Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune's bones dissolve

Well, this pastiche gives you some perspective; Gore thought ocean acidification would dissolve "Neptune's bones" as though it had become battery acid. Why would he - or anyone - think that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from 2 to three molecules per ten thousand molecules of air would somehow acidify the oceans? The oceans have been there a long time; through periods of much higher atmospheric co2, through cataclysmic volcanic events, through asteroid strikes.

And it certainly makes no sense in light of this 2014 paper which demonstrated that increasing temperatures increases ph rather than reduces it, a result of co2 outgassing:

"A paper published today in Climate of the Past reconstructs water pH and temperature from a lake in central Japan over the past 280,000 years and clearly shows that pH increases [becomes more basic or alkaline] due to warmer temperatures, and vice-versa, becomes more acidic [or "acidified" if you prefer] due to cooling temperatures. This finding is the opposite of the false assumptions behind the "ocean acidification" scare, but is compatible with the basic chemistry of Henry's Law and outgassing of CO2 from the oceans with warming.

Thus, if global warming resumes after the "pause," ocean temperatures will rise along with CO2 outgassing, which will make the oceans more basic, not acidic. You simply cannot have it both ways:

"Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing, which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense.

Or the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing – insignificant – ocean acidification, which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense.

In addition, the paper shows that pH of the lake varied over a wide range from ~7.5 to 8.8 simply depending on the temperature of each month of the year. As the "acidification" alarmists like to say, a variation of 1.3 pH units is equivalent to a 1995% change in hydrogen ions due to the logarithmic pH scale, just over a single year! Summer months are of course associated with warmer temperatures and more alkaline, higher pH and winter months associated with colder temperatures and much more "acidified" lower pH values. Note also how pH varies widely over ~7.5 to 8.8 simply dependent on the depth at a given time, because colder deeper waters can hold higher partial pressures of CO2 than the warmer surface waters:"

End excerpt.

And, as i pointed out at the beginning of this essay, most islands are ultimately the result of volcanism, with reefs doing just fine around them despite the fact that they are lowering ph in the vicinity.

Dellingpole continues:

"Howard Browman, a marine scientist for 35 years, has published a review in the ICES Journal of Marine Science of all the papers published on the subject. His verdict could hardly be more damning. The methodology used by the studies was often flawed; contrary studies suggesting that ocean acidification wasn’t a threat had sometimes had difficulty finding a publisher. There was, he said, an ‘inherent bias’ in scientific journals which predisposed them to publish ‘doom and gloom stories’.

Ocean acidification theory appears to have been fatally flawed almost from the start. In 2004, two NOAA scientists, Richard Feely and Christopher Sabine, produced a chart showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels. But then, just over a year ago, Mike Wallace, a hydrologist with 30 years’ experience, noticed while researching his PhD that they had omitted some key information. Their chart only started in 1988 but, as Wallace knew, there were records dating back to at least 100 years before. So why had they ignored the real-world evidence in favour of computer-modelled projections?

When Wallace plotted a chart of his own, incorporating all the available data, covering the period from 1910 to the present, his results were surprising: there has been no reduction in oceanic pH levels in the last -century.

Even if the oceans were ‘acidifying’, though, it wouldn’t be a disaster for a number of reasons — as recently outlined in a paper by Patrick Moore for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. First, marine species that calcify have survived through millions of years when CO2 was at much higher levels; second, they are more than capable of adapting — even in the short term — to environmental change; third, seawater has a large buffering capacity which prevents dramatic shifts in pH; fourth, if oceans do become warmer due to ‘climate change’, the effect will be for them to ‘outgas’ CO2, not absorb more of it.

Finally, and perhaps most damningly, Moore quotes a killer analysis conducted by Craig Idso of all the studies which have been done on the effects of reduced pH levels on marine life. The impact on calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility and survival of calcifying marine species when pH is lowered up to 0.3 units (beyond what is considered a plausible reduction this century) is beneficial, not damaging. Marine life has nothing whatsoever to fear from ocean acidification."

End excerpt.

In point of fact a reducing modest alkalinity level would be beneficial to plant growth, thus enriching the ecosystem. More plants mean more fish, more shellfish, more sea life.

The volume of Earth's oceans is estimated at 1,335,000,000 cubic kilometers, according to NOAA. We are told that Man is the primary producer of carbon going into the oceans. For example:

"Recent estimates have calculated that 26 percent of all the carbon released as CO2 from fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture, and land-use changes over the decade 2002–2011 was absorbed by the oceans. (About 28 percent went to plants and roughly 46 percent to the atmosphere.) During this time, the average annual total release of was 9.3 billion tons of carbon per year, thus on average 2.5 billion tons went into the ocean annually."

End excerpt.

Scary stuff indeed, if one believes it all! But is it really what it seems?

Not really.

"The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux"


"It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been.

As the sun gets quiet in the next few years, sea surface temperature will begin to fall, and the rise in CO2 will cease. If the sun stays quiet for 30 or 40 years, ocean surface temperatures will fall far enough to reverse the CO2 rise, the globe will enter a new little ice age, and things will get really interesting."

End excerpt.

And the reality is we don't know how much co2 volcanoes put in the atmosphere every year. See this paper by geologist Timothy Casey.

This paper gives us a list of more famous volcanic eruptions:

Year Volcano Mean Sulphurous Output Source Est. Carbon output during year(s) of eruption
1883AD Krakatoa 38 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 26.14 MtCpa
1815AD Tambora 70 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 48.16 MtCpa
1783AD Laki 130 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 89.44 MtCpa
1600AD Huaynaputina 48 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 33.02 MtCpa
1452AD Kuwae 150 MtH2SO4pa Witter & Self (2007) 67.40 MtCpa
934AD Eldja 110 MtSO2 Shinohara (2008) 75.68 MtCpa
1645BC Minoa 125 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 86.00 MtCpa
circa 71,000BP Toba 1100 MtH2SO4pa Zielenski et al. (1996) 494.24 MtCpa

Notice how all but one of the individual annual volcanogenic carbon outputs, estimated above, dwarf the global subaerial volcanogenic carbon outputs estimated by both Gerlach (1991) & Kerrick (2001). Even the Morner & Etiope (2002) subaerial estimate (163 MtCpa) is shaken by most of these figures and dwarfed by one"

End excerpt.

This means that each of these volcanic eruptions dwarfs the annual anthropogenic output.

Dr. Casey points out:

"As we have seen, Gerlach (2011) says precisely the opposite. However, as Cardellini et al. (2011) point out:

"Large amounts of CO2 is also discharged by soil diffuse degassing at the quiescent volcanoes."

It seems that Gerlach (2011) drew his interpretation from a preference for the "global" "magmatic" carbon dioxide emission estimate of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998) which was devoloped from the generalisation of isotope ratios across provinces of varied geochemistry. This multimodal generalisation, as I have shown in the example of Laki (Section 2, above), can be spectacularly inaccurate. Gerlach reports this figure in the following contrastive statement:

"The projected 2010 anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of 35 gigatons per year is 135 times greater than the 0.26-gigaton- per-year preferred estimate for volcanoes."

In the units I am using here, that translates to a "preferred" estimate of worldwide volcanic carbon emission at 0.071 GtCpa. At this point, I think it worth contrasting this with a quote from Cardellini et al. (2011) who are actually engaged in some real research:

"Quantitative estimates provided a regional CO2 flux of about 9 Gt/y affecting the region (62000 km2), an amount globally relevant, being ~ 10% of the present-day global CO2 discharge from subaerial volcanoes."

That 9GtCO2pa translates to 2.45 GtCpa for just one region, which is more than 34 times the latest personally "preferred" "global" estimate offered by Gerlach (2011). This statement, by Cardellini et al. (2011) seems to originate with Chiodini et al. (2004) which states:

"The total CO2 released by TRSD and CDS (2.1 x 1011 mol/y) is globally significant, being ~10% of the estimated present-day total CO2 discharge from subaerial volcanoes of the Earth [Kerrick, 2001]."
Sic. (The incorrect use of square brackets, in this quote, is not mine. This error is probably on the part of the publisher.)

This figure, by Chiodini et al. (2004) translates to 0.0025 GtCpa which is about 10% of the lower figure for the estimate of Kerrick (2001). This is suggestive that the figure published in Cardellini et al. (2011) may have been misreported (unless, of course, it has since been revised). Assuming that the figure has, indeed, been misreported, we will consider the source paper. It would seem that the figure offered by Gerlach (2011) is more in line with this figure published by Chiodini et al. (2004). However, when we return to the to the point made by both Cardellini et al. (2011) and Chiodini et al. (2004) a very important question is raised. "

End excerpt.

And so much of this is a result of undersea volcanoes - which should absolutely destroy the "fragile" coral reef systems, yet we don't see problems with coral around these volcanoes.

Money and power, power and money. Those are the things that drive the climate change alarmism. The science is based almost entirley on computer projections and "we can't afford not to" rhetoric. There is an old maxim among lawyers that you argue the facts when they are with you, argue the law when the facts are against you, and attack the opposition when both are against you. Now we are in the phase where the global warming crowd are trying to use RICO laws against "deniars" because they have largely lost the argument. We are not seeing thermogeddon; on the contrary, planetary temperatures have remained largely stable for the last twenty some-odd years - in violation of all of the climate models. So they went to their fallback, which is proving equally weak.

We have been treated to decades of hysteria and scares, going back to Thomas Malthus, who started the apocalyptic science predictions - predictions that always seem to turn out wrong when the theory meets the real world. We've had pollution scares,food shortage scares, alar, dioxin, global cooling, the populaton bomb, ozone depletion, Rachel Carson's "silent spring" DDT scare, and now global warming, the mandarin of pseudo-scientific horror. It's not that they always turn out wrong, but so often people are willing to see the worst where there is no reason. To quote the Bible God is really in control. Sadly, too many people want to be God and believe in the power of Man the Most High, believe we have godlike powers. We don't, and it seems that every so often we must relearn that lesson.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2523 words, total size 17 kb.

<< Page 1 of 602 >>
102kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.1266 seconds.
28 queries taking 0.0952 seconds, 187 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.