August 31, 2011

A Global Warming Debate

Recently, there was a blogpost at Second Hand Smoke about the way the media immediately tied the recent (not unusual) hurricane Irene to Global Warming. I decided to leave a comment and have gotten into a row with a True Believer. Below is the transcript (thus far):

I left the following comment;

It’s rather like eugenics; the hysteria of degrading the human species in the early 20th century is rightly laughed at now, but it was a real "scientific” crisis back then. That was the same pseudo-science with the same politicized studies as Global Warming. Eugenics was a crock, and AGW is turning out to be just as much of a crock.

It took a world war and the murder of millions to end the stupidity of eugenics. Hopefully Global Warming won’t claim as many casualties.

Harryhammer's reply:

Based on two recent independent studies, each employing different methodologies, 97% of climate experts think humans are causing global warming.

No scientific body of national or international standing thinks otherwise.

The last scientific group to think otherwise was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

They changed their tune in 2007.

If you want a really good example of politicized pseudo-science, look no further than the so-called Climategate scandal:

Every denier in America jumped on that bandwagon and was wrongly accusing the 4 climate scientists who had their emails hacked.

The denial camp was accusing them of manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics.

None of it was true.

Six separate independent committees investigated the allegations and published reports of their findings.

Each separate independent investigation found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

Wrongly accusing someone is a serious mistake.

Check out the 9th Commandment.

My reply:

Harryhammer

The old argument about concensus; the last stand for you global warming alarmists.

First, the theory does not fit with reality. There has been no statistical warming since 1995; even Phil Jones acknowledges that. Where is the heat going? It’s not in the oceans, either. There is no warming in the tropical troposphere, as theory suggests. This isn’t science; it’s pseudo-science. Of course, climatology was a backwater before AGW theory; naturally most professional organizations want to keep the gravy train rolling.

Which brings up the cagey way you argued for concensus; you cleverly ignored the PEOPLE who I could present to you as skeptics, because you knew you could no longer credibly make that case, and substituted organizations. f You ignore the Leipzig, Heidleberg, Oregon, and other petitions. You ignore the NIPCC. You ignore anyone who does not parrot the party line. Your side like to make dark accusations of money from Exxon-Mobil, but ignore money from Soros, from Gates, Buffet, the Ford Foundation, the Sierra club, etc. But in the end nature is the final determinant of the theory, and your theory has been exploded.

We really don’t even know the planetary temperatures; we have taken to using temperature readings from hundreds of miles away (at times) to smooth the curves, and the temperature stations that are still manned are often subject to the urban heat island effect. We know (thanks to the CRU leaks) that there were scientists actively subverting the data.

I have read the e-mails, Harryhammer; have you? The commissions were hastily convened with the express purpose of absolving Mann, Jones, Briffa, et. al. If you believe them, I have a bridge to sell you. Oh, wait, you already purchased one, I see. You put Russell Muir in charge of an investigation of misconduct and what would you expect? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/07/the-muir-cru-apologia-is-out/

In November 2009 Phil Jones told Mann "not to leave stuff lying around that would point out his many climate errors.”
Now there’s a man dedicated to truth. He also spoke of using Mann’s "nature trick to hide the decline”; what do you think that means? CRU is one of the principle processors of raw data, and when asked for the unprocessed data they said they THREW IT AWAY. Pardon my French, but that is pure bat crap.

Steve McIntyre rebuts it quite well. http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/

In the end, it doesn’t matter what scientists think but what actually happens. Nature isn’t cooperating with you guys.

Oh, and your answer to victor about the global warming healthscare; perhaps you should read this.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/the_global_warming_health_scar.html

Sorry, but your side has lost this argument. Continuing to fight is starting to appear ridiculous.

Harryhammer's reply:

Timothy,

The most recent study of climate scientists’ opinions came to the following two conclusions:

1.) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

2.) The relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

Let me put it to you in plain English:

Let’s say that your kid is really sick and you take him to see 100 specialists.

97 of the top guys in the field say your kid needs an operation right away or he might die.

Whereas, three of the bottom guys in the field say "go home, relax, don’t worry about it.”

Only an idiot would go home and relax.

You’re being equally idiotic.

Timothy,

There were 6 separate independent inquiries, not one, and they all found no wrongdoing.

After the July 2010 reports, the New York Times referred to Climategate as a "manufactured controversy,” and expressed the hope that reports clearing the scientists "will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies,”

The Columbia Journalism Review criticized newspapers and magazines for failing to give prominent coverage to the findings of the review panels, and said that "readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever.”

CNN media critic Howard Kurtz expressed similar sentiments.

In June 2010 Newsweek called the controversy a "highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal.”

Incidentally, I don’t believe you when you say that you read all of the emails.

The theft involved about 160 MB of data containing more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents.

That’s the equivalent of about 7 feet of encyclopaedia sized books on a shelf.

I seriously doubt that you’ve read that much in your life time.

At best, you skimmed a few cherry-picked phrases, pulled them completely out of context, and then proceeded to twist them into a worldwide Al Gore led conspiracy like every other conservative hack.

No significant warming since 1995:

When it suits your purpose, you want to go back to the medieval period and now you want to stop at 1995.

Climate change is a multi-decadal phenomenon.

Short-term temperatures are strongly affected by natural variability.

To best assess if the warming over the past 40 years has continued into the most recent decade, analysts do a simple test.

They calculate the trend in temperatures for the period from 1970 to 2000, and use it to predict what temperatures over the last decade would be expected to have been prior to actually knowing them.

By the way, I didn’t ignore the Leipzig, Heidleberg, Oregon, and other petitions.

I looked at them all in depth.

Name your best source out of the bunch and I’ll explain to you what conflict of interest and below par research means:

• Fred Singer?

• Patrick Michaels?

• Frederick Seitz?

• Robert Stevenson?

• Chauncy Starr?

• Robert Balling?

My reply:

Harryhammer, you are a font of dubious information that is not sourced.

First, tell me about the six "independent” inquiries. You do not give any details. Why is that? Likely because you only know the talking points. Again, I ask you HAVE YOU READ THE ACTUAL E-MAILS? Is that really hard to answer the question? Not all of them, but enough of the pertinent parts. I do not need panels of inquiry to tell me that my eyes are lying to me. It’s plain what was happening when you bother to actually look to the source.

O.k. I suppose the Oxburgh investigation was better? Oxburgh was heavily invested in "green” technology and had a clear conflict of interest. http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/23/another-tainted-inquiry/
See more about "hide the decline and the Oxburgh commission here. http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/31/disinformation-from-kerry-emanuel/

Both Russell and Oxburgh’s reviews were slammed by MP’s on the Science and Technology Committee for their ineptitude. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8279368/Official-inquiries-into-the-Climategate-scandal-unsatisfactory.html

Do you REALLY believe that Penn State would find evidence of wrongdoing, or the U.K. Royal Society, which is notoriously alarmist about AGW? None of these investigations could be called independent; they were a series of whitewashes. CRU has refused to cooperate with any serious investigators. They have deleted e-mails. They have deleted raw data. Now, why do you suppose that is?

Even if your correct and they aren’t guilty of fraud, they ARE guilty of scientific malpractice on a titanic scale. They are either liars or incompetent bunglers.

Amazing how you take the word of a mainstream journalism community as Gospel on this issue; were I to present such evidence you would scoff at the lack of scientific credibility they possess. I always take my que from the New York Times when they pronounce something a "manufactured controversy”.

Again, perhaps we should use our own eyes and brains and not simply accept what Simon Says.

You say;

"No significant warming since 1995:

When it suits your purpose, you want to go back to the medieval period and now you want to stop at 1995.”

I want to go back to what Phil Jones himself said, which is that there has been no statistical warming since 1995. It demolishes your theory. Climate changes all of the time. Yes we talk about the Medieval Warming period because it was there, and warmer than the present day. Michael Mann has labored to eliminate it, because it shows that this is not an abnormal period.

Also, you argue that:

1.) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

2.) The relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

Really? Again, you fail to cite sources. But this is no surprise because everyone agrees planetary temperatures rose in the 20t century (the Little Ice Age ended in the 19th) and human activity has definitely contributed to it. Land use change, for instance. Roger Pielke Sr. would be placed in the camp of that 97% although he doesn’t see CO2 rise as all that significant. Even people like Patrick Michaels would fall into your 97%. This is a clever fraud, Hammer.

Do you know what happened at CERN? Svensmark’s theory about cosmic rays has been validated by experimentation. This explains the difference between solar output and temperature rise. Did you know that sea levels actually dropped last year? Did you know that a recent study shows that the Earth lost more heat than any of the models predicted, shattering the IPCC predictions. http://www.iceagenow.com/New_NASA_Data_Blow_Gaping_Hole_In_Global_Warming_Alarmism.htm

Sorry, but the Earth is not really sick, and does not need a doctor. Not even a geologist, climatologist, or meteorologist. There is no reason to fundamentally reorder human civilization, killing millions in the process through starvation and deprivation as the industrialized nations throw away their wealth to make guilt-ridden liberals such as yourself feel good.

And you have some gall disparaging men like John Christy, Roger Pielke Sr. even Roger Revelle (who thought global warming would end at 2* and was more of a curiosity than a crisis). This while IPCC reports were being written by men from Greenpeace and the Sierra Club!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/a-blunder-of-staggering-proportions-by-the-ipcc/

But then it’s easier to smear people than to actually debate the facts. I notice you stopped debating the facts a while ago. That’s an old lawyer trick.

In the end, it’s the facts that matter, and they are seriously against you AGW hysterics.

HarryHammer's reply:

Timothy,

Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

Soon you’ll be adding your mama to the list of Al Gore conspirators.

The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring is as strong as ever and remained unchanged at the end of the investigations.

Believe me, if there was any dirt whatsoever, James "Mountain Jim” Inhofe would have found it.

He has been one of the most vocal global warming deniers that exist and he headed the last inquiry.

He was recently cornered in the hall:

http://planetsave.com/2011/02/17/hertsgaard-nails-inhofe-oil-lobbyists-amazing-video-interviews/

Incidentally, one of the smartest women in the world is a 41-year-old Australian named Laura N. Kochen; a Olympiq Society member.

Her membership is quite the impressive achievement given that since January 1, 2001, the Olympiq Society has only accepted 14 members (12 full and 2 prospective), of which only 2 are women, and Laura Kochen is one of them.

The most cited living author has been teaching at M.I.T. for 55 years.

He recently spoke on this:

http://www.thenation.com/video/158093/noam-chomsky-how-climate-change-became-liberal-hoax

Timothy,

You can label me all you want.

Labels don’t change facts.

You mentioned Patrick Michaels.

Dr. Patrick Michaels is actually the best expert that global warming deniers currently have because he’s one of the few deniers with any relevant scientific credentials.

Michaels was a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia from 1980 to 2007.

Did you know that the overall median 9 month salary for all professors in the United States is about $73,000.

Dr. Michaels has never had it so good as he has as a global warming denier:

http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-skeptic-pat-michaels-admits-cnn-forty-percent-his-funding-comes-oil-industry

Incidentally, he said that 3% of the more than $4,200,000 he received came from oil and gas interests when in fact it was closer to 40%.

Why would he lie about that?

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/waxman-asks-upton-to-examine-dr-patrick-michaels-s-testimony

My reply:

Harryhammer, you are again arguing the messengers when you should be arguing the message. As I pointed out, that is an old lawyer trick; when the facts are against you smear the opposition. But since you want to bring this up...

In the last year alone the U.S. has funded global warming studies to the tune of $8.7 Billion dollars. That's direct funding, I might add. There is other ancillary funding, like green energy, that is not accounted for in this figure. Who has the greater motivation? If Patrick Michaels is receiving 40% of his funding from oil, why shouldn't he? He's certainly not going to get any help from the "mainstream" sources. AND his work is peer reviewed. Science is science, Hammer; if he's wrong it's up to the scientific community to refute his work.

How about Joanne Simpson? Ever heard of her? She was the first woman meteorologist who pioneered studies of cloud models and hurricanes. A big name at Nasa. When she retired (and only when she retired) she came out blazing against the climate of oppression by the AGW crowd. http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/ Seems she was intimidated to speak against global warming, intimidated by the same people (Hansen and company) who have tried to claim this is about science over politics. It should come as no surprise; the CRU e-mails show that the hockey team was actively working to suppress "deniar" papers in science journals and to peer review their own.

Ah, but then Dr. Simpson probably owned a car; proof positive she's in the pocket of Big Oil.

Why do you refuse to see the money coming from Think Progress, from the Sierra Club, from the Tides Foundation, from governments throughout the world and instead focus on the opposition's funding, an opposition that really has no other choice if it wants to continue it's research?

Why do you ignore the vast fortunes made by carbon traders on Wall Street (such as J.P. Morgan http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/11/technology/jpmorgan_carbon.fortune/) or Al Gore? You worry about oil money, but what of investor's money? What of fat-cat Wall Street tycoons. What do they expect for THEIR money?

But facts are stubborn things, and the facts are that we aren't seeing the principle predictions made by the climate models bearing out. Did you know that attempts to use the IPCC models to predict current conditions from past data have failed miserably? Why trust models that cannot be made to predict current conditions?

And there is considerable evidence for fraud. James Hansen's GISS once published September data in October for the Arctic and claimed it was the hottest October on record. They quietly pulled back, but the press releases had already gone to the public. They also trumpeted that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. but quietly corrected that. How about the National Snow and Ice Data Center losing 93000 miles of ice? www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8966 These may be simple errors, but it's surprising how these errors always go in favor of AGW. They are generally corrected quietly AFTER the results have been trumpeted to the public.

I would like to direct your attention to the Endangered Atmospheres Conference. Chaired by Margaret Mead, this was a get-together of some of the most famous (or infamous) activist scientists (guys like James Lovelock, John Holdren, William Kellogg etc.) with the purpose of coming up with some atmosphere-related issue to draw in the general public. They chose global cooling, but had global warming on their short list. It was part of an effort to make the Earth's atmosphere a matter of international law, to ultimately fundamentally change the relations of nations and the world economic system. And it was the same people who first demogogued global cooling then, without skipping a beat, switched to global warming. Why? Because nature wasn't cooperating with GC. I remember watching it happen. Here is a good overview of it http://pumasunleashed.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/1975-%E2%80%98endangered-atmosphere%E2%80%99-conference-where-the-global-warming-hoax-was-born/. (Most of the links for the conference notes are pay sites, although I have read Kellogg's piece in the past. http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/898089 )

Again, Roger Revelle himself (the granddaddy of AGW theory) thought this more a curiosity than anything else; he understood the logarithmic nature of CO2 to heat. Remember, CO2 is a minor trace gas, with less then four molecules in every ten thousand molecules of air. What is argued about are feedbacks; are they positive or negative? The IPCC and other alarmists insist they are positive, that CO2 will warm the planet, triggering more water vapor, triggering a release of methane, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect. This disregards the warmer periods in history where it DIDN'T happen that way. That was why Michael Mann was so determined to eliminate the Medieval Warming Period. It's why alarmist researchers are trying to downplay the Ordovician period (where CO2 levels were ten times as high as today, but the temperature of the planet was cooler.)

Facts are stubborn things.

Oh, and Harry, citing leftists like Noam Chomsky does your case no good. Neither does citing a Greenpeace activist, even if she is in Mensa.

http://hell.iqsociety.org/hellia-members/laura-n-kochen/

Sorry, but a whitewash is a watewash, and I don't need Mensa-ites to tell me to disregard my own eyes.

And if my mother should become a global warming alarmist I would rightly conclude that her recent stroke has driven her into dementia. At least she would have an excuse!

END

I'll keep everyone updated on future exchanges between myself and Hammerhead here.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 3201 words, total size 23 kb.

Rocket science

Dana Mathewson

The International Space Station may soon have to be abandoned. Yep. Seems that Russia is having problems getting supply rockets off the ground. http://www.urgentagenda.com/PERMALINKS%20VI/AUGUST%202011/30.DISGRACE.HTML And you remember that America no longer has anything to fly up there with.

Did you ever think you'd see the situation deteriorate to this level? FTA: "The U.S. fleet of space shuttles is retired and the Obama administration has no American alternative coming online for years.
(Editor's note; we have no alternative, period. The Administration has cancelled the planned replacements.)

"So, dubious Russian rockets are the only means of replacing the crew.

"A computer detected an anomaly in the Russian rocket's third stage Wednesday and shut down the engine prematurely after barely five minutes of flight, dooming the orbital attempt. The vehicle and nearly three tons of supplies were incinerated in reentry and the crash in Kazakhstan.



"With the U.S. space shuttles decommissioned, Russian rockets remain the only means to reach the space station orbiting at about 220 miles altitude with fresh crew members."

END QUOTE

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama and Irene: It's all a matter of the narrative

Dana Mathewson

So Obama wants to avoid any comparison with the "failed federal response to Katrina." What failed federal response to Katrina? http://www.urgentagenda.com/PERMALINKS%20VI/AUGUST%202011/29.QUOTE.HTML

In case you don't remember, the feds did a better job than state and local authorities. Remember the photo of all those yellow school buses in that flooded parking lot? The feds had nothing to do with those.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:18 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

My, My. More developments on Uncle Omar

Dana Mathewson

Apparently, Zippy's Uncle Omar got one of those IDs that formar Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis (remember him?) was passing out like candy in the 1980's. They resembled Social Security cards -- or at least, the numbers resembled Social Security numbers -- had nine digits, etc. (What could possibly go wrong with that approach?) Anyhow, illegals used them to get driver's licenses, which apparently is how Uncle Omar was able to pick up his drunk driving rap the other day. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/aug/30/picket-questions-arise-over-onyango-obamas-drivers/

What this article doesn't make clear is whether Uncle Omar has a valid Social Security card. It implies he does, but doesn't explain how he got it. At any rate, there's some good investigative reporting going on here. Frankly, I'd like to see more of it.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

Six Reasons to support Rick Perry in 2012

Dana Mathewson

I've seen a number of people refer to Perry as "the establishment candidate." Increasingly, my response to that is "So what?" Townhall's John Hawkins gives us six reasons why Perry should get conservatives' support in this article. http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/08/30/6_reasons_for_conservatives_to_support_rick_perry_in_2012/page/full/

I have no complaints with any of his analysis. I'd advise paying close attention to his last paragraph.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

August 30, 2011

Obama's Illegal Uncle in DWI

Dana Mathewson

No permalink for this one. From Urgent Agenda:


SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 9:56 A.M. ET:

From the Times of London, via the Australian:

"BARACK Obama's long-lost "Uncle Omar" has been arrested for alleged drunk-driving outside Boston and detained as an illegal immigrant, The Times can reveal. The arrest ends a mystery over the fate of a relative that the US President wrote in his memoir had moved to America from Kenya in the 1960s, although the circumstances of his discovery may now prove to be an embarrassment for the White House. Official records say Onyango Obama, 67, was picked up outside the Chicken Bone Saloon in Framingham, Massachusetts, at 7.10pm on August 24. Police say he nearly crashed his Mitsubishi 4x4 into a patrol car, and then insisted that the officer should have given way to him."

End excerpt.

Outrageous. Obvious discrimination. It's clearly time for another beer summit at the White House. Oh, wait. Drunk driving? Make that an apple juice summit. Or, as an alternative, just throw Uncle Omar under the bus parked outside the White House. He can have a long redemtive talk with Rev. Wright.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

Taliban not on Terror List

This from Andrew McCarthy, courtesy of the Federalist Patriot:

"The Obama State Department has just released its annual terrorism report. It was due to Congress on April 30; the administration that talks incessantly about 'the rule of law' -- but has little interest in enforcing or complying with the law -- held off until the end of August, when Washington is a ghost town. But that, as President Obama must say a lot, is par for the course. The immediately notable thing about the report is what is not in it. Once again, the Taliban is not included in State's listing of Foreign Terrorist Organizations ... the Taliban whose terrorism and safe haven for al Qaeda are the justification for continuing to have our troops fight and die in Afghanistan. ... [W]hat's the chance that we will be clear about who the enemy is if the administration can't even bring itself to say the Taliban is a terrorist organization? Of course, if the Obama administration were encouraging negotiations with the Taliban (it is) and even anticipating a settlement in which the Taliban were brought into the Afghan government (ditto), the State Department wouldn't want to complicate that by naming the Taliban as a terrorist organization, right? So we are putting our forces in harm's way in the War on Terror to fight an outfit that we won't call 'terrorists' and that we actually see as part of the future Afghan government we are building. Great."

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 1 kb.

The fragility of Islam

Dana Mathewson

An interesting take, to be sure! http://pajamasmedia.com/spengler/father-schall-on-the-fragility-of-islam/

"The fragility of Islam, as I see it, lies in a sudden realization of the ambiguity of the text of the Koran. Is it what it claims to be? Islam is weak militarily. It is strong in social cohesion, often using severe moral and physical sanctions. But the grounding and unity of its basic document are highly suspect. Once this becomes clear, Islam may be as fragile as communism." END QUOTE

When he points out the fragility of communism, remember that the Soviet Union imploded. The article goes on to say: "We still look back at communism, at least the non-oriental variety, with some astonishment in this regard. Almost no one thought it could "fall” without a major military encounter. That it disintegrated so quickly and so completely seems incomprehensible to anyone but a John Paul II. He understood its frailty, its failure to understand the human soul and its origins…."

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:10 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

The Ground Zero Mosque will never be built

Dana Mathewson

Barry Rubin explains why. http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/08/ground-zero-mosque-will-never-be.html

"A group of people with a terrible record as developers who didn’t develop, businessmen who didn’t pay their bills, and slumlords put together a very badly designed project that would never otherwise have gotten zoning and other permits. In other words, the true story is how city officials gave special privileges and the media gave sweetheart coverage because people were Muslims building a mosque, not that there was discrimination against Muslims who wanted to build a mosque. Remember, in the end the mosque project got everything its advocates wanted and yet it still wasn’t built"

Barry Rubin has a huge amount of credibility, in case you aren't familiar with him. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at http://www.gloria-center.org

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

August 29, 2011

Article from American Thinker: Michelle Blames it on the Kids

Dana Mathewson

No comment from me -- I want to keep the party clean. http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/michelle_blames_it_on_the_kids.html

Well, maybe I will make one comment. With liberals, it's always "for the children."

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

Ron De Haan on the CERN Findings

Ron De Haan

This is very important news.

The CERN findings confirm the theory trusted to the paper by Svensmark fourteen years ago that the magnetic activity of our sun influences the amount of cloud seeding cosmic rays entering our atmosphere thus influencing the cloud cover, thus influencing global temperatures. In other words, it’s the sun stupid not human kind that is responsible for temperature fluctuations.

The consequences for the AGW/Climate Change doctrine must be devastating although I am pretty confident the warmists will use every trick in the book to wipe this findings under the carpet.

From the WUWT publication:

"I’ll have more on this as it develops (updated twice since the original report now), but for the short term, it appears that a non-visible light irradiance effect on Earth’s cloud seeds has been confirmed. The way it is posited to work is that the effect of cosmic rays (modulated by the sun’s magnetic variations which either allow more or deflect more cosmic rays) creates cloud condensation nuclei in the Earth’s atmosphere. With more condensation nuclei, more clouds form and vice-versa. Clouds have significant effects on TSI at the surface”.

"What if physics had functioned as it is supposed to do? What if CLOUD, quickly approved and funded, had verified the Svensmark effect with all the authority of CERN, in the early 2000s. What if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had done a responsible job, acknowledging the role of the Sun and curtailing the prophecies of catastrophic warming?”

"For a start there would have no surprise about the "travesty” that global warming has stopped since the mid-1990s, with the Sun becoming sulky. Vast sums might have been saved on misdirected research and technology, and on climate change fests and wheezes of every kind. The world’s poor and their fragile living environment could have had far more useful help than precautions against warming”.

"And there would have been less time for so many eminent folk from science, politics, industry, finance, the media and the arts to be taken in by man-made climate catastrophe. (In London, for example, from the Royal Society to the National Theatre.) Sadly for them, in the past ten years they’ve crowded with their warmist badges into a Hall of Shame, like bankers before the crash”.

Please read the entire article at WUWT. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/#more-45793

R. de Haan

Read the replies at Sullivan's Travelers.
http://rarereaders.seablogger.com/2011/08/breaking-news-–-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-cloud%C2%A0seeds/#comments

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.

Global Warming; the Modern Eugenics

Timothy Birdnow

Wesley Smith posts on the roaring return of Global Warming to the current hurricane Irene situation.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2011/08/28/global-warming-hysteria-hurricane-irene-and-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-33984

The New York Times is (laughably) claiming that Irene is a portent of the ravages of out-of-control weather, the results of Global Warming. It has been proven that Global Warming has nothing to do with hurricanes, and if they do then one must ask why we have been in such a quiet hurricane period.

In the message thread people were claiming that AGW will be recognized as a terrible threat in the future, and one poster compared it to the peace conferences in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (prior to WWI). I left the following comment:


"It’s rather like eugenics; the hysteria of degrading the human species in the early 20th century is rightly laughed at now, but it was a real "scientific” crisis back then. That was the same pseudo-science with the same politicized studies as Global Warming. Eugenics was a crock, and AGW is turning out to be just as much of a crock.

It took a world war and the murder of millions to end the stupidity of eugenics. Hopefully Global Warming won’t claim as many casualties."

End comment.

Others have noted this comparison in better detail than I (read "Nazi Oaks" by Mark Musser) but it is self-evident if one bothers to look. The turn-of-the-century society in Europe and America was rife with pseudo-sciences like Phrenology, and eugenics was a big one. People really did fear the degradation of their genes (although they didn't yet know of genetics) by an admixture of non-European blood to the evolutionary pool. It was Darwinian evolution that drove this, I might add; Darwin and other 19th century scientists were firmly convinced that Man was ascending through natural selection, and that a nordic-type European was clearly more evolved than a black African. Since Europeans dominated the world they must be better adapted, more fit to survive than the weaker dark peoples, the thinking went.

And there were eugenics laws instituted. People were sterilized. People were classified based solely on race. In Virginia if one could find a black ancestor in a family tree the entire family was classified Negro and subsequently discriminated against, forced to attend segregated schools, to use "colored" facilities, the works. (Native American ancestry was given more generous leeway, because many early pioneers married Indian women and some of Virginia's most famous sons were Mestizo.)

It was at a place called Cold Spring Harbor labs in New York that a great deal of work on eugenics was done, and the eugenics records were kept there.

Eugenics swept the U.S., with laws being instituted to guarantee "racial hygene". The Germans seized upon this and ran, and they eventually instituted a much more aggressive policy of "racial hygene" that would attempt to liquidate whole nations and peoples. American eugenicists were pikers; they sought to reduce the numbers of unfavored groups by sterilization and legal methods only. (By the way, they spent a good deal of effort on people with illnesses, like epilepsy. They passed laws making it illegal to breed if you were an epileptic or had some other poorly understood illness.)

The Holocaust was the eventual result of eugenics. It was the natural culmination of this "science".

Now, at best attempts to prevent global warming will result in many people dying; poor people die in economic downturns, and should the modern luddites win there will be one tremendous economic downturn. This is actually part of the plan; the eco-nazis want to deindustrialize the world. They believe that times were better when in fact they were worse. The natural world offers such gifts as smallpox, tuberculosis, famines, floods, and other goodies. Human civilization was built precisely to avoid the joys of nature; they were to give us a stable environment in which to live and flourish. The Greens have turned things on their heads, arguing that more nature is the answer to our problems. It isn't; we are far better off with some control. But they cannot believe that the world isn't perfectable, that we cannot create a paradise here and now. So they seek to restore a garden of eden that never was, a natural paradise. And to do that they must de-industrialize the West.

Think of the suffering that such a monstrously demented policy will cause. The world's population will shrink, but not easily. It means hunger, poverty, deprivation. It means a worldwide New Holocaust, with those chosen to flourish by the elites doing well while those marked to go quietly into the good night extinguishing. It will be horrible should they get their way.

Eugenics did enough damage. Fortunately we woke from that terrible nightmare. Why do we want to fall into one as bad - or worse?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 807 words, total size 5 kb.

Welcome to Paul Driessen

Timothy Birdnow

We have a new addition to our lineup here at Birdblog. Paul Driessen has joined the team.

Read his biography here. http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/bio.php3

Paul was editor of "Rules for Corporate Warriors: How to fight and survive attack group shakedowns" and  author of "Eco-Imperialism: Green Power Black Death." He is Senior Fellow at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Senior Fellow at the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) Senior Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

Paul appeared in the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle". http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1038#src7

Mr. Driessen will be an outstanding addition to this website, and we are very lucky to have him.

Paul's website can be found at www.Eco-Imperialism.com

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Spreading “Big Oil subsidy” disinformation

Paul Driessen

Meanwhile real subsidies are driving real businesses, energy and jobs out of America

Every American manufacturing company gets tax deductions that help it create jobs and strengthen our economy – whether it produces newspapers, furniture, cars or fuel. Eliminating those deductions would increase unemployment and further slow our nation’s desperately needed economic recovery.

Yet that is precisely what President Obama wants to do when oil companies want to use the deductions. It is one of many ways the Obama administration is undermining the oil industry and 9.2 million Americans whose jobs it supports. It is part of the administration’s strategy for replacing fossil fuels with heavily subsidized "alternatives” that taxpayers cannot afford, and consumers will not purchase on their own.

Newspapers that benefit from the same genre of tax deductions as oil companies nevertheless sometimes join attacking the oil industry, and the jobs and benefits it creates. This is rank hypocrisy.

"If Republicans are truly determined to slash the budget and end government waste,” the New York Times editorialized, "they will start [by] ending the web of tax breaks enjoyed by the rolling-in-dough oil industry and terminating the ethanol subsidy. Together these cuts would save up to $100 billion over 10 years.”

The Times is right about ending ethanol subsidies. But it and other "progressives” are wrong on every other argument they present to justify their job-killing, economy-crippling energy agenda.

1) Oil industry tax deductions cover costs incurred in exploration, drilling, production, transportation and refining. They aren’t subsidies or special tax breaks. They are essentially the same deductions claimed by all manufacturers, in conducting their business under our complex tax code. They ensure that businesses recover their costs and get taxed only on net income, in the process of making essential products.

Refineries and petrochemical manufacturers play an especially vital role in the oil industry – transforming crude oil and natural gas into fuels and raw materials used to make fabrics, plastics, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, fertilizers, carpets, paints, roofing, siding, and myriad other products that improve and safeguard our lives. Solar panels and resins for fiberglass wind turbine blades are also petroleum-based.

The NY Times itself enjoys similar tax breaks, and hasn’t offered to give one of them up, to help end government waste. Nor have other newspapers, some of which have even sought to benefit under the "failing newspaper act,” which would let them operate as "educational nonprofits,” and pay no taxes. Others have sought exemptions from antitrust laws, so that they can set online subscription prices.

In truth, in this internet and online media age, we could live without newspapers. But as an American Express advertising executive might say, Oil: You can't leave home without it. Nor can you have modern civilization or improved health and living standards without it.

2) Most petroleum companies aren’t "Big Oil.” They’re small independents. And the entire industry operates under government policies and regulations that keep many of America’s best oil and gas prospects off limits and make leasing, exploration and drilling needlessly expensive and time-consuming. Between 1981 and 2008, the largest consolidated oil companies ("Big Oil”) alone paid $1.95 trillion in severance, property, excise, sales and corporate income taxes, the Tax Foundation reports.

Eliminate the tax deductions amid the current regulatory and political climate, and fewer wells will be drilled, fewer deposits will be profitable enough to develop, fields will be abandoned prematurely, royalty revenues will decline, refineries will close or move overseas, workers will lose their jobs, their income tax payments will morph into welfare checks, and we will import still more oil and refined products.

3) A primary reason oil and gasoline prices are so high, unemployment is stuck at 9% and our economic growth is anemic is that government has made most of our western states, Alaskan and Outer Continental Shelf energy prospects off limits. It raises unfounded concerns about hydraulic fracturing, and drags its feet on permits for lands that supposedly are "available” for leasing and drilling. In short, it chokes off supplies.

Meanwhile, politicians stoke demand – with legislation like the NAT GAS Act. That bill would obligate US taxpayers to pony up some $14 billion annually in subsidies (aka, tax credits and rebates), to encourage motorists to buy natural gas-fueled cars and trucks, and service stations to install natural gas fueling stations.

Eliminate oil company tax deductions: "save” $4 billion. Subsidize car and truck purchases: spend $14 billion. It’s unsustainable. It’s insane.

4) Real subsidies take money taken from society’s productive sectors, and transfer it to legislators and bureaucrats, who give it to companies that "deserve” funding, because they provide politically favored products or could not remain in business without perpetual infusions of Other People’s Money. You support our reelection, our "catastrophic manmade global warming” thesis and our commitment to a renewable energy future, and you’ll continue receiving taxpayer cash – until the OPM runs out.

Evergreen Solar received $486 million in federal and state subsidies – but still closed its doors and fired 850 workers, when the subsidy well ran dry. The same thing happened to five of six solar companies in Germany. The jobs went to China and Malaysia, which have lower costs and fewer regulations.

5) Even with subsidies, wind and solar still can’t compete, unless they are also exempted from endangered species and other environmental laws. If you shoot an eagle, or birds die in an uncovered oil company waste pit, fines and possibly prison terms are meted out. But wind farms slaughter bald and golden eagles, falcons, hawks, curlews, bats and other threatened, endangered and just plain majestic sky dwellers with no consequences. They even get fast-tracked through the environmental review process by the same Interior Department and EPA that routinely delay or deny oil and gas applications.

6) Then there’s ethanol. Producing 13.2 billion gallons of it in 2010 required one-quarter of all the corn grown in the United States – monopolizing 23 million acres (Grade A cropland the size of Indiana) and consuming 1.2 trillion gallons of water, along with prodigious amounts of petroleum in the form of fertilizer and tractor, truck and distillery fuel … for $6 billion a year in subsidies. While corn growers get rich, higher corn prices mean pork and chicken producers pay more for feed, meat producers are driven out of business, manufacturers pay more for corn syrup, consumers pay more for food, and jobs disappear.

America could produce far more gasoline from a mere 2,000 acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (1/20 of Washington, DC), if anti-oil zealots would end their opposition to drilling in the frozen tundra.

And still ethanol enjoys fuel pump mandates, $6 billion in annual subsidies, and tariffs against foreign competition – so that consumers can "choose” a fuel that gets a third fewer miles per gallon than gasoline.

Meanwhile, the Defense Department is doing a theirs-not-to-reason-why Light Brigade charge into the jaws of biofuel R&D – and extolling the virtues of camellia-based jet fuel that costs $67 a gallon, versus $5 per gallon for aviation gas that could also come from ANWR, the OCS and other off-limits US lands.

The bottom line is simple. The worst thing we can do is what President Obama is intent on doing: use the mythical revenues he expects from eliminating oil company "subsidies and tax breaks” to increase federal wind, solar and ethanol subsidies by another 50% (to $18 billion a year) – so as to "foster the clean energy economy of the future and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels that contribute to climate change.”

As should be abundantly clear by now, these energy sources are not so clean or eco-friendly. They can’t exist without perpetual subsidies. They are simply not sustainable.

To provide reliable, affordable, ecological, sustainable energy … put people back to work … rejuvenate our economy … and generate trillions in new government revenue – we need to do three things.

Open America’s public lands for responsible hydrocarbon development. Take the boot off the neck of American businesses. And get rid of all the subsidies, bailouts, targeted tax breaks, selective tariffs, mandates to purchase ethanol and other products, and other corporate welfare gimmicks that make tax lawyers and lobbyists more important than researchers, trained workers and top-flight CEOs.

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







Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1404 words, total size 10 kb.

Animal Crackers

Dana Mathewson forwards this bit of irony:

The English language has some wonderfully anthropomorphic collective nouns

for the various groups of animals.

We are all familiar with a Herd of cows, a Flock of chickens, a School of
fish and a Gaggle of geese.

However, less widely known is a Pride of lions, a Murder of crows (as well
as their cousins the rooks and ravens), an Exaltation of doves and,
presumably because they look so wise, a Parliament of owls.

Now consider a group of Baboons. They are the loudest, most dangerous,
most obnoxious, most viciously aggressive and least intelligent of all primates.
And what is the proper collective noun for a group of baboons?

Believe it or not ....... a Congress!
It is all becoming perfectly clear....Go figure

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

August 28, 2011

Of Hurricanes and Government

Jeff Bruzzo

My Prognosis: 1200 EST, 27AUG2011

It appears Irene has weakened to a cat – 1 Hurricane just before making landfall on the Outer Banks. The main reason is an inflow of dryer continental air being pulled into the feeder bands (1), due to proximity to land. Dry air has a negative effect on the engine of a hurricane... much like pumping money into an economic system.

As Irene is making landfall, expect winds to normally diminish as would be the case in any tropical system... loss of warm water and obstruction of the feeders from land on the west side.
So far, I have not noticed the central pressure rise in any significant amount to indicate major weakening. (952MB).

Conditions should remain favorable due the secondary jet stream caving into a trough on the west side of the storm and creating a bubble of warm moist tropical air all the way to Maine. The very slow speed of this system is indicative of this favorable bubble, allowing the Hurricane to basically "do what it wants” without losing much strength. The only shear effect can be noticed as the out flow encounters the Appalachian Mountains to some degree. Some slight steering can be expected as another weak cold front approaches from the North-Midwest (we call this Compression); hence the more westerly track over Long Island.

As Irene makes its way out over coastal waters of the Delmarva, expect any further diminishing of strength to lessen or possibly remain stable as it works its way up the coast...literally. (2) The eye should straddle the coast of NJ on its way north with a very slight veer to the west. This means Irene should remain as a strong Tropical Storm or Weak Cat – 1 Hurricane as it makes landfall somewhere over Western Long Island. I would say the convergence of the models would put that around Queens – Western Nassau County (My place). Mayor Bloomberg and the Progressive Governments of the area have already enacted their Doomsday plans, enabling further massive central control to keep everyone safe. Kind of sounds like the Patriot Act.

What this all means:

Coastal areas of NJ and NY can expect major flooding as the North-East quadrant of the storm pumps water into inlets and bays with Hurricane force winds. A tidal surge of between 5-8 feet can be expected. Some areas can be more or less due to there topography... similar to a Tsunami wave. Due to the longevity of this process and the slow movement of the system, expect this effect to be magnified by the arrival of possibly two normal high tides.

All areas affected by the wind field of say 35 MPH or greater can expect major tree damage, as many trees in the area have not seen such a wide-spread natural pruning of this magnitude since Hurricane Donna. While the winds themselves are not enough to topple power lines, it’s the falling limbs which cause all of the power outages and damage to homes and cars.. It would be a wise idea to secure cars in between buildings with no trees or park them in lots which hopefully will not flood.

1. All cyclonic systems depend upon warm air creating a lift for all the moisture and eventually having that moisture condense (cooling) at the top of the eye wall and spread outward as precipitation... much like a thunderstorm... of which the eye wall is comprised of many!
The circulation is counter-clockwise, in the northern hemisphere due to the Coreolis effect, with winds increasing towards the center of circulation... much like the axle on a bike wheel spinning faster than the rest of the wheel, except this centralized, counter-clockwise spinning rises
in a funnel we call the eye wall. (hot air rises – cold air sinks). What you have left is an area of extreme low pressure in the middle... the eye. (tornados too!)

2. The counter-clockwise cyclonic flow of a hurricane must at least remain over some favorable portion of water in order for the engine to remain strong (coastal track)... particularly the eye or central vortex. This is where the main rotation and lift occurs to feed the storm and its
subsequent outflow and copious quantities of rain.

My correlation of Hurricanes & the Government goes as follows:
Dry air to a Hurricane is like pumping money into our economy... it causes the system to go haywire and eventually stall.
Both have a centralized collective of sorts... the economy has The Fed & Gov’t... a Hurricane has its collective of massive thunderstorms circling around its center. Both collectives cause a lot of damage!
Wind shear to a Hurricane is much like the Tea Party to big Gov’t... it manages to slow down the destructive process of the collectives.
As steering effects gradually nudge a hurricane, so do steering effects by unregulated government agencies nudge the passive Sheeple.
While Hurricanes prune tree limbs, Big Gov’t prunes liberty and economic prosperity.
Bottom line: In order to starve a Hurricane, it needs to be deprived of its energy... warm, humid air; it eventually weakens and goes off into history.
In order to starve the beast we call Big Gov’t, it needs to be deprived of its energy... the countless trillions of phony money flying around a Fiat Money system. It too will eventually weaken as it passes over the stable ground we call the Constitution...
hopefully we can keep it from fading off into history.

In the end you can count on the People to come together and help each other in their hour of need; Neighbors, Friends, & Families.

Jeff Bruzzo
Director & Editor
Island Metro Productions, LLC
Former USAF Weatherman

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 955 words, total size 6 kb.

Faith questions for Keith Ellison

Jack Kemp forwards this Powerline piece:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/faith-questions-for-keith-ellison.php
Posted on August 27, 2011 by Scott Johnson in 2012 election, Who is Keith Ellison?
Faith questions for Keith Ellison
Stanley Kurtz observes that "[o]utgoing New York Times editor Bill Keller has kicked up a controversy by placing on the table a series of religious questions for the Republican candidates for president. I want to get in on the act and pose a set of questions for Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison, America’s first Muslim congressman.


I summarized my research on Ellison just before he was elected to Congress in 2006 in the Weekly Standard article "Louis Farrakhan’s first congressman.” I included PDF copies of several of the documents on which the article was based in the companion Power Line post "Keith Ellison for dummies.” More recently, Middle East Quarterly editor Denis MacEoin reviewed the record in detail in "Keith Ellison’s stealth jihad.”


Ellison’s public career raises basic questions that haven’t been asked by the media or answered by Ellison. Here are a few that come to mind:


1. You say you converted to Islam as a college student in Detroit, yet your first published articles as a law student at the University of Minnesota were written under the pseudonym "Keith Hakim” from the perspective of a follower of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. When did you convert to Islam? At what mosque did you worship?


2. After you graduated from law school, you became well known around Minneapolis as a local leader of the Nation of Islam. Were you a Muslim at that time?


3. When you first ran for public office in 1998, the Insight News published an interview with you. You were running under the name "Keith Ellison-Muhammad” and identified yourself to the Insight News as a member of the Nation of Islam. Were you also a Muslim at that time? When after 1998 did you abandon the Nation of Islam?


4. When you were a member of the Nation of Islam, did you believe that Yakub was a black scientist who lived "6,600 years ago” and was responsible for creating the white race to be a "race of devils”?


5. Have you joined a mosque in Minneapolis? When did you join it?


6. Do you believe that Islamic law should be the law of the land in the United States? Do you think Islam should be subordinate to the constitutional separation between church and state?


7. You are a liberal Democrat who advocates the Democratic Party’s positions on gay rights, abortion, and feminism. Which branch of Islam comports with your position on these issues?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 443 words, total size 3 kb.

A Weather Newsgasm

By Alan Caruba

What major weather events and especially earthquakes tell us is that we live on planet Earth on its terms, not ours. Put another way, we don’t "control” the weather or climate and, despite decades of global warming lies, compared to the sun and oceans, we don’t even influence it.

The best definition of the weather is "chaos.” It will do whatever it wants to do.

By Friday on Fox News and other television news outlets, it was non-stop coverage of Hurricane Irene even though it was barely beginning to touch the North Carolina coast. If there is one thing the news media loves it is a really big potential disaster.

By Saturday afternoon as Irene passed over North Carolina, Anthony Watts, a veteran meteorologist and commentator on WattsUpWithThat.com, was reporting, "What we have here at this point appears to be a tropical storm. By the time it reaches New York, it may very well just be a tropical depression on par with a Nor’easter in intensity.” But not a hurricane.

At one point late Saturday, I clicked the remote on every local channel and on every cable news channel. Every single one was reporting on the hurricane. According to my blogger pal, Texas Fred, that’s a "newsgasm”.

By Sunday morning, the drenching rain, but no high winds, was already moving north out of New York City and northern New Jersey where I live.

The incessant "news” coverage reflects the way television (and print) news professionals tend to regard viewers as too stupid to make decisions as basic as preparing for the hurricane or evacuating before its arrival, nor do they just report the news, i.e., the facts. So far as Irene was concerned, they engaged in massive speculation and endless predictions.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) became an acronym for incompetence. Presumably lessons have been learned and the agency will perform more effectively if needed.

Americans have been taught that the federal government will always come to their rescue and it rarely does with any efficiency and usually with a great waste of money and resources. Local first responders are usually the best and most reliable.

In a society that is utterly and completely dependent on electricity to function, it is always a sobering experience for many to discover how useless every single appliance in their home or apartment becomes without it.

I am sure I am boring people to death by repeatedly pointing to the way government at the federal and state level, along with many environmental organizations are deliberately making it difficult, if not impossible, to build coal-burning or nuclear utilities. As for transportation, the same forces are allied against any oil exploration and extraction. There hasn’t been a single new oil refinery built since the 1970s. That’s insane.

Now they are gearing up to deter natural gas extraction using "fracking” even though this technology has been in safe use for fifty years. The discovery of vast new reserves of natural gas should be greeted as welcome news by everyone. Only the luddites want us to return to mythical "simpler” times that never existed. It is still easier and a whole lot faster to take the train from New York to Washington, D.C. than to ride a horse.

If a foreign invader had imposed the same limits on our ability to access and use our own vast national reserves of coal, oil and natural gas, we would be in the streets with metaphorical pitchforks.

Returning to the theme of hurricanes, does anyone remember how Al Gore and other global warming liars were predicting that global warming would cause more hurricanes? Well, the East Coast has been through a period of some five years without one making landfall. Since there never was any dramatic global warming, there never was a connection between the two.

It’s worth remembering the previous decades since the late 1980s that were filled with reports from the full panoply of the print and broadcast media. They assured us that global warming was going to transform all life on earth unless we stopped producing carbon dioxide emissions, i.e., "greenhouse gas” emissions. It was a scam to sell bogus "carbon credits.”

This is the same bull we keep hearing about "renewable” energy, wind and solar power, along with ethanol and biofuels. The latter wastes food—corn—and the former wastes open space along with taxpayer’s and consumer’s hard earned money.

We are constantly assailed with extremely dubious, if not outright lies that involve something "scientific”, but science has been corrupted with too much environmental claptrap, political correctness, and devious chicanery. There are good sources of information, but the government and the media are not among them.

Trust your common sense. It is usually a good guide.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 803 words, total size 5 kb.

August 27, 2011

Union Bail-out -- a distant bell tolling?

Dana Mathewson

This is the same guy who boasted he met near daily with Obama in Obama's office with no word on what was discussed between them. Transparency.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/unions-trumka-democrats-donations/2011/08/25/id/408713?s=al&promo_code=CEB9-1

When was the last time a Democrat was elected president without the support of Big Labor? Granted, Big Labor isn't nearly as Big as it once was, but still, without that crowd I now believe Zippy is toast. I don't think we should get our dancing shoes out yet, but this is something to smile about, surely.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

GE Stabs the US in the Back

By Alan Caruba

In 1876 Thomas Alva Edison opened a laboratory in Menlo Park, New Jersey for the purposes of exploring how to produce and distribute electricity. History records that he invented the incandescent electric light bulb there. By 1890, he had established the Edison General Electric Company, now know simply as GE.

In 2011, Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE and the chairman of President Obama’s "Jobs Council” is eliminating jobs for American employees of GE at a furious pace. To add insult to injury, in 2010 GE paid no federal taxes at all despite worldwide profits of $14.2 billion. GE claimed a tax benefit of $2.3 billion.

From an America corporate icon to an American disgrace, GE epitomizes how federal policies, cronyism, and rent seeking is destroying America from within by avoiding taxes and shipping jobs overseas. Keep in mind, none of this is illegal. It is, however, unconscionable.

A recent article at http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/ took a look at the way GE is "moving jobs and economic infrastructure to China at a blistering pace.” For example, "GE makes more medical-imaging machines than anyone else in the world and now GE has announced that it is ‘moving the headquarters of its 115-year-old X-ray business to Beijing.”

The article notes that, "Under Immelt, GE has shipped tens of thousands of good jobs out of the United States.” Even the liberal learning Huffington Post reported that "As the administration struggles to prod businesses to create jobs at home, GE has been busy sending them abroad. Since Immelt took over in 2001, GE has shed 34,000 jobs in the U.S. according to its most recent annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. But it has added 25,000 jobs overseas.”

"At the end of 2009, GE employed 36,000 more people abroad than it did in the U.S. In 2000, it was nearly the opposite.”

The last GE factory in the U.S. that made light bulbs closed last September. This came on the heels of the federal government’s ban on the 100-watt incandescent light bulb and its push to require Americans to purchase the new CFL light bulbs as part of Obama’s green jobs initiative. The CFL bulbs have been universally denounced as providing less equivalent light, costing more, and using mercury as part of their manufacture.

When John Rice was appointed GE’s head of global operations, responsible for growth in markets that include China, India, the Middle East and Brazil, the Huffington Post revealed that GE planned to spend $500 million on research and development and new customer innovation centers in China, adding more than a thousand jobs there. "More than $1.5 billion is expected to be put toward joint ventures with Chinese state-owned enterprises in high-technology sectors.”

At the same time, Daily Finance.com revealed that GE "is arming China to compete with Boeing—and America.” Peter Cohen that "General Electric plans to sell its aircraft electronics to Chinese companies” noting that China just flight-tested a prototype stealth fighter” as it continues to build up its military. GE is selling technology "it developed for U.S. companies like Boeing to Boeing’s Chinese competitors.”

"America is being de-industrialized at lightning speed and very few of our politicians seem to care,” says TheEconomicCollapseblog while noting that in 1979 there were 19.5 million manufacturing jobs in the United States and today there are 11.6 million.

"The United States has lost a staggering 32% of all its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.”

While President Obama berates the Congress for the lack of free trade agreements, he neglects to say that several such agreements with Latin American nations linger on his desk and none can be acted upon by Congress until he sends them for approval.

While Jeffrey Immelt flies around in his corporate jet and issues vacuous, hypocritical statements about jobs for Americans, he and his close friend in the White House are undermining the economy. Other U.S. corporations are following suit.

The U.S. corporate tax is the highest in the world, but you will not hear any talk of lowering this tax rate, only meaningless class warfare blather about taxing "millionaires and billionaires” more when, in truth, those taxes will fall heaviest on small business owners.

This is the deliberate destruction of the U.S. manufacturing sector.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 720 words, total size 5 kb.

<< Page 1 of 6 >>
109kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.0631 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.0181 seconds, 170 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.