November 25, 2009

Positivity: Pre-Thanksgiving Perspective

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 8:45 pm

Note: A slightly different version of this post originally went up in November 2007. Evening update: Moved to the top.


I saw this about halfway through this post at Obi’s Sister. It was written to make a political point, which is fine, but it also makes a universal one (paragraphing added by me):

A neighbor (say her name is Mary) sees her other neighbor (say her name is Nancy) and decides to make her a pie. She bakes a lovely pie the next day and takes it next-door. Nancy is overwhelmed that her neighbor would be so thoughtful and thanks her profusely.

The next week, Mary makes her another pie. When she takes it over, Nancy thanks her again, but with less enthusiasm.

The next week, Mary makes her another pie. When she takes it over, Nancy just says “Thanks.”

The next week, Mary makes her another pie. When she takes it over, Nancy says, “Thanks, and you’re a day late this time.”

The next week, Mary makes her another pie. When she takes it over, Nancy says “Thanks, but next time, can you make a cherry pie instead of apple? I’m getting tired of apple.”

The next week, Mary makes her another pie. When she takes it over, Nancy says “You know, if you put a little less sugar in the crust and didn’t handle it so long, the crust wouldn’t be tough.”

The next week, Mary has lots to do and forgets to make her pie. When she walked by Nancy’s house, she stuck her head out the door and yelled, “Hey! Where’s my pie?”

How quickly gratitude turns into a jaded sense of entitlement.

…. Why don’t we go back to the original idea? Simple people, pioneers really, expressing their pure and heartfelt gratitude …. A humble heartfelt thanksgiving. Not a holiday, but a state of mind.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

Happy Thanksgiving, Mike; Please Drop Out

Filed under: Marvels,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 1:03 pm


I really do wish Mike and Fran DeWine, their family, and his extended family a happy and blessed Thanksgiving.

But really, what I want to receive from from Fran and Mike is not what arrived in my e-mail box this morning:


Mike, Mike, Mike.

You’re not lobbying for Fran to win the next Pillsbury Bake-Off (Warning: Clicking on an empty stomach may cause serious hunger pangs).

You’re running for Attorney General of the State of Ohio — Though I must admit that the recipes of Fran and your relatives look quite scrumptious (they’re here and here, respectively; who said that this blog isn’t practical?).

In stark contrast to your opponent Dave Yost, you haven’t been able to deliver anything politically filling during the months since you declared your candidacy. That particular cupboard must be bare.

Absent contrary evidence, you should withdraw and enjoy future quiet and joyous Thanksgivings with your extended family, and leave the governing to someone who has the ideas and energy to get it right.

LAT Breaking: Obama Going to Copenhagen, No Mention of Climategate

GlobalWarmingWho’s denyin’ now?

There may not be a better example of establishment media Climategate denial than Jim Tankersley’s “breaking” story at the Los Angeles Times’s Greenspace blog that President Barack Obama will attend the December 7-19 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Tankersley identifies all kinds of supposed factors that seem to have influenced the president’s alleged change of heart on attending, while ignoring one that seems more than a little possible — the need to get some kind of one-world commitment done before enough of the world learns of the fraud that is Climategate.

Here are some excerpts from in-the-tank Tankersley (HT Hot Air Headlines):

Breaking news from Washington reporter Jim Tankersley:

President Obama will attend the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen next month, according to a senior administration official, a sign of the president’s increasing confidence that the talks will yield a meaningful agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The White House will also announce today that the United States will commit, in the talks, to reduce its emissions of the heat-trapping gases scientists blame for global warming “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, the official said. That’s the target set out in the climate bill the House passed in June.

The president will address negotiators on Dec. 9, just after the opening of the two-week summit, on his way to pick up the Nobel Peace Prize in nearby Sweden. His speech will come ahead of planned visits by prominent heads of state from Europe and around the world, and before the talks are expected to reach their most frenzied pitch.

White House officials said the decision to attend came after productive climate discussions between Obama and the heads of China and India, two developing nations whose participation is seen as critical to any successful effort to avert catastrophic climate change.

Those discussions left the president optimistic that his presence in Copenhagen could seal a meaningful – though not legally binding – climate deal, meeting the standard that Obama previously set for his attendance at the summit, the officials said.

…. Several nations key to the talks, including the United States and China, have conceded in recent weeks that negotiations have proceeded too slowly to produce a legally binding treaty in Copenhagen. Instead, those nations are now aiming for a sort of executive summary of a future treaty to be completed next year; that summary would nevertheless include critical issues such as emissions reduction pledges for individual nations.

…. Environmentalists were cheered by the news — at least in part.

“Obviously, we are glad that President Obama will be in Copenhagen in the early part of the climate summit,” said Keya Chatterjee, the climate director for World Wildlife Fund. “It’s important that his words during this important moment convey that the United States intends to make climate change a legislative priority, not simply a rhetorical one.

“If it becomes necessary to secure the right commitments,” she added, “the President must also be willing to return to Copenhagen with the rest of the world’s leaders during the final stages of the negotiations.”

Well, TV is ignoring it, except for Fox (which is why it really is fair and balanced), and much of the rest is employing a hysterical double standard on not using surreptitiously obtained material — an exposure problem that obviously didn’t exist in instances running over several decades, from as early as Daniel Ellsburg’s Pentagon Papers to Sarah Palin’s hacked e-mails last year.

Thus, this would appear to be another example where commenters will have to deliver the news to Tankersley’s other blog readers to bring them and an establishment media journalist into reality.

Cross-posted at

‘Hide the Decline’

Filed under: Economy,Environment,Scams,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:38 am

Original vid link (HT Instapundit):

The Climategate e-mail in question:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley, mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.


Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia

Latest Pajamas Media Column (‘Deconstructing ClimateGate’s Smoking-Gun Email’) Is Up (ALSO: Rush’s SITYS For the Ages; PJM Climategate Links)

It’s here.

Given how many other writers have weighed in at PJM, I appreciate their acceptance of my submission on short notice.

The subheadline is, “A leading light of climate change inadvertently exposes AGW’s crumbling foundation.” That exposure comes from a Kevin Trenberth e-mail, acknowledged as genuine. It comments on an October 9 BBC article (“What happened to global warming?”) by Paul Hudson, and among other things complains that:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

On, it’s much, much more than that. As you’ll see in the column, that e-mail, along with Trenberth’s response to its exposure, forces an incontrovertible and settled conclusion: The whole AGW (anthropogenic global warming) enterprise is and has been a bunch of globaloney — a term I have used correctly for almost three years in 118 posts going back to January 2007 (two earlier ones are here and here) — from the very beginning.

The column will appear here at BizzyBlog on Friday morning (link won’t work until then) after the blackout expires.


Related: The past few days have been a giant SITYS (See I Told You So) for Rush Limbaugh, who has been on to this nonsense for two decades.

Limbaugh took the opportunity yesterday to make some very important larger points. There’s no substitute for reading the whole thing, but here are a few related excerpts from his comments yesterday (link will go behind his subscription wall after a week; bolds are mine):

…. We really live, folks, in two worlds. There are two worlds. We live in two universes. One universe is a lie. One universe is an entire lie. Everything run, dominated, and controlled by the left here and around the world is a lie. The other universe is where we are, and that’s where reality reigns supreme and we deal with it. And seldom do these two universes ever overlap. A great illustration is what’s happening here with what is now incontrovertibly known as a hoax. We know that the lead place, this Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University — which is the number one advisor and communicator with the IPCC, which is the UN’s climate-control crowd.

We know that data was made up to advance the notion that man is causing the climate to warm. We know that data was purposely left out that hides the fact that the earth is cooling. Even on this bunch’s website, they cannot hide the fact that temperatures have not increased the last ten years, and they’ve had to come up with some of the most irrational, illogical explanations for it. “Well, it’s the ocean currents out there. It could be El Nino or La Nina. A lot of stuff is going on,” but they specifically ignore anything related to the sun! And without the sun, there’s nothing. How you can ignore the sun in the whole concept of warming is idiocy. But the point is this: We have now the facts. I don’t care how it happened, whistle-blower or a hacker.

…. So it’s a hoax. We know these people — and I’ve known it all along. I know who these people are. I know who communists are. I know who liberals are. I know how they have to get things done. They have to lie. This ought to be among the biggest stories to come down the pike in a year, and it is in that side of the universe where we all live, in the real world. As far as the left is concerned, the story hasn’t happened.

…. what is happening is the people in the Universe of Lies are ignoring it. Their agenda will be paramount — and I guarantee you that as we speak, the hoaxers and everybody involved in it from Algore on up to this Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University are plotting strategy on how to keep forging forward because of two things. There is a hell of a lot of money at the end of this train and these people want to get their hands on it. A lot of it is ours, a lot of it is grants from other governments, plus the power that’s going to come with that. The second thing is that the scientists involved in this so-called consensus stand to have their reputations in ruin ….

…. You know, folks, the two universes here — The Universe of Lies, The Universe of Reality — they don’t overlap anymore. And this is even bigger than global warming, which was my point yesterday. It’s about everything that the left is involved in. What this fraud, what the uncovering of this hoax exposes, is the corruption that exists between government and academia and science and the media. Science has been corrupted. We know the media has been corrupted for a long time. Academia has been corrupted. None of what they do is real. It’s all lies! It is all oriented toward a political outcome. It’s bigger than global warming. And of course science has been corrupted here.

…. what they have done here is now make it reasonable to doubt everything some scientist says who gets government money from somewhere. And if you know what’s good for you, if you know that they’re leftists, you won’t believe anything they say any time, anywhere, about anything. Their ideas are so hideous, are so insidious, so anti-free market, that they have to dress their ideas up in a phony cloak of compassion: Saving the planet, saving the polar bears, saving the water, saving the earth, saving whatever it is. “Saving the poor,” while they destroy the poor. It just infuriating. So we have now the Four Corners of Deceit, and the two universes in which we live. The Universe of Lies, the Universe of Reality, and The Four Corners of Deceit: Government, academia, science, and media.

…. if you live in The Universe of Lies, the last thing that you are governed by is the truth. The last thing you are governed by is reality. The only thing that matters to you is the advancement of your political agenda. And you tell yourself in The Universe of Lies that your agenda is so important the world will not survive without it and therefore you could lie, cheat, steal, destroy whoever you have to to get your agenda done — because your opponents are eeevil, and in fighting eeevil, anything goes. …. And that is why in The Universe of Lies in this country, those of us who live in The Universe of Reality are the true enemy.

The PJM collection runs the gamut from the data itself to the politics. Here are the ones I have found (sorry to anyone at PJM whom I might have overlooked):

  • Ian Pilmer — “Climategate: Alarmism Is Underpinned by Fraud”
  • William Briggs — “What Is — and What Isn’t — Evidence of Global Warming”
  • Charlie Martin — “Climategate Computer Codes Are the Real Story” (“a harried programmer …. couldn’t replicate the scientists’ warming results”)
  • Iain Murray — “Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate”
  • Christopher Horner — “Competitive Enterprise Institute Sues NASA in Wake of Climategate Scandal”
  • David Steinberg — “Global Warmists Dig in Their Heels over Climategate — Kind of”
  • Charlie Martin — “Climategate: Violating the Social Contract of Science (Updated)”
  • Viscount Christopher Monckton on Climategate: “They Are Criminals”
  • Charlie Martin — “Global WarmingGate: What Does It Mean?”
  • Rand Simberg — “Climategate: When Scientists Become Politicians”
  • Richard Fernandez — “Do Hacked Emails Spell the End of the Global Warming Industry?”
  • Charlie Martin — “Hacker Releases Data Implicating CRU in Global Warming Fraud”
  • Ed Driscoll — “All the News That’s Fit to Bury”