Accurately described in a Grassfire Nation email as a painting (yes, that’s a link to an offer to those who might be interested in buying it, for which I am receiving no compensation, except that a few readers might partake of it) which “will never appear in the Obama White House… guaranteed” (click on the graphic for a slightly larger rendition in a separate tab or window):
On Monday, the editorial board at the Los Angeles Times was so mad that they fell victim to a corollary of Godwin’s Law (he who mentions Hitler or the Nazis has automatically lost the argument) by the third paragraph.
What has them so upset? The very idea that K-12 classroom instruction might not teach human-caused global warming and the need for massive and radical government intervention in the marketplace to deal with it as established, irrefutable facts. In their fever-swamp view, the battle is between “credentialed climatologists around the globe” and “fossil-fuel-industry-funded ‘experts.’” The editorial’s language is so over at the top it makes one legitimately wonder how anyone who doesn’t toe the line on climate change can remain employed anywhere at the Times. Here are the last four of the editorial’s five paragraphs; I tried to select particular items to bold, but the whole thing is such an offensive, fabricated assemblage that I would have had to bold the whole thing (HT to Gary Hall):
Climate denial in the classroom
It’s bad enough that we’re doing so little to fight climate change; let’s not ask teachers to lie about it too.
I received the following email a short time ago, and, beyond noting that I agree, am publishing it without comment:
COLUMBUS, OHIO – February 22, 2012
A statewide coalition of social and fiscal conservative leaders in Ohio announced today that they support former Senator Rick Santorum for President of the United States.
Understanding that a principled conservative is necessary to successfully challenge Barack Obama, these leaders joined together to urge others to unite behind Rick Santorum.
“Success in 2012 equals Obama out of the White House,” said Seth Morgan. “Rick Santorum can unite the conservative base of our party while appealing to an American public that is fed up with Washington intrusion in our markets, economy, and lives. Rick Santorum needs to win Ohio and then will win America – restoring hope for our future.”
The signers below are in their individual capacities, personally endorsing Rick Santorum for President. Organizations are listed for identification purposes only:
Seth Morgan, Former State Representative, Radio Talk Show Host, Conservative Coalition Leader
Phil Burress, President of Citizens for Community Values
Tom Zawistowski, Founder of Portage County Tea Party
Lori Viars, President of Conservative Republican Leadership Committee
Linda Theis, President of Ohio ProLife Action
Brad Mattes, Executive Director of Life Issues Institute
Tony Maas, Board Member of Family First
Mark Lucas, Leader of Hilliard-Galloway Tea Party & 912
Diane Stover, Director of NE Ohio Values Voters
Bobbi Radeck, State Director of Concerned Women for America of Ohio
Glenn Newman, Founder of Marietta 912
Burr Robinson, Chairman of Cincinnati East Tea Party
Andy Douglas, Director of Christians for Constitutional Awareness
Larry Heller, Leader of Miami Township Tea Party
Joseph Platt, Board Member of Family First
Sue Hardenbergh, Co-Leader of Anderson Tea Party
Paula Westwood, Executive Director of Cincinnati Right to Life
Scott Nichols, Co-Founder of Clermont County Tea Party
Crystal Gurry, Legislative Liaison of Concerned Women for America of Ohio
Calvin Pauley, Miami Township Tea Party Screening Committee
Kelly Kohls, Chairman of Warren County Tea Party
Debbie Smith, President of Warren County Right to Life
Dawn Slike, Former Operations Director, Lake County Right to Life
Marcie Garrison Longenecker, Executive Committee of Liberty Alliance Cincinnati
LAT Reporter Worries Over Gleick Heartland Doc Theft’s Impact on Acceptance of ‘Scientific Consensus’
While the Associated Press and the wire service’s Seth Borenstein dither on what to report or whether to report anything about confessed document theft from the Heartland Institute by the Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick (a search on Gleick’s last name at the AP’s main national site at noon came up empty), Neela Banerjee at the Los Angeles incompletely reported the facts and fretted that the confession would “further deepen the uncertainty of many Americans” concerning “the scientific consensus on climate change.”
What follows are the first five plus three other paragraphs from Banerjee’s Tuesday evening report (bolds are mine):
Globaloney supporters are in the midst of a really rough run. Dissenters are sticking to their guns, and reinforcing their positions. Meanwhile, in a situation reminiscent of the old Soviet Union and its defectors, disenchanted true believers are leaving the fold; those who remain are having hard time handling it.
After sixteen scientist skeptics published a dissent in the Wall Street Journal, 37 globalarmists pushed back. The sixteen have now re-pushed — hard — again in the WSJ (bolds are mine throughout this post):
Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming
The authors of the Jan. 27 Wall Street Journal op-ed, ‘No Need to Panic about Global Warming,’ respond to their critics.
… an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is “falsified” and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.
These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.
From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth’s temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.
The Trenberth letter tells us that “computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean.” The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world’s oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of “missing heat” hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?
Given this dubious track record of prediction, it is entirely reasonable to ask for a second opinion. We have offered ours. With apologies for any immodesty, we all have enjoyed distinguished careers in climate science or in key science and engineering disciplines (such as physics, aeronautics, geology, biology, forecasting) on which climate science is based.
Trenberth et al. tell us that the managements of major national academies of science have said that “the science is clear, the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible.” Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is, not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models.
One reason to be on guard, as we explained in our original op-ed, is that motives other than objective science are at work in much of the scientific establishment.
… The fact is that there are very powerful influences on the earth’s climate that have nothing to do with human-generated CO2. The graph strongly suggests that the IPCC has greatly underestimated the natural sources of warming (and cooling) and has greatly exaggerated the warming from CO2.
… The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost.
“CO2 is not a pollutant”? Quick, tell the justices on the Supreme Court that before they issue a stupid decision which ultimately gives the EPA virtually tryannical powers over almost every aspect of daily life. Oh, wait …
Read the whole thing, especially as I completely skipped the scientists’ chronicling of the globalarmists’ campaign of intimidation and the American Physical Society’s heavy-handed attempts to shove globaloney down its members’ throats.
Speaking of which, a prominent German scientist has jumped off the globaloney train, and those who are still on board are not happy:
Germany’s envirowhackos have gone incendiary, as a former apostle of the climate change religion, Fritz Vahrenholt, has coauthored a new, best-selling book that casts doubts on the shoddy science of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The mean greenies in Germany are so hot at Vahrenholt that they probably ought to charge themselves a carbon tax, or buy on offsetting credit, or just kick back and relax with a cold drink on a furry polar bear rug in front of a big log fire.
“The left wing German online TAZ here has a weekend article called Climate Skeptics Are Like Viruses,” writes the website No Trick Zone, “which looks at the controversy swirling about Vahrenholt’s …new skeptic book Die kalte Sonne [The Cold Sun.]” The Taz site includes cute pictures of blood thirsty, meat eating, Coca Cola drinking polar bear cannibals, to emphasize the point: Vahrenholt, bad, polar bears, good. The left uses polar bears as their Little Orphan Annie of global warming. The sun’s out everyday.
The two hypotheses put forward in the book by Vahrenholt and his coauthor Sebastian Lüning are that 1) The UN has purposefully slanted the science to reach a pro-global warming position and; 2) solar activity plays a much more important part in geological warming and cooling than scientists are willing to admit.
“Today, I want new scientific findings to be included in the climate debate,” Vahrenholt told an interviewer from the German Spiegel Online. “It would then become clear that the simple equation that CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases are almost exclusively responsible for climate change is unsustainable. It hasn’t gotten any warmer on this planet in almost 14 years, despite continued increases in CO2 emissions. Established climate science has to come up with an answer to that.”
It has become increasingly clear that it can’t.
Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow later. Other topics are also fair game.
This post is a Washington’s Birthday BizzyBlog tradition.
Few know that George Washington singlehandedly prevented a soldiers’ revolt in 1783.
At the close of the Revolutionary War in America, a perilous moment in the life of the fledgling American democracy occurred as officers of the Continental Army met in Newburgh, New York, to discuss grievances and consider a possible insurrection against the rule of Congress.
They were angry over the failure of Congress to honor its promises to the army regarding salary, bounties and life pensions. The officers had heard from Philadelphia that the American government was going broke and that they might not be compensated at all.
On March 10, 1783, an anonymous letter was circulated among the officers of General Washington’s main camp at Newburgh. It addressed those complaints and called for an unauthorized meeting of officers to be held the next day to consider possible military solutions to the problems of the civilian government and its financial woes.
General Washington stopped that meeting from happening by forbidding the officers to meet at the unauthorized meeting. Instead, he suggested they meet a few days later, on March 15th, at the regular meeting of his officers.
Meanwhile, another anonymous letter was circulated, this time suggesting Washington himself was sympathetic to the claims of the malcontent officers.
And so on March 15, 1783, Washington’s officers gathered in a church building in Newburgh, effectively holding the fate of democracy in America in their hands.
Unexpectedly, General Washington himself showed up. He was not entirely welcomed by his men, but nevertheless, personally addressed them…
This Month's Posts
|« Jan||Mar »|
- 2nd Amendment
- Bankruptcy & Reform
- Biz Weak
- Business Moves
- Consumer Outrage
- Corporate Outrage
- Health Care
- Life-Based News
- Lucid Links
- Money Tip of the Day
- MSM Biz/Other Bias
- MSM Biz/Other Ignorance
- National Security
- News from Other Sites
- OH-02 US House
- Ohio Economy
- Ohio Politics
- Privacy/ID Theft
- Quotes, Etc. of the Day
- Soc. Sec. & Retirement
- Stock Schlock
- Taxes & Government
- US & Allied Military
- Wide Open
Posting of comments is not immediate, and may take up to 24 hours.
Comment posting, as well as possible deletion, is
at the sole discretion of BizzyBlog.
Allowing a comment to be posted does not constitute agreement with it, or endorsement of it.