About Me

Name:Catmman
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

I go away for a little while...

Posted by Catmman on Friday, May 16, 2008 11:39:28 AM
I go away for a little while...I take a little leave...I take a small vacation to take a break from everything...
 
And the world seems to go straight to H E Double Hockey Sticks!
 
Our "conservative" candidate McCain cowtowS to the enviro-wacko lobby.
 
Tens of THOUSANDS of people die IN AN EARTH QUAKE in China.
 
Tens of THOUSANDS more people die from a HURRICANE.
 
***No mention incidentally how, as tragic as the two above events are, a hurricane and an earth quake can kill so many people - yet liberals and bleeding hearts constantly harangue US about how our own responses to disasters as subpar.  Even counting Hurricane Katrina, less than two thousand, both direct and indirect fatalities attributed to the storm, the US response to disasters if probably the best in the world.***
 
The media is all in a tizzy about the Obamamessiah calling a female reporter "sweety".  Yet that same media has no problem with ANY of the real problems with the Annointed One - Rev. Wright, Rezko, ties to 60's radical anti-government terrorists, etc.
 
Polar bears, whose numbers have increased five fold in the last thirty years, are now "threatened"?
 
Dogs and cats living together - MASS HYSTERIA!
 
I mean come ON!
 
I took off - I didn't watch any news; did zero blogging, listened to very little talk radio.  I didn't even go onto the internet for over a week!  I read no news either. 
 
And all of this wackiness happens.
 
That'll teach me to go away for a little while...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Minority Swimming Gap. Water Apparently Racist

Posted by Catmman on Friday, May 02, 2008 1:02:06 PM
The minority swimming gap has deep roots in America's racial history.
 
That is a line from this article.  I didn't make it up and it isn't being facetious.
 
How about this from the last part of the article: 
 
For decades during the 20th century, many pools were segregated, and relatively few were built to serve black communities.
 
John Cruzat, USA Swimming's diversity specialist, said these inequalities were compounded by the misperception that blacks' swimming ability was compromised by an innate deficit of buoyancy.
 
"There are people who still give credence to these stereotypes, even in the black and Hispanic community," he said. "If you don't teach your children to swim, you're putting your grandchildren at risk."
 
The minority swimming gap.
 
Isn't it the media which is constantly railing about why we Americans can't get past our "racial" whatever's?
 
Isn't it the media which keeps throwing it into our faces drivel like this?
 
Un.  Frickin.  Believable.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The True Face of The IPCC

Posted by Catmman on Friday, May 02, 2008 10:24:20 AM
The United Nations Panel on Climate Change is a political organization.  It is NOT a scientific one.  And this organization is the one held out by alarmists, activists and others with an agenda as the sole arbiter of climate change information.  If the IPCC says it is so, it must be.  They (along with the Goracle) won the Nobel Prize after all.
 
Take a look at this summary of how the IPCC works.  It's conclusions and summary's of reports are pretty much pre-ordained propaganda.  The worst part is that the summary of its climate reports, those summaries which are released months prior to the actual science, are biased.  And the scientific portions of the reports these summaries account for are worked in such a fashion as to agree with the pre-conceived politics of the information already released to the public.

The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate
change. Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics. There are 2500
members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1900 in
working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate
Change” respectively. Of the 600 in WGI, 308 were independent reviewers, but only 32 reviewers commented on more
than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. They accept without question the
findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate
politics the work of the 1900 is listed as ‘proof’ of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC
as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions. The manipulation and politics didn’t stop
there. The Technical Reports of the three Working Groups are set aside and another group prepares the SPM. A few
scientists prepare a first draft, which is then reviewed by governments and a second draft is produced. Then a final report is
hammered out as a compromise between the scientists and the individual government representatives. It is claimed the
scientists set the final summary content, but in reality governments set the form. The SPM is then released at least three
months before the science report. Most of the scientists involved in the technical or science report see the Summary for the
first time when it is released to the public. The time between its release to the public and the release of the Technical
Report is taken up with making sure it aligns with what the politicians/scientists have concluded. Here is the instruction in
the IPCC procedures. “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the
Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) or
the Overview Chapter.” Yes, you read that correctly. This is like an Executive writing a summary and then having
employees write a report that agrees with the summary. 
 
Read more here.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Show me the models on Global Warming again?

Posted by Catmman on Thursday, May 01, 2008 2:03:41 PM
A follow up to an earlier post.
 
 
Is anyone else thinking this:  We have been brow  beat for over a decade about how global warming (climate change) models have been predicting out of control increases in global temperature.  These models (alarmists) have told us for years the temps are going up.  The models show it.  And if we don't act we are doomed.
 
Now we are being told that "climate models" show global warming is taking a rest.  That for perhaps the next ten years we will be in a cooling trend.
 
This begs the questions:  why didn't any of the previous climate models spelling impending doom for mankind warn us of this cooling trend?  Why haven't any of the climate models accounted for this new found, decadal trend of cooling temps?
 
There can only be a few possibilities:  Either the models, therefore the alarmists, were all wrong to begin with.  Or this information was ignored if it were accounted for originally in any previous models.  Of the models predicting this cooling trend are wrong now.
 
Yet no mention in the IPCC, Al Gore, James Hansen, NASA, et. al. have mentioned ANYTHING about a cooling trend, only "catostrophic" warming.
 
Even if this guys assumprtions that "this cooling is only temporary" are correct, that global warming is still a problem, it does prove one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt:
 
The alarmists have been dead wrong, all along.  Their models were flawed then and are flawed now.  And everything they have based upon those same models is equally as wrong. 
 
And someone needs to be held accountable.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fat People Killing Gaia

Posted by Catmman on Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:10:58 PM
 
More of the same old crap - as Americans, we eat to much of the worlds 'finite' food.  We use too much of the planets resources.  Our carbon footprints are too big.  And we're fat which just exacerbates everything.
 
The author of this article obviously did ZERO research, not only on "global warming", but on fatties in general.
 
There is no such thing as a 'finite' source of food on planet earth.  If this were indeed the case, animal life would have perished on this planet billions of years ago.  Food is a renewable resource.  It always has been.  Need more meat?  Birth more animals.  Need more vegetables?  Grow some more stupid!
 
What is really funny about this statement is that food could be MORE plentiful but for activists and environmentalists.  Genetical modified seeds which lead to more robust crops of fruits and vegetables aren't allowed in a lot of areas.  There is no basis of any fear about GM crops.  But reasoned science and common sense have never been the alarmists friends anyway.
 
How about irradiation of foods, particularly meats?  This makes our food supplies safer, killing bacteria and microorganism which may otherwise contaminate and ruin whole foodstuffs.  Doesn't matter.  Radiation bad - starving children good.
 
And of course here in America, we just use too much stuff.  If we didn't eat so much food, there would be more for the rest of the world.  The same goes for everything else - fuel, energy, resources, etc.
 
And fatties are the worst of the worst.  They eat so much more food.  It costs so much more fuel for them to fly, drive a car, etc. 
 
Of course it escapes logic that American corporations, farmers, workers, etc. produce most of the worlds fuels, energy, technology, etc.  I mean how much African soy are we importing as to how much we export ourselves?
 
Give me a break! 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Suffering from ED (Excessive Dishonesty)?

Posted by Catmman on Thursday, May 01, 2008 11:26:36 AM
 
Tags: humor  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Great Obama/Wright Photoshop

Posted by Catmman on Thursday, May 01, 2008 10:41:17 AM
ROFLMAO!!
 
Reposted from S. Weasel:
 
obama
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Warming Alarmists Give Themselves 10 Year Reprieve

Posted by Catmman on Thursday, May 01, 2008 10:10:03 AM
You knew it was coming.
 
It was inevitable.
 
Global temperatures have not risen, and have indeed been declining for ten years.  Other evidence has shown that "global warming", at least as the alarmists portray it, has stopped.
 
But the grants and fear mongering and alarmism must NOT stop!
 
The alarmists must be able to spin the new climate evidence.  To brush it off.  To keep the fires of fear burning, or at least keep the embers glowing.
 
Well, they have.  The first shot is right here.
 
I won't quote any of the article, but I will make some observations about it.
 
1.  If you read the article, you will see "natural fluctuations" several times.  What?  Let me get this straight - "natural fluctuations" in climate are responsible for global cooling, but they play no role whatsoever in global warming?
 
2.  This guy in this study says temps will cool for the next ten years at least - he admits it.  But there is no mention that maybe if the planet enters a period of cooling for such a time frame, maybe we'll need another period of "global warming" to keep our butts from freezing and starving to death?
 
3.  This guy says the planet cannot take a global rise of temps higher than two degrees celsius.  But a period of cooling of at or near that predicted for warming would precipitate much deadlier consequences, yet no feeling of alarm whatsoever.  We must still be afraid of global warming, but global cooling?  Meh, not so much it seems.
 
4.  Also, no apparent thought about what a global cooling trend may portend for climate.  Colder temps would mean - more ice, more snow, more sunlight reflection back into space leading to less radiational heating, leading to more cooling, etc.  The climate record shows that there is indeed evidence for runaway cooling.  Much more evidence than that for runaway global warming.
 
5.  Additionally, the "natural fluctuations" of the planet will be able to offset the continued increases of manmade CO2 into the atmosphere for only a decade?  Even if it is a solid decade, if the planet has the ability to "offset" the "damage" caused by man, then perhaps the dangers of CO2 have been just a bit exagerated?  Maybe?  Just a little?  I mean if CO2 can have such a dramatic, detrimental affect on the entire planets climate systems (over such a short period of time geologically), and something as mundane as ocean currents can offset the CO2 (even as it continues to increase) are the dangers of CO2 really that...dangerous?
 
6.  And exactly how can such emphasis on "natural fluctuations" like ocean currents be so influential on the planets climatology, yet still no thought is given to the frickin Sun?  I do not doubt ocean currents influence climate, it is proven.  But still no thought whatsoever is given to the influence of the Sun?
 
Anyone who thinks for one minute that this is anything but alarmists doing damage control and trying the CYA is a moron.
 
 
UPDATE:
 
I thought of this just a moment ago and wish I had put it in this post earlier:
 
If the global warming alarmists couldn't predict (and in fact didn't and haven't predicted) this new period of "global cooling", or this period where "global warming is taking a break", then why in the hell are we giving them, their message, or their models any more credence or credibility?  It's only been what, 2 years since An Inconvient Truth came out?  I don't recollect any mention of a pending "10 year cooling trend" anywhere in the film.
 
And if there models are that wrong, what business do they still have telling us their models are right? 
 
Their models have operated under the assumption that the globe is warming.  There has been no mention from Al Gore or any other activists about a cooling period up to this point.  If their damn models and predictions are so accurate (as they constantly harangue us that they are), why couldn't they predict this period of cooling?
 
More proof isn't needed that these people are full of crap!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

List of Scientists Predicting Global...COOLING!

Posted by Catmman on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 3:28:56 PM
I guess when we're all shaking hands with polar bears in 15-30 years, we will have these scientists to thank for trying to warn us.  We will be able to thank them for trying to warn the world of the alarmism of the "warmers."  
 
Will we be thanking them for trying to save us from the waste of money, resources, political capital, etc. we might be wasting on fears of "warming"?  When there is more concrete evidence the climate may be fluctuating to "the cool"?
 
I am not advocating as a polar opposite to the warming alarmists.  I am not guilty as the warmers are of trying to incite fear and panic in the populace in the name of "the greater good" (read political power and money).
 
I am offering this as an alternative.  This clearly shows the science isn't settled.  There is no consensus as the MSM and other alarmists are saying..
 
Al Gore and his acolytes are lying, plain and simple. 
 
Will there be a dreaded "global cooling"?  Perhaps.  The planets temperature is always flucuating.  But any feel good liberal environmentalism will be a sorry excuse for those who may have distracted us to a real danger/possibility.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The "Truth-to-Power" Hatchback

Posted by Catmman on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:15:12 AM
A proselytizing car? Seen any of these in your neighborhood?
 
image
 
For more enlightenment from this vehicle, go here for more pics.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Paulbots causing "Chaos"

Posted by Catmman on Monday, April 28, 2008 4:28:28 PM
 
I'm posting this is because I just have to put this photoshop up:
 
crazypaul.jpg
Photo Credit: Associated Slublog
Classic.
 
And fitting.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global Warming? An Open Letter to John McCain

Posted by Catmman on Monday, April 28, 2008 12:15:54 PM
Full content of the letter here.  I recommend it as reading for any and all "deniers" out there.
 
Reproduced in part:

Dear Mr. McCain
 
It seems that some leading Republicans such as yourself, Newt Gingrich, and even President Bush, have accepted the premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming – that man is spewing millions of tons of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere each year, and that this is causing an unprecedented rise in earth's temperature that threatens us all. And, if we spend enough money to reduce CO2 emissions, we can change it.
 
I urge you to reconsider. More than19,000scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to protest the Kyoto accord, and declare their opposition to the theory that man's CO2 emissions are causing Global Warming. Written and sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, the Petition reads:
 
Global Warming Petition
 
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
 
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases, is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of Earth's climate. Morever, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide [willl] produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." 
 
There is certainly no "consensus."  The IPCC Report on Global Warming (2007) from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that it was "reviewed" by 600 authors from 40 countries, and over 620 experts and governments. The 19,000 scientists who have signed the Global Warming Petition outnumber those who have "reviewed" the IPCC report by more than 15 to 1. 

As I said, read it all.  It's informative, illustrative and great reading besides.
 
It's also important that the presumptive Republican (faux "conservative") nominee for President understand these facts.  John McCain does not since as of this writing, he is all in with the AGW alarmists.
 
Believing in the alarmist philosophy is important when dissecting McCain's creation of administrative policies.  How much of an influence in our nations energy policies will this belief have?  Due to a lot of the recommendations from the alarmist camp, it cannot bode well for our future availablility of energy or the negative consequences such an alrmist philosophy will have on our economy.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

542 Million Years of Climate Change - Illustrated

Posted by Catmman on Monday, April 28, 2008 12:02:45 PM
A graph illustrating fluctuations in long term climate change as measured by sediment cores.
 
 
For more information on the graph, go here.
 
As you can see, "global warming" is hardly a recent phenomena, nor is it driven by mankind.
 
It is always occurring, has always occurred, and will continue to occur long after we are gone.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Still fighting The War of Northern Aggression

Posted by Catmman on Sunday, April 27, 2008 3:00:24 PM
Er, the Civil War.  No wait; the War of Yankee Imperialism.  Umm, no...the War to Free the Slaves?
 
War Between the States?
 
War of Rebellion?
 
War for Southern Independence?
 
Wait, what?
 
143 years later we are still fighting the War? (Pick your moniker, depending on current geographic location, geneaology, and your particular favorite fried food - author.)
 
First read this.  So you can get the Northern perspective.
 
And now this.  For the Southern rebuttal to the Northern gentleman's remarks.
 
As for me, I've Gone to Texas!
 
Heh.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Senate to raise Jet-Fuel Taxes

Posted by Catmman on Sunday, April 27, 2008 12:06:24 PM
Showing they completely understand how to relieve the burden of the high cost of fuel, our illustrious leaders in Washington are going to RAISE fuel taxes. 

U.S. business-jet owners would pay 65 percent more in fuel taxes to finance federal air-traffic control upgrades, under an agreement among Senate leaders.
 
The levy would increase to 36 cents a gallon from 21.8 cents now, under the accord announced in a statement today in Washington by Senator Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat. Airline passenger fees and taxes wouldn't rise, he said.
 
Airline passenger fees and taxes wouldn't rise?  Why not?  If it's to "upgrade the nations" ATC, why NOT raise fees on everyone who uses those systems?
 
Oh, I get it.  This is just to soak "the rich".
 
Well.  Then it's ok.
 
Wait until this type of reasoning hits your states, or even later at the Federal level.  "We need to raise fuel taxes to increase road infrastructure nation/state wide..."
 
Wait, what?  It's already been proposed in Texas?
 
Oh, well.  It's for the "greater good", so it's ok then.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910…162163Next »