About Me

Name:Catmman
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Proving MSM Biased in Iraq Coverage

A great graph and story which pretty much proves the MSM bias about coverage on Iraq and seems to prove the old adage "if it bleeds it leads".
 
chart0228.jpg
MRC intern Lyndsi Thomas helped tabulate all ABC, CBS and NBC evening news stories about Iraq since the beginning of 2007, just as the surge strategy was being implemented. After heavy coverage of the shift to a new Iraq policy in January and February 2007, the TV coverage began to closely track the rising and falling death rates for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. When the number of U.S. fatalities jumped in May, TV coverage jumped, too. When U.S. casualties began to steadily decline, TV coverage of Iraq dramatically decreased. (See chart.)
 
 
More here from Ace.  Full story over at Newsbusters.
Tags: Media bias  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Barack "The Saint"; Hillary "The Devil"

A photographic contrast from the MSM:
 
First the Obamamessiah...
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., makes ...
From Reuters:
"Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., makes remarks during an outdoor rally Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2008, in San Marcos, Texas"
 
Now...Satan's Concubine?
From LGF:
(A reader emailed: “Hillary stopped by St. Clairsville, OH yesterday at their High School. Someone forgot to tarp up their mascot, however, as it’s a ‘Red Devil’, named after coal miners coming out of the shaft covered in red clay!”)
 
Who do YOU think the MSM wants...?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Are you an 82% American?

I'm sick of hearing about John McCains conservatism.
 
One thing I'm really sick of is that I constantly see his "82%" lifetime rating as a conservative by some group who's name escapes me right now.
 
I have a problem with McCains stance on illegal aliens.  "Immigration" as it's euphamistically called.  A man who's first response is based in political demogoguery, and not enforcing American law is a man who is not a conservative at heart.  How is it that a group of foreign law breakers can be so important to McCain and America, yet me, a citizen and real conservative, is the subject of such derision?
 
I have a problem with McCains "Gang of 14" stance on appointing judges.  I know he has voted for conservative judges.  I understand that.  But I have a problem with a guy who basically abandons his party (and ostensibly his parties principles) to take an option off the table which could have been a great tool against political opponents.  Yes if even just to make a point.
 
I have a problem with McCain-Feingold.  It should be much more distressing than it apparently is for a "conservative" politician to sponsor and draw up legislation which renders the 1st Amendment irrelevant in American political discourse.
 
I have a problem with McCain constantly "reaching across the aisle" to liberals, while hamstringing fellow conservatives.  Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, et al are not friends of conservatives and through their rhetoric, inaction, legislation and votes have proved time and again they are proufoundly anti-American, elitist, socialist defeatists bent on usurping true democratic process and furthering their own political power and rendering the citizenry of this nation serfs and servile to the state.
 
I am tired of McCain pandering to the "global warming" crowd.  The only solution offered is to increase taxes through a "cap and trade" scheme and curtailing Americans liberties and freedom by mandating certain behaviors.  There is nothing conservative in this stance.  If anything, it more more progressive than conservative.
 
I am tired of hearing from conservative and Republican pundits and others that we must unite around McCain.  We are told this because the alternative would be so much worse.  I am tired of being told to have to vote against someone as opposed to voting for someone.  that is not a conservative stance.
 
I am tired of hearing McCain say he would now vote to make certain tax cuts permanent when he twice voted against those same tax cuts.  That to me is a man who is pandering, not a man of principle.  A principled man would defend his original stance, not change it on a whim based on the political winds.  It wouldn't be conservative, but at least it would be consistant.
 
How astute is a man who accepts and praises the endorsement of one of the most liberal rags, the New York Times?  Then in just a matter of weeks, that same rag attacks you and conitnues to do so based on the most nebulous crap.  You couldn't see that one coming?  You couldn't see from the start that said rag was trying to influence the primary process?  How conservative really is someone who has constantly received support from the main stream media which is itself so virulently anti-conservative? 
 
All of this and more has been said by others much more astute than I.  But I am the one who is casting my vote next week and then in November.  I am the one who must reconcile my own principles, what I am willing to accept and what and how my choices may or may not affect my nation.  Am I willing to become that which I dislike?  Am I willing to foist an obvious bad choice on my nation for the sake of my own well being?  Am I willing to do nothing and leave "Hope" to chance?  None of these are easy questions and a lot of us out here in the Heartland will be wrestling with these and other issues for many months and perhaps many years. 
 
Am I 100% American?  Or am I willing to be an 82% American?
 
How about you?  
Tags: opinion  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Antarctica ain't cooperating

Literally thousands of websites on global warming claim that the icecaps are melting at an unprecedented rate due to emissions of greenhouse gases (particularly from the United States), and in case you cannot picture what that looks like, the sites feature an endless number of pictures of blocks of ice floating away from Antarctica (the really effective pictures have a few penguins floating away as well). National Geographic magazine featured a cover story entitled “The Big Thaw,” and based on what you would see in that issue, you would think there is absolutely no debate about rapid and undesirable changes occurring in Antarctica all due to the dreaded global warming phenomenon. As we have shown over and over, nothing could be further from the truth!
 
Now for the relevant data, showing that The Goracle is a lying SOB:
 
Now for the bottom line relevant to us. As seen in the figure below (Figure 1), the various Antarctic-wide temperature patterns are very highly correlated (the new datasets are the “RECON” designation). The authors have various versions of their “RECON” time series depending on several decisions made by the team, but the bottom line is obvious, the is little evidence for warming in Antarctica! They state “All records correlate significantly with all other records during all seasons from 1982 to 2001. Near-surface temperature trends are statistically insignificant (p >0.05) on annual timescales within every data set analyzed, for both the longer (1960–2002) and shorter (1982–2001) periods.”

Figure 1. Annual Antarctic near-surface temperature (K) anomalies (with respect to the 1980–1999 mean) for various data sets for (a) 1950–2005 and (b) 1980–2005. The new temperature datasets developed in the 2008 article are labeled “RECON” (from Monaghan et al., 2008).

Literally hundreds of articles could appear tomorrow re-confirming their results, the IPCC could continue to report emphatically that Antarctica is not warming (and may well be cooling), and somehow, this will all translate into claims that “Antarctica is warming and melting.” The truth from Antarctica is hard for the greenhouse crusade to accept (although certainly they try hard to fit it in), and in the long run, the truth from Antarctica might melt away the flimsy, well-publicized claims about global climate change—especially the concerns of a rapid sea level rise.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fuel Cell Bus costs $50+ per mile to operate

 
Here's the insanity of the enviro-wacko in full WTF mode!!!
 
First the cost of this "green" technology:
 
The experiment sounded so grand three years ago: The Valley Transportation Authority and SamTrans would test three buses that run on hydrogen fuel cells, emit no smog-inducing pollutants and help keep the valley's air clean.
 
Green, yes. But a new report from the VTA says the $18 million state-mandated pilot project costs too much green - and raises troubling questions about whether the program should continue.
 
The most glaring figure: Zero-emission buses - or ZEBs - cost $51.66 to fuel, maintain and operate per mile compared with just $1.61 for a 40-foot conventional diesel coach. They break down much more frequently, and replacement parts are next to impossible to order, according to the report.
 
But the VTA's early results are not encouraging. Although the cost of a new hydrogen-fuel-cell bus has fallen from about $3.5 million to $2.5 million, a diesel coach costs about $400,000. And ZEBs have on average traveled 1,100 miles before needing repairs in the VTA trial, while a typical diesel bus covers about 6,000 miles.
 
If you were a business or running a government, would you see any cost benefit to all the expense with nothing really in return?  Of course not.  It's insane.  The buses cost 5-6X as much as a regular diesel; they cost 50X as much per mile; and as explained they break down and there aren't spare parts for them yet.  Easy decision to stop this program and wait until the technology is more cost effective right?
 
Wrong:
 
But the California Air Resources Board is poised next year to launch a $36 million second phase of the hydrogen program, adding 12 more buses in the Bay Area and expanding it to include Golden Gate Transit.
 
Analifa Bevan with CARB said her agency "is not considering any changes," pointing out that the VTA experiment involves early prototypes and that the next generation of buses will be more reliable and "cheaper to operate than diesel."
 
AC Transit in the East Bay has operated hydrogen-hybrid buses for two years, ones that also use electrical batteries to help cut hydrogen fuel costs and provide a smoother ride and easier acceleration and braking, much like in hybrid cars. Officials at the agency are sold on the program.
 
"Our experience is pretty positive," said Jaimie Levin, director of alternative fuels policy and marketing with AC Transit. "These vehicles aren't cheap, but the technology is far simpler than the internal combustion engine and it keeps getting cheaper, lighter and more powerful. That's a given."
 
You see?  It's not about common sense.  It's not about the taxpayers or the "citizens".  It's not even about the environment.
 
A director of f'ing marketing even knows it isn't worth the cost.  All that matters is that it's "positive".  It's about the issue.  How can the government control.  They begin with what they have direct access too - public transportation.  And in most places public transportation has been an adject failure anyway.  how many times have you seen a city bus full?  Most of the time there are two or three people in them right?  Yet city and state governments continue to pump billions into it everyyear.  With the money spent, these governments could probably BUY those without a new car AND pay for their gas for years.
 
It doesn't matter if it works.  It doesn't matter how much it costs.  It doesn't even matter that with the expense, there really isn't a NEED.
 
All that matters is the issue itself and how it makes people FEEL
 
"See, we're doing something". 
 
That's all that matters.
 
More here and here.
 
(H/T: Jawa)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wind power reliable? Umm, not so much...

Ever hear "we'll always have wind" spouted from an enviro-wacko?  How about it's an "endless resource"?
 
 
A drop in wind generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday.
 
Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) said a decline in wind energy production in west Texas occurred at the same time evening electric demand was building as colder temperatures moved into the state.
 
The grid operator went directly to the second stage of an emergency plan at 6:41 PM CST (0041 GMT), ERCOT said in a statement.
 
System operators curtailed power to interruptible customers to shave 1,100 megawatts of demand within 10 minutes, ERCOT said. Interruptible customers are generally large industrial customers who are paid to reduce power use when emergencies occur.
 
And Texas produces the most wind power of ANY other state.  Why aren't we producing more nuclear energy than any other state?
 
Texas produces the most wind power of any state and the number of wind farms is expected to increase dramatically as new transmission lines are built to transfer power from the western half of the state to more populated areas in the north.
 
So I guess we could look at the bright side.  All of those customers, all of those Americans had to do without basic electricity at the whim of Mother Nature, the enviros beloved Gaia.  Think of all the carbon which wasn't emitted during that time frame...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

That trendy new "Terrorist" Ribbon

36042307.jpg
 
Maybe we need to change it from Bush Derangement Syndrome to simply American Derangement Syndrome:
 
The hot fashion accessory [at Sunday’s Oscar ceremony] was apparently orange ribbons and bracelets in solidarity with terrorist suspects in Guantanamo:

Out on the red carpet, Paul Haggis (the director whose “Crash” won Best Picture in 2006) said he didn’t know what accounts for all these deeply dark, brooding, troubled films. But isn’t it obvious, he asked, flashing an orange ribbon on his lapel. Orange, why orange? “It’s Guantanamo,” his Max Azria-clad wife, Deborah, said, showing off her orange bracelet, which read: “Silence + torture = complicity.” Suddenly, we noticed — orange ribbons and bracelets everywhere.

You’d have to guess there weren’t too many “24″ fans in that gathering.

The Hollywood Liberal wouldn’t be caught dead wearing a red, white, and blue ribbon, which makes one wonder why they had our troops in Iraq present an Oscar the other night when their hearts are really with those poor sexist, racist, homophobic, theocrats who wear orange jumpsuits.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain shoots ANOTHER Conservative in the face

SHOCKA!!
 
I've been hearing that McCain has been trying to make overtures to conservatives, at least since his Super Tuesday wins.  He spoke at CPAC.  He mentioned "conservative" sixteen or seventeen times in a sixteen or seventeen minute speech while at CPAC.  The New York Times stabbed him in the back recently which seemed to give him some "conservative street cred."
 
But I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks after all...
 
Bill Cunningham, who hosts “The Big Show” with Bill Cunningham, a local program here that is also syndicated nationally, was part of a line of people lauding Mr. McCain and revving up the crowd before his appearance here before several hundred people at a theater here.
 
He lambasted the national media, drawing cheers from the audience, for being soft in their coverage of Mr. Obama compared to the Republican candidates, declaring they should “peel the bark off Barack Hussein Obama.”
 
He went on to rail, “at one point, the media will quit taking sides in this thing and start covering Barack Hussein Obama.”
 
Then we get to the meat:
 
McCain, being McCain, chose to bury his own supporter and praise Obama to the skies,

Afterward, however, Mr. McCain held a scheduled news conference and immediately addressed the comments, evidently informed by his aides about what had happened.

 

“It’s my understanding that before I came in here a person who was on the program before I spoke made some disparaging remarks about my two colleagues in the Senate, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton,” he said. “I have repeatedly stated my respect for Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, that I will treat them with respect. I will call them ‘Senator.’ We will have a respectful debate, as I have said on hundreds of occasions. I regret any comments that may have been made about these two individuals who are honorable Americans.”

John Hawkins over at RightWingNews has it right with this: (emphasis mine)
 
Incidents like this one are exactly why so many conservatives loathe John McCain: the man is reflexively hostile to conservatives who support him while he bends over backwards to cater to liberals who think he's two steps away from being Hitler merely because he's a Republican.
 
If you're a conservative, how do you ever trust a man who has made a career out of spitting in the face of his friends while prostrating himself before his political enemies when you know that making nice with people like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the New York Times will always be of a much higher priority to him than defending other Republicans or pursuing a conservative agenda?
 
You don't.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More Ron Paul "Misrepresentation"

Or as we in the real world say, more lying.
 
LoneStarTimes.com has learned that attorneys for District 14 congressional challenger Chris Peden have begun to contact a wide-range of media outlets, insisting that they either cease airing or refuse to accept advertisements by Ron Paul containing false claims that he’s been named “One of the 50 Most Effective Members of Congress by Congressional Quarterly”.

The citation of the CQ article is ubiquitous by Paul, appearing on his website and repeatedly referenced in his broadcast spots.

Website–Ron Paul Is

ron-paul-is.JPG

“No Junkets”

And he was called one of the “50 Most Effective Congressmen in America” by Congressional Quarterly.

“Taxpayer’s Best Friend”

…called one of the “50 Most Effective Members of Congress.”

“Accomplishments

When Congressional Quarterly magazine placed Congressman Ron Paul on its coveted “CQ 50 List of Outstanding Members of Congress…”

In fact, these claims are completely false.

As the Peden campaign notes…

In truth, the 10/30/99 Congressional Quarterly article Paul is citing had nothing at all to do with identifying “outstanding” congressmen, and was simply titled “50 Ways To Do the Job of Congress”.

50-ways.JPG
CQ article cover, 10/30/99

Incredibly, Paul’s claim of being identified as somehow uniquely “effective” by Congressional Quarterly is directly refuted in the article itself.

As Peden’s campaign notes…

The editors of CQ even go out of their way to contradict Paul’s claims, prominently highlighting in the middle of one page the following pull-quote—

“There is no attempt here to identify the 50 most effective–or for that matter, the most important or most influential–members of Congress.”

50-most.JPG

Just as Herr Doktor's campaign for President did and continues to misrepresent it's Military support, we see from this article that the trend continues. 
 
I really hope Chris Peden beats Herr Doktor in the primary next month. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Automated Killer Robots threat to Humanity


Increasingly autonomous, gun-totting robots developed for warfare could easily fall into the hands of terrorists and may one day unleash a robot arms race, a top expert on artificial intelligence told AFP.

"They pose a threat to humanity," said University of Sheffield professor Noel Sharkey ahead of a keynote address Wednesday before Britain's Royal United Services Institute.

Intelligent machines deployed on battlefields around the world -- from mobile grenade launchers to rocket-firing drones -- can already identify and lock onto targets without human help.

There are more than 4,000 US military robots on the ground in Iraq, as well as unmanned aircraft that have clocked hundreds of thousands of flight hours.

The first three armed combat robots fitted with large-caliber machine guns deployed to Iraq last summer, manufactured by US arms maker Foster-Miller, proved so successful that 80 more are on order, said Sharkey.

But up to now, a human hand has always been required to push the button or pull the trigger.

It we are not careful, he said, that could change.
From this: 
 
To this:
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

12 month drop in world temps wipes out century of warming

The headline says it all.  Here are the facts.
 
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here.  The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.
 
 
Well, well, well.  It is indeed going to be interesting to see what reaction, if any, we get from this news in the MSM or from our Climate Savior Incarnate AlGore.
 
At the very least, 'ol AlGore'll have to update that "Inconvenient Truth" slide show huh?
 
Posted from Daily Tech.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Obama Plan to Disarm America - Video

It might fairly be described as stating the Obama plan to disarm America. In the video Obama pronounces a McGovernite credo like a catechism:

...I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems...
...I will not weaponize space...
...I will slow development of future combat systems...
...and I will institute a "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending...
...I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons...
...and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons...
...I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material...
...and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert...
...and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals...
 
All of this AND "controlling access" to personal firearms.
 
Posted from Powerline BlogFollow the link for video.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Guns Save Lives

Yes they do.
 
It's all too predictable. A day after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks.
 
The editorial board wants "the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth."
 
As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.
 
I personally am an advocate for "arming everyone to the teeth", but that's me.  : )
 
Tags: Gun Control  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Wifes chemo is bad this week...

This is for her:


She's in her fifth of six weeks of treatment.  She is especially sick today (has been for the past couple of days).

Please pray for her.   Her name is Fran.  I won't say she's the best person in the world (even though she is), but she's MY best person in the world!

This is one of our favorite songs.

Yeah I'm blogging about this because if I don't I'll go crazy...

Helplessness is not a great feeling.

Again, pray for her and her recovery.

God Bless.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Coldest Winter for much of the World in past 40 Years!

Not just North America, but China, Siberia, Canada and Mongolia as well.
 
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
 
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."
 
China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.
 
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.
 
In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.
 
And let's further dispel some rumors about all that arctic ice melting while we're at it:
 
And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.
 
The ice is back.
 
Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.
 
A quick jab at climate alarmists for good measure:
 
OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.
 
But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.
 
What about that whole "Day After Tomorrow" scenario with the gulf stream?
 
According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
 
"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.
 
But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.
 
Add information about the current Sol cycle going inactive for seasoning:
 
Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."
 
He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.
 
The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.
 
And you've got what amounts to "climate-alarmists are stupid stew".
 
What say you Goracle?
 
Oh, yeah - nothing much right? 
 
I'm sure we'll all start to get an earful from you in about 2-3 months though when Spring and Summer hit...
 
(H/T: Jawa)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678Next »