About Me

Name:Catmman
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Earth Hour 'Quote of the Day'

Posted by Catmman on Sunday, March 30, 2008 11:30:54 AM
This is totally teh awesome:

“On Saturday night, after they have turned off their lights, I suggest the participants in Earth Hour wander down to the nearest beach, pee into the sea and observe what effect it has on the tide.”

“This will illustrate the effect that cutting man-made carbon emissions will have on future climate.”

(Quote taken from this great posting from Newsbusters)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Not-Scientist" demands apology on ABC AGW story

Posted by Catmman on Sunday, March 30, 2008 11:19:49 AM
One in a long line of those who "aren't scientists" (according to a commenter on my blog) demands an apology from ABC News for the hit piece it broadcast on him last week.

This person, who is categorized by the alarmists as a "climate change denier" would also be considered not as balanced scientifically as the unbiased, and completely non-partisan (of course) James Hansen from NASA.  You know James Hansen...the guy who continues to complain about being "silenced by the 'administration'", all the while being featured on every network and liberal print rag from the NYT to Time magazine, ABC, CBS, NBC (amongst others).  The James Hansen who's climate computer models were recently found to contain a flaw, which once corrected, changed the "hottest years on record" from the alarmists talking points; that showed 1998 as NOT being the hottest year on record (of the last century), but it was 1936 (a time before the alarmists admit to runaway greenhouse gases causing global warming.)

Well this guy, who (is not a credible scientist, again to use my commentors words) has the following scientific credentials:  S. Fred Singer, PhD (Physics, Princeton) Professor Emeritus, University of Virginia; Fellow, American Geophysical Union; Fellow, American Physical Society. 

This denier and "non-scientist" is apparently in cahoots with a much grander scheme of denial.  Dr. Singer posts this in response to the interview last weekend about the evidence of such a grand conspiracy:

"Clearly, he ignored my complete scientific story (NIPCC vs IPCC), the fact that 100 climate scientists presented papers at the Heartland Conference, and that hundreds more are now listed as climate skeptics. [I am not even counting the nearly 20,000 scientists of various specialties who signed the Oregon Petition.]"

Listed as climate skeptics.  Why?  Because they have a view contrary to the alarmist position. 

If nothing else, this clearly shows the science is not settled.  It also shows that there are more, many more, than a few 'skeptics' out there as the Goracle would have you believe.  There are thousands, tens of thousands, of scientists from various fields who disagree with the apparent "consensus" of the Goracle and other agenda driven advocates.

Naturally this proves nothing to the alarmists and advocates.  It is contrary to their "beliefs." Therefore it is heresy to point that their "beliefs" are wrong.  They won't even acknowledge that their "beliefs" could be wrong.

So I ask again, who is denying what exactly?

(H/T: Newsbusters)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Australia's Earth Hour Hoax

Posted by Catmman on Sunday, March 30, 2008 10:16:57 AM
Take an apparently activist news organization, throw in photos of eco-event, place photos side by side as to offer a "contrast", make a big deal about how turning off the lights saves energy...

Don't make a big deal of the fact that the "comparison" photos were taken three nights apart - the "lighted" photo on a business weeknight (Thursday), the "darker" photo on a non-work weekend night (Saturday).

Now I'm no rocket surgeon, but let me suppose this:  Wouldn't it have been correct, if one were wanting to show a true comparison that is, to take BOTH photos on Saturday night?  One photo right before 'Earth Hour' began, and the next photo say, 10-15 minutes (at the latest, I'm being generous) after it began?  Of course that's the whole point isn't it?  Eco-advocates can't make the case for their events, since doing so would discredit them.  Look at almost ANY major metropolitan area on a weekend as opposed to a weeknight and you'll will notice the same skyline, but with obvious fewer lights?  Why?  Common sense, that's why.  Most of these areas aren't as occupied on the weekend as they are during the week, so you will see the same skyline, but with differing amounts of lighting.  Also, one must admit that there were probably a few lights turned off on Saturday night because of the vent.  I'm sure there were.  But this is just further evidence, not of people's "growing awareness or advocacy", but of the misrepresentation and hyperbole of the alarmist movement.

Of course the truth doesn't matter if you have an agenda to push.

The first line of the story nails the true appeal of this type of "activism":

"WELL, that felt good, didn't it?"

You see, we didn't really accomplish anything, but man,  it sure FELT good.  Oh, and don't worry about our photos misrepresenting the actual event.  Our intentions were noble.

How about this pap:  Earth Hour Australia chief executive Greg Bourne said..."Now we have this image of darkness, and consciousness, going around the world," he said. "It is a message of hope and optimism … we, the citizens of the world, are prepared to take action and we want to defeat climate change."

Or this line from the story:  "There was darkness — and we saw it was good."

Let's see...lets denigrate our western way of life, as well as the technology that makes our life so great, and celebrate darkness?  All through the prism of some grander worldwide consciousness.   And although, admittedly, we have no real measurement of any ACTUAL, benefit (saving energy, reducing emissions) we can all hold hands and sing together that our intentions were altruistic and we felt GOOD.

These people are totally off their rocker.

More here and here. 

(H/T: AoS top headline thingy)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Google's Earth Hour Eco-Hypocrisy

Posted by Catmman on Saturday, March 29, 2008 11:47:09 AM
or, "Keyword: Evil."

The Eco-Hypocrites know no shame it seems.  More here.  (emphasis below is mine)

While Google scolds the rest of the world about turning off the lights, HA reader Simon Scowl directs our attention to this month’s Harper’s, which has an interesting look at Google’s plans to exploit cheap electricity in Oregon. Thanks to a boatload of government subsidies, Google located its new server farm on the Columbia River — where it will use enough electricity to light Tacoma, Washington.

But that’s not the best part. According to Harper’s, Google and its competitors have now started building data centers in places like Lithuania, Dublin, Siberia, and Shanghai. What do all these locations have in common? Except for Lithuania, where 78% of the power will be nuclear, all of them rely on carbon-spewing energy production with lower prices and fewer controls on emissions. So much for Earth Hour, eh?

Of course it's never about "what's good for the environment" or "having a healthy planet to leave to the children."  It's about "do as I say, not as I do" statism. 

Spouting your eco-drivel is all well and good as long as it doesn't affect your bottom line, right Google?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Absudity of 'Earth Hour'

Posted by Catmman on Saturday, March 29, 2008 10:13:08 AM
Well, the hysteria marches on as witnessed by our friends, the Aussies earlier today.

And this moronic response to a fallacy will be echoed throughout the world in major displays of how people can do, well, not much, to really affect global climate.  Will these exercises have some type of measurable outcome to show their effectiveness?  Or is all of this, as per liberal methodology, designed only to placate some ephemeral liberal emotive wackiness?

I think we all (at least those of us who haven't surrendered our reasoning) know the answer.

This summation from Hot Air puts all of this nonsense in pretty good perspective:

Welcome to the fantasy of anthropogenic climate-change true believers. Their aspirations to make the world a little darker and colder came to life during Earth Hour, even while evidence mounts that their scientific hypotheses and models have serious flaws. Instead of handling legitimate scientific criticism as scientists, they have instead responded with obloquy and charges of heresy.

They do not want to find alternative energy sources that will fully replace what we have now. They want to reverse industrialization entirely, and they want top-down management of energy production to get it. They want a darker world, one in which candles replace light bulbs and the energy that runs the global economy — and has produced the best living standards in human history — gets rationed to satisfy the whims of statists and earth-worshipers.

There are many good reasons to work towards energy independence and the reduction of emissions from hydrocarbon-based energy production, but no good reason to cheer for darkness. Earth Hour is just another absurdity from a movement full of them.

But to be fair, and in the spirit of knowledge and the scientific method, I offer this video for the purposes eliciting a contrary opinion to my own.

Let it never be said I didn't allow for ALL viewpoints on this blog.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bigfoot sues Convicted Criminal for Slander

Posted by Catmman on Friday, March 28, 2008 5:09:04 PM
Video.  Take a look at this as you head into the weekend...

OK.  Bigfoot didn't sue the guy...yet.  But your just going to love the twist on this one.

WARNING:  DO NOT Drink Beverage While Watching Alert!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If you can't win debate, baffle with bullflop

Posted by Catmman on Friday, March 28, 2008 10:22:49 AM
As one who proudly considers himself a member of the "denier" club, here is a great response to some recent comments I've received from a global warming "advocate" on my blog.
 
If you'll notice, global warming alarmists like Al Gore always seem to accuse their opponents of being on the fringes or anti-science.
 
However, if you'll notice, when there's an actual debate about global warming, it's the people who say that they don't think it's caused by man who actually seem to primarily base their case on scientific arguments.
 
Meanwhile, at best, Al Gore and Company tend to make wildly exaggerated claims about global warming and at worst, they simply claim that the debate is over.
 
 
The Goracle invents "Anthropogenic" Global Warming
 
This in response to recent comments by the Goracle.  Notice again, the Goracle doesn't address ANY of the evidence from the "deniers".  His only defense is to call us "deniers".
 
How very un-scientific.
 
But oh so very typical.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Whitey" finally giving Rev. Wright his due?

Posted by Catmman on Friday, March 28, 2008 9:38:03 AM
G-d damn America indeed.
 
I was unaware such an oppressive society as ours would even allow the good Reverand to live in a house, let alone own a $1.6 MILLION dollar home.
 
Huh.
 
The good Reverands new 10,000 sq. ft. shack

FOX News has uncovered documents that indicate Wright is about to move to a 10,340-square-foot, four-bedroom home in suburban Chicago, currently under construction in a gated community.

While it is not uncommon for an accomplished clergyman to live in luxury, Wright’s retirement residence is raising some questions.

The article raises some interesting questions at least in my mind: how at least from the viewpoint of the good Reverand, he can have the opportunity to own such a house, be able to afford it, how the Church can afford it and how, again this being such an oppresive nation, how a $10 MILLION dollar line of credit can be acquired by the same church?
 
Or perhaps the good Reverand is just a baiting, hustling hypocrite who takes full advantage of the opportunity this nation affords after all.
 
More here.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The End of "Big God-ism"!

Posted by Catmman on Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:50:16 PM
What do you call people who take Jesus, God, or any mention of the Divinity out of their "religious services"?  Christians?  Atheists?  Morons?
 
This is just unbelieveable. (emphasis mine)
 
That triumphal barnburner of an Easter hymn, Jesus Christ Has Risen Today – Hallelujah, this morning will rock the walls of Toronto's West Hill United Church as it will in most Christian churches across the country.
 
But at West Hill on the faith's holiest day, it will be done with a huge difference. The words “Jesus Christ” will be excised from what the congregation sings and replaced with “Glorious hope.”
 
Thus, it will be hope that is declared to be resurrected – an expression of renewal of optimism and the human spirit – but not Jesus, contrary to Christianity's central tenet about the return to life on Easter morning of the crucified divine son of God.
 
Generally speaking, no divine anybody makes an appearance in West Hill's Sunday service liturgy.
 
From Hot Air:
 
It’s Easter without God and Jesus Christ! What a breakthrough! Now all we need is a Toronto Argonauts game on the telly, and the West Hill congregation won’t have any reason to attend at all.
 
The pastor, Rev. Gretta Vosper, has had it with “Big God-ism” and wants to turn the West Hill United Church into a New Age encounter group. Vosper says that the world has outgrown Jesus Christ and the church is finished unless it gives up God, Jesus, and pretty much the entire Bible, except possibly for the Sermon on the Mount. Her new book, With or Without God, makes plain her hostility to the tenets of Christianity over the last two millenia and the need to replace God with Human.
 
So.  We now have a "church" (presumably including not only the Pastor, but also the congregation) who has made no bones about replacing Christianity with Secular Humanism and New Age mysticism.  Continuing...
 
She wants salvation redefined to mean new life through removing the causes of suffering in the world. (not Eternal resurrection of the body and spirit, to never die again. Made possible through the atonement and resurrection of the Savior). She wants the church to define resurrection as “starting over,” “new chances.” (not The reuniting of the body of flesh and bones with the spirit for eternity. Made possible because of Christ's triumph over death). She wants an end to the image of God as an intervening all-powerful authority who must be appeased to avoid divine wrath; rather she would have congregations work together as communities to define God – or god – according to their own worked-out definitions of what is holy and sacred. She wants the eucharist – the symbolic eating and drinking of Jesus's body and blood to make the congregation part of Jesus's body – to be instead a symbolic experience of community love. (not the central act of worship in many Christian churches, which was instituted at the Last Supper and in which bread and wine are consecrated and consumed in remembrance of Jesus's death).
 
Speechless.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Buoys deny Globull Warming, Satellites too

Posted by Catmman on Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:59:37 AM
These highly technological scientific devices are not immune to the effects of climate change denial it seems.
 
This has been reported on in many places already, but I offer up some differing details.  These buoys have been on the job since 2003, five years now.  Data collection (to you alarmists out there, DATA is real scientific fact.  Actual information collected through scientific means.  DATA is not a Goracle slide show - author) shows that for five years, um, I don't quite know how to say this; for five years, there has been ZERO warming of these oceans.  NO WARMING.  In fact, a slight cooling, but everything within the scientifically identified natural deviation or "normal" temps.
 
OH, and NASA weather satellites (apparently also in geo-denial-synch orbit) have detected NO GLOBULL WARMING OUTSIDE OF NORMAL TEMPERATURE DEVIATION.  For the past 30 YEARS.
 
Huh. 
 
Oh, how very inconvenient real scientific fact is... (emphasis mine throughout)
 
The new buoys, known as Argos, drift along the oceans at a depth of about 6,000 feet constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity and speed of ocean currents. Every 10 days or so a bladder inflates, bringing to the surface readings taken at various depths. Once on the surface, they transmit their readings to satellites that retransmit them to land-based computers.
 
The Argos buoys have disappointed the global warm-mongers in that they have failed to detect any signs of imminent climate change. As Dr. Josh Willis, who works for NASA in its Jet Propulsion Laboratory, noted in an interview with National Public Radio, "there has been a very slight cooling" over the buoys' five years of observation, but that drop was "not anything really significant." Certainly not enough to shut down the Gulf Stream.
 
Climate-change promoters also are perplexed by the observations of NASA's eight weather satellites. In contrast to some 7,000 land-based stations, they take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the surface of the Earth. In 30 years of operation, the satellites have recorded a warming trend of just 0.14C — well within the range of normal variations.
 
If the Argos buoys and satellites had confirmed the greenie computer models and Gore hype instead of natural temperature variations, it would have been big news. The silence speaks volumes.
 

(H/T: Junk Science)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'm an Evil Climate Change Denier

Posted by Catmman on Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:42:16 AM
(Scroll down for update to this post)

Proudly.  And this commenter thinks I'm an evil evangelical fundamentalist Christian science hater or something as well.  According to this commenter below:
 
I'm wondering why you are bothering to argue against the fact of anthropogenic global warming. What is your point? Are you trying to allay your own concerns about a global disaster, or are you an evangelical who knows that's not the way the bible says the rapture should happen? Or are you just someone who does not bother to try to understand facts, unpleasant or not.

I have kids, but I'm not pretending about the harsh realities they may face in the future.

I have a feeling you don't think evolution is true either - am I right? If so, I realize there is no sense in trying to sway you other than to suggest that I am sure it is you who are wrong in the eyes of God.
 
This post may take awhile.  I wish to address this commenter fully.  Here we go...
 
I would say that at least I'm not a bigot such as yourself.  Your automatic assumption as to my religious preferences, if any, gives this away.  The post you were commenting on originally is here.  Nowhere in the body of my post, or in the material I referenced, is religion even mentioned.  But as is true with all Leftists, you make automatic assumptions as well as NOT addressing ANY of the information included either in my post or in the referenced article.
 
You engaged in a direct attack upon me, not the info.  Typical.  While I will make fun of alarmists in my postings, I always include facts contrary to the alarmist position.  Facts I might add that are never addressed by people such as yourself.  Facts which clearly show the science isn't "settled" which is code for "we can't debate our position because there is no empirical evidence supporting it."  So much for building a stool with one leg (CO2).
 
Now I argue against the "fact" of anthropogenic warming because it is not a fact at all.  It is a theory.  A theory which can be refuted and whose main tenet, CO2 being evil, has been debunked time and time again.
 
What proof do you have that CO2 is the main driving force in runaway global warming?  There is none.  And any you offer can be refuted as simply as this:  There has been NO warming of the planet since 1998 - ten years.  Average global temps have plateud and since at least January 2007, have dropped.  What has this to do with CO2?  During this entire decade of zero global temp increase, CO2 levels have continued to increase, and increase, and increase.  This is not an assumption.  It is not a theory.  It is in fact, the truth. 
 
I could stop there, but I won't.  The whole notion of man-made (anthropogenic) climate change is absurd.  If mankind were responsible for global temperature increases, how do you account for temperature fluctuations throughout the geological record of the planet?  I could even ask how do you account for the concurrent temperature increases on other planets such as Mars?  Temps on Mars are increasing during the same time frame they did on Earth.  Is this simply a coincidence or is there perhaps another cause affecting both planets?  Or is Mars populated by gas guzzling SUV's?  Perhaps the Mars rover did it.  Or maybe Bush?
 
And what about this sentence of yours:  "Or are you just someone who does not bother to try to understand facts, unpleasant or not." A Freudian slip?  Who is it exactly who isn't "trying to understand facts, unpleasant or not?"  It's not me bub.  I am more than willing to remain open minded when it comes to science than apparently you are.  But again, this is a classic attack by Leftists - Projection. 
 
I am a convenient outlet for you to unleash your pent up religious and political biases.  It's cool.  But your dog just ain't hunting this one so far is it?
 
Let's be frank.  I don't give a rat's butt about your politics, your religious beliefs, or how you want to be a steward of the environment.  It's your business.  If you want to try and convince me your right, fine, I'll listen.  But that's the big difference isn't it.  You're not willing to listen, or even entertain, a different vision or version, especially one which is contrary.  I've been wrong in my life before pal.  The big difference between you and me is that when I'm wrong or make a mistake I'm willing to admit it.  I'm willing to learn from that to improve myself.  You can't be wrong on this because of the time and effort you've dedicated to it.  If your wrong on this, you won't be able to recover.  You are so reliant on others giving you your information and feeding you your beliefs, you'll never be strong enough to stand on your own.  Your unwillingness to refute contrary science is proof.  You're programmed to automatically respond by attack, not through reasoned debate.  Your bigoted religious assumptions are proof.  Of course this isn't surprising coming from someone who's primary faith is probably rooted in Leftism.
 
Show me anyone on your side of the argument willing to give any of my climate change postings the time of day.  Ive never heard Al Gore say it was even possible he was wrong, it's settled.  Everyone else who is an advocate mimics the party line.  No one on your side embraces the scientific method, which to put it simply states that nothing is quite settled until it's proven to be so.  Real climate change is not the issue.  We live on a planet with a diverse system of regulation.  It has been so for billions of years and will continue to be so long after we are gone.  I will admit that.  Your side won't.  You can't.  If you do, your house of cards falls. 
 
Let's shift gears.  I have children as well.  Three.  You also assume I don't want to leave my children, grandchildren, etc. a world we can live in.  Another typical leftist assumption that only you who believe as you do have good intentions or a good heart, etc.  I could say that I want to leave my children more than you do.
 
I want my children to live in a world where they have the liberty and freedom to live their lives as they wish, not as some government official or politcal advocate wants them to live.  Or forces them to live.  It's as simple as that.  And I am not willing to sacrifice my liberty or freedom now based on some tremulous theory who's biggest selling point is a slide show created by a political hack.
 
I don't want my children to live the life of some third-world crap hole, all for the sake of the planet.  If we forsake ourselves, then what good is the damn planet anyway.  Perhaps you are one who believes humans are the problem.  I don't know, but if you're not, by your remarks you sure lean that way.  If that is the case, then why did you have children?  Did you have kids before you realized the danger to Gaia?  If that is the case, have you and your significant other sterilized yourselves?  Have you sterilized your children?  I ask this only half facetiously.  Proponents of your side advocate this.  Some have even done it (sterilized themselves).   Humans are ostensibly the biggest producers of greenhouse gases (CO2) right?  Our waste-fullness?  Our consumption?  Right?  If you believe that, then your wrong again, and simple science (ever hear of volcanoes?) proves it.
 
Are you a subsistence farmer yourself?  Or are you a typical liberal/leftist hypocrite?  You obviously own a computer and are a user of electricity.  How many cars do you own?  I have two.  Do you have your own home?  If not, you live somewhere?  What is your house made out of?  Mud?  Straw?  Sticks?  Have much gasoline have you used this month?  Do you wear clothes?  Do you eat?  Do you have lights in your home?  How many TV's do you have?  How many gaming systems for your kids?
 
See how this works?  You additionally assume that I do nothing to be a good steward of the environment.  I use CFL's.  I have Energy Star appliances.  I have insulated my home.  I've wrapped my water heater.  My thermostat is set at the recommended temps (most of the time).  I have a long commute to and from work; I drive five miles below the speed limt to save gasoline when i commute to work.  I've spent thousands of dollars on landscaping: trees, grass, other flora and fauna.  (I also sacrifice children while burning torches, but they cancel each other out so my carbon footprint doesn't get any bigger.)  And I do all of these things, not for the good of the planet, but for the good of my wallet.  To save money.  These things also have the added benefit of saving/conserving electricity, fuel, energy, and help erase my so called "carbon footprint."  And I do all of these things voluntarily as do most Americans.  See how that works? 
 
I don't want to have to scrape a living out of the dirt like those in the third world do.  I've been to the third world; the Middle East, Central America, Asia.  I don't want me or my family or anyone else to live like that.  You, by extension of your belief set, do.  Advocates for your side actually stump for it for goodness sake.  If you want to live that way, go right ahead, that's your choice.  If you want to bash capitalism, excoriate the West or America for our "selfish" lifestyles, hang up flags of Che in your living room - fine.
 
You live your life.  But let me live mine for goodness sake.  Get off my back.  If you aren't willing to consider contrary science or opinion, your the one who's the denier.  Your the one who isn't willing to look at the facts however "unpleasant".  
 
Not me.
 
Bigot.

UPDATE (3:27 CST, 28 March 2008):  After having this post placed in the Featured Items area of the Blogatorium, I re-read it and discovered numerous typos.  Sorry.  You type something while your a bit perturbed, you re-read it and think you get all the typos, but alas...

Anyway, here are some links to some more inconvenient "non-facts" us deniers are so fond of.  Feel free to read and pass these on as well:  If you can't win debate, baffle with bullflop;  it seems denying Gorebaloney Warming isn't only relegated to homo-sapiens, but some of our technology as well as this post states, Buoys deny Globull Warming, Satellites too (there is a great pic in this one); Even the UN can't hide from the truth anymore, Alarmist Climate Change: On the run at last; and this post, Global Warming cleared on Ice Shelf Collapse which got a lot of attention this week thanks to being linked from Ace of Spades HQ (Ace, being awarded Blogger of the Year award at CPAC this year linked it himself); and this is great info as well, Current Cycle portends a Cooling.  This link on the Goracle and how he makes his millions of dollars, partially on scaring the hell out of people with his alarmism, Goracle awash in cash, Network tanks;  This post on Hollywood continuing climate activism and ruining a classic sci-fi movie in the process, The Day the Earth Stood for Carbon Credits (this post also containing a great photoshop); and from this past Sunday which started this weeks "denying", Climate Alarmism is Bullshinola.

All of these posts containing absolutely ZERO information, science or real scientists doncha know who refute ANY part of the so-called anthropogenic global warming as touted by the Goracle and his acolytes.  (I write the previous sentence because if you are a fervent global warming alarmist/believer you must deny EVERYTHING in all of the linked articles and posts because the info clearly shows - the science is definitely NOT settled.)

Your welcome.

I'll ask this again:  Who again is denying what exactly?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (28) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Al Sharpton - At it again!

Posted by Catmman on Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:05:13 AM
I'm glad the Obamaessiah gave his groundbreaking speech on race.  It is refreshing that now, in the 21st Century, we can finally get past racial division and politics.
 
Oh...wait.  What? 
 
At least "whitey" must I guess.  It seems others, like race hustler Sharpton, can keep on the same old same old.
 
Warning: Graphic description of a heinous crime follows.
 
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Mother and son huddled together, battered and beaten, in the bathroom — sobbing, wondering why no one came to help.

Surely the neighbors had heard their screams. The walls are thin, the screen doors flimsy in this violence-plagued housing project on the edge of downtown.

For three hours, the pair say, they endured sheer terror as the 35-year-old Haitian immigrant was raped and sodomized by up to 10 masked teenagers and her 12-year-old son was beaten in another room.

Then, mother and son were reunited to endure the unspeakable: At gunpoint, the woman was forced to perform oral sex on the boy, she later told a TV station.

Afterward, they were doused with household cleansers, perhaps in a haphazard attempt to scrub the crime scene, or maybe simply to torture the victims even more. The solutions burned the boy’s eyes.

The thugs then fled, taking with them a couple of hundred dollars’ worth of cash, jewelry and cell phones.

Utterly despicable.  So where does the good "Reverend" come in?  (Emphasis mine)
 
Four of the ten black teenaged boys who committed the crime against this black woman and her black son have been caught and charged with armed sexual battery, and are facing life in prison. There’s conclusive DNA and other physical evidence against them, and they have signed confessions.

So guess what Al Sharpton and the NAACP are doing? Protesting in front of the State Attorney’s Office’s, in support of the rapists. They say it’s “unfair” that these animals are being held without bail.

This is because some white kids in a neighboring city were recently charged with gang-raping two drunk female friends, and were released on bail. Which means that RACISM is in play!

Sharpton said the black teens remain jailed and the white teens are free on bond, despite them committing the “same act.”

“To have different reactions to the same set of circumstances is a crime in itself,” Sharpton said.

Rachel Lucas has this take on the whole affair and I agree completely:
 
Sorry, Sharpton. Just…sorry. Your dog’s not hunting on this one.

The white kids from Boca raped two girls who were partying with them consensually. That is atrocious and I hope they suffer greatly in prison, but there was no other crime than rape that night.

But the black kids from Dunbar broke into a home and for three hours they raped a woman and her child, beat them, forced the mother at gunpoint to do something truly unspeakable to her 12-year-old son, doused them both in chemicals and tried to set them on fire, and then committed theft to round it all out.

Those two set of circumstances are not the “same”, a--hole. Deal with it. That’s why there’s a “different reaction”.

So, Sharpton and the NAACP once again prove that facts, reason, logic, and real justice are the last things on their list of priorities. The good news is that many blacks are seriously pissed off about it. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Alarmist Climate Change: On the run at last

Posted by Catmman on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:07:19 PM
Bask in it my friends.  The glorious light of truth about the "Global Warming" is finally getting press.  Not the alarmist truth of the Goracle.  But the real truth that the Earth is much more resilient than given credit for and there are normal fluctuations and natural processes which drive said changes.
 
Even the UN IPCC is admitting it!
 
Excerpted from the Canada Free Press:
 
UN climate body in panic mode as satellite temperatures turn down and a hard winter lashes both hemispheres.
 
Well, thank the Lord for that lack. For the IPCC’s 2007 final Summary for Policymakers shows that the climate alarmists are at last on the run. Their evidence for dangerous, human-caused global warming, always slim, now lies exposed in tatters for all to see.
 
In contrast, the alternative, persuasive and non-alarmist view of climate change is well summarized in two recently issued and readily available documents. The first is a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations, which was released at the UN’s Bali conference last December, supported by the signatures of 103 eminent professional persons. The second is the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, the release of which coincided with the launch of the International Climate Science Coalition at a major climate rationalist conference in New York in early March.
 
The evidence for dangerous global warming adduced by the IPCC has never been strong on empirical science. Endless circumstantial scare campaigns have been run about melting glaciers, more droughts and storms and floods, sea-level rise and polar bears, but all founder on one inescapable problem – as does Mr. Al Gore’s over-hyped science fiction film. And that is that we live on a naturally variable planet. Change is what planet Earth does on all scales, and so far not one of the alleged effects of human-caused global warming has been shown to lie outside normal planetary variation. Sea-level rising? Sure, it happens. And the appropriate response is adaptation, as the Dutch have known for centuries.
 
The IPCC’s expensive and complex computer models can be programmed to produce any desired result, and it is therefore not surprising that they uniformly predict warming since 1990. Meanwhile, the real-world global average temperature has stubbornly refused to obey this stricture. It exhibits no significant increase since 1998, and the preliminary 2007 year-end temperature confirms the continuation of a temperature plateau since 1998 to which is now appended a cooling trend over the last 3 years.
 
Want more?  Follow this link for the totally awesome!
 
(H/T: ICECAP)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive