About Me

Name:Catmman
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

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 (5) | 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
« Previous1Next »