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
« Previous1Next »