About Me

Name:Catmman
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Al Gore "Conserve for Thee, Not for Me."

Posted by Catmman on Friday, July 18, 2008 7:42:51 PM
Totally frickin AWESOME video!  Uber pwn3g on the Goracle!
 
 
(H/T: Americans for Prosperity)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Global Warming "Hot Spot"

Posted by Catmman on Friday, July 18, 2008 6:49:35 PM
I feel like Chuck Norris in "Silent Rage" - a movie where a mutated homicidal maniac cannot be killed! 
 
The only time in cinematic history where Chuck Norris's patented Round House Kick of Doom DID NOT DISPATCH THE EVILDOER!!!
 
It seems no matter how many times we kick the crap out of AGW alarmism, it won't stay down.  Like in this clip:
 
 
 
Who said science can't be fun!
 
From AoSHQ:
 
          The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

They are tossing out direct empirical measurements (which undermine their theory) and replacing facts with estimates of those temperatures based on indirect proxies supplemented with sketchy theories about the interrelation between proxy and actual measurement.

Read the whole thing here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The, ummm, hungry(?) poor?

Posted by Catmman on Friday, July 18, 2008 3:03:17 PM
A sobtastic story about the evils of America.
 
Highlights from this story:
 
The mother has NEVER, that's right, NEVER, had a job.
She CAN'T work because a car accident 17 YEARS AGO left her "depressed and disabled".
Most of the family members are UNEMPLOYED and "subsist" on government assistance.
Quote of the article:  "Then what's going to happen to us?"
 
Title of the article?  "For some Ohioans, even meat is out of reach".
 
I hate to be crass, but apparently ONLY meat is out of reach:
 
Angelica Hernandez and her mother, Gloria Nunez
The faces of government over-reliance...
 
Update:  I have seen this story pop up on a few other blogs and read even more about these folks.  The NPR link has a breakdown of their monthly expenses.
 
First, here's how I stack up against this family:
 
I spend 12 times as much on my mortage every month than they do on rent.  Their rent is subsidized.  My mortgage is not.
 
I spend about 3-4 times as much on electricty/water/utilities a month.  Their electricity is subsidized.  My bills are not.
 
I spend maybe 1/3 more on food a month than this family.  They get food stamps.  I do not.
 
The 40 year old mother in the article has never had a job.  Ever.  I have worked since I was 17 years old (I will be 40 this year).
 
The 19 year old daughter in this story has worked "off and on".  My daughter has worked since she was in high school, and has paid her way through college for the last two years.  My daughter will be 20 next month.  Oh, and my daughter just bought her own "first" car - with her own money.
 
This family bums rides or pays a small fee for tranportation.  I make two car payments.
 
This family pays no income taxes, probably very little of ANY kind of tax.  I pay taxes out the yin-yang!
 
Lessons Learned?
 
That the liberal/Lefty school of thinking doesn't work.  This family relies on the government for pretty much EVERYTHING, and they are "barely getting by."  The mom has no education, no motivation, no drive and obviously takes no responsibility for anything that happens in her life - she has relied on someone else or the Government for everything her entire life and look where she is at.
 
And what is her solution?  Put her hand out.  She needs MORE you see.  At least her daughter has been given some sound advice.  Having a kid so they can get more government assistance has been a workable strategy for decades.  She be stupid NOT to do it!
 
This story is a perfect example of how relying on government CAN RUIN YOUR LIFE and make you a slave.  And what is the point of the article? 
 
Blaming the same government which has given these people all these handouts for not giving them MORE!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

7 Graphs to Choke Climate Alarmists

Posted by Catmman on Friday, July 18, 2008 1:56:52 PM
The stakes in the heart of the Goracle!
 
Andrew Bolt global cooling graphs
View larger image here
 
Any questions?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CO2 Temp Effects Overstated by 500-2000%

Posted by Catmman on Friday, July 18, 2008 1:42:14 PM
Mathematical proof that CO2 effects on temperature are overstated and that "global warming/climate change" is a load of Gorebulloney!
 
Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.
 
Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature.
 
The paper also concludes the following:
 
?    The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
?    CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
?    Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
?    The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
?    The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
?    “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
?    Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
?    The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
?    It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
?    Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
?    In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
Read the whole thing here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's 10 Year "Fast Track" Energy Plan

Posted by Catmman on Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:29:18 PM
We all know the story:  the Libs/Lefties/Democrats continually bleat about how drilling for more of our own oil/creating our own energy (through refinery construction new nuclear/coal power plant construction, etc.) will take us "10 years".
 
Obama's campaign hails the fact that he "fast tracked" legislation to increase funding, to the tune of 150 billion dollars, to increase research into alternative energy.  Remember, this is an increase in research funding - not actually doing anything about producing more energy - just working on alternative energy sources.
 
How long would this "fast track" take?  Would it begin to give us relief at the pump and in our electricity bills next week?  Next month?  Next year?  In five years?
 
How about 10 years?
 
Obama released a national ad saying he has "fast-track alternatives" to imported oil. On closer examination, those turn out to be his proposal to spend $150 billion over the coming decade on energy research. Ten years doesn't sound all that "fast" to us, and there's no guarantee that the research will result in less oil being imported.
 
Follow this link and read the whole article.
 
Again, that's ten years - just on research.  How long would it take (assuming there is some kind of breakthrough within that ten years) for any benefit to reach the American people?  Another decade?  Longer?
 
The Democrat shell game on energy continues...
 
(H/T: Hot Air)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »