the voices against "global warming" are warming up

post source Canada Free Press

seems there are more and more actual real deal climate scientists voicing their opinions against the whole hysteria concerning global warming.
yes, i know there were many "scientists" that have backed the drive spearheaded by algore's editorial documentary. chicken little documentary? anyway... few if any of the names i've seen bandied about supporting algore's stance are climatologists. biologists, medical, social, etc PhD's abound. but you will notice damned few credible climate experts or atmospheric scientists on the lists. why? because they know this is all smoke and mirrors. if i want an opinion about bladder cancer, i'm going to an oncologist specializing in the field. i'm not going to see a podiatrist. that's what we've got filling out the ranks behind algore. podiatrists.
here is the entire article, because i don't know how long it will be available

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

hat tip to Drudge.

"The Courage to do Nothing"

this is a post in its entirety from today's daily newsletter from the Americans for Limited Government website GetLiberty.org . google them if you want the link, because right now things are down for remodeling over there.

so this is about global warming, and if you have read my blog long enough, you know that i think the hysteria over global warming is without scientific merit, based on an extensive and avid check of the actual science behind the computer models and rhetoric. the fact that algore has been lionized simply shows emotions play far better at getting attention than rigorous and ethical analysis. why is the global warming issue such a hot button for the "progressives"? one theory proposed by Jonah Goldberg in Liberal Fascism is that to "energize and mobilize" the citizenry to accept Big Government edicts and controls, one needs a moral equivalent to war. my take on most of the blather regarding global warming is just that. to independently and "pedantically" assess the information and draw your own conclusion seems to be way beyond the attention span or skill set of the majority of folks. they would rather get fed sound bites and USAToday simple piecharts for their info, because if someone of stature says it's true, it's true.
regardless of the expense that realigning the world's energy consumption, the fact that people are now dieing around the world because of our shortsighted drive to find "alternative fuels" must make some inroads into the Green movement's collective mind. probably not.

anyway, enough of my soapbox. here's AGL's soapbox. enjoy.

The Courage to Do Nothing

“[W]e must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”—Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Physics & Society, July 2008.

There is no “climate crisis.” So says a recent study published in Physics & Society this month, a devastating blow into the all-important computer models utilized by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the very models that today are used by demagogic politicians to justify radically reducing, restricting, and taxing the use of fossil fuels.


Christopher Monckton’s conclusion and advice to politicians: Do nothing. The science of global warming is wrong, and has been wrong. And the policies necessary to radically reduce carbon emissions will be devastating to a world heavily dependent upon industry to maintain the largest population explosion in human history.


Dr. Monckton has provided a valuable service to policy makers, but mostly, to the general public who would suffer under the alarmist rule of the Greens. His contribution is a critical warning to all who value civilization.


According to the study, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the ‘global warming’ of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001.”


In other words, the computer models that have projected excessive global warming are wrong—drastically, horribly wrong—because they predicted uninterrupted warming of the earth leading to a catastrophe on the order of the Apocalypse. And it did not happen. So the study observes:

“[N]o great reliance can be placed upon the IPCC’s central estimates of climate sensitivity, still less on its high-end estimates. The IPCC’s assessments, in their current state, cannot be said to be ‘policy-relevant’. They provide no justification for taking the very costly and drastic actions advocated in some circles to mitigate ‘global warming’, which Eqn. (30) suggests will be small (<1 °C at CO2 doubling), harmless, and beneficial.”

In short, the IPCC’s models are unreliable, they have grossly exaggerated the impact of increased carbon emissions on the climate, and according to the study, whatever impact the emissions have will actually be beneficial.


Therefore, the continued use of the IPCC’s models to inform public policy will only produce dire consequences. To keep the world of 6.6 billion people fed, a considerable amount of energy is required. And to actively seek to drastically reduce the use of the sources of energy that the world depends upon every day can only result in drastic reductions of the world’s population.


In other words, if politicians continue to listen to the Greens, people will die. Because they will starve.


And one can only wonder, based upon the religious zeal of the Greens, if that’s not what they actually have in mind. Theirs is a religion that views practically all human activity as “unnatural”—even evil—that must be countered by the “all-wise”, “all-knowing” rulers of Big Government. And in so restricting human activity, theirs is a cause that is completely repugnant to the philosophy of individual liberty.


And to the advancement of civilization as we know it. Theirs is a totalitarianism more insidious than its predecessors. Theirs is a “utopia” that seeks to undo the industrial and technological progress of thousands of years of human history in less than a century. Theirs is an ideology that will control every aspect of human existence. And it can only result in the enslavement of billions to poverty, economic depression, and ultimately, starvation.


Instead, as Dr. Monckton implores, leaders need to have the courage to do nothing about the climate crisis, because there is no climate crisis.


ALG Perspective: Now that the Cult of Global Warming’s oracle—computer-generated climate change models—have been debunked, it will be interesting to see how the Greens react. Ultimately, it will reveal that they really have no interest at all in science, or preventing climate change. They will in all likelihood deny the findings presented by Dr. Monckton without any scientific refutation or critical analysis whatsoever. And that is because their goals are ultimately political and economic in nature: 1) destroy the U.S. economy; 2) restrict individual liberty; and 3) expand governmental control over all human activity.



the link didn't copy, so here's a link to the Monckton paper at American Physical Society's site. Physics and Society: Monkton

a classic do as i say, not as i do

i read this earlier this week, and i've been pondering it in my slow inimitable way.

first of all, the whole article from the sanfran comical is here.

the gist of the article is that while our state legislators here in california are hot and heavy on the path towards abating the newest cause d'celeb global warming, they are definitely not putting their money where their mouth is.

a few points:

In the Senate, Dean Florez, D-Shafter (Kern County), whose district has some of the worst air quality in the country, drives a GMC Yukon Denali, which gets 12 mpg in the city and 16 mpg on the highway. Florez, who has authored several measures aimed at reducing pollution in the Central Valley, also voted for the global warming bill.

and

One of the worst offenders among state legislators who voted "yes" on this year's global warming bill is Assemblywoman Wilma Chan, who said she commuted from her Oakland home to the state's capital four days a week during the legislative session.

The Democrat drives a 2004 Lincoln Aviator that gets 13 mpg in the city and 18 mpg on the highway.

"I would admit that I should get a better mileage car," Chan said. "But I mainly looked at the crash-test factors. I drive every day from Oakland to Sacramento, and I see these horrific accidents on I-80

so it's ok for her to drive an SUV because she is an important figure in the running of our state, but it's not ok for you to own and drive an SUV to protect your family because it is environmentally unsound? really, WTF?


see, we've been exposed to this mindset of do as i say, not as i do for more years than i've been alive. it has long been accepted that the majority of americans pushing for some morality or belief don't usually practice their beliefs. we're humans, and as humans, we have our own agendas. fine. but don't push your agenda on me if you don't actually practice what you preach.

and regarding the legislation passed in california to make us the "most progressive and aggressive fighter against global warming", a few ideas:

anyone that has been around this blog long enough knows that i am personally in favor of stopping all research work at all the nations federally funded labs and redirecting their efforts into finding an alternative to fossil fuels.

and i'm not a big fan of using biofuels.

in an article on the BBC on Tuesday, someone in the press is finally reporting on what i've been saying is the negative on biofuels. i can't imagine anyone with a shred of intelligence would take arable land that can be used for food production, and plant for use in biofuel production. it just doesn't make sense. and what about pinning your entire economy and ability to USE energy on growing cycles and the weather. the article on the BBC is Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?.

there has to be a better way. we just need to make it the top issue in our scientific community. that way, we can let those fookin' weasels in the middle east and venezuela piss off.

alternatives? can you say NUCLEAR?


and if you are up to it, i seriously recommend a trip over to The U.S. Senate and read one hell of an intelligently formulated speech about global warming. I wish i lived in this guy's state so i could vote for him

more ranting about the environment

long time readers have probably figured out that i'm much more of an environmentalist that most of the vapid doo gooder/feel gooders out there. biggest difference? i am all for doing something about real issues, rather than yelling about how messed up we are. want to get rid of the "horrible carbon footprint" of modern society? build nukes. lots of them. that way we can stop using precious carbon based fossil fuels that emit tons of carbon dioxide daily. that will help us with our issues in the middle east as well, since our dependence on their oil will be sharply curtailed. find and exploit new sources, or even known old sources, such as the fuel buried in the bottom of the Santa Barbara channel. but of course, environmentalists and nimbys are all flapping over that one.
i've ranted before about the vocal rabble-rousers that insist we DO SOMETHING!!!, but when a workable plan is hatched, they are the first to get in line decrying it. case in point, the Cape Cod wind turbine plan from 2004.
now, many Californians are being absolutely two faced about enviro issues.
Dan Walters has written about in the latest flap in today's Sacramento Bee. Greens like idea of renewable energy, balk at the reality. to quote the article/editorial:

An environmental coalition called Californians for Solar and Clean Energy has submitted more than 700,000 signatures for an initiative measure that would compel the state's utilities to use renewable sources for 40 percent of their electric power supplies by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025, a sharp increase in what the state's current policy requires.

The underlying notion is to reduce our reliance on carbon-generating fuels such as coal and natural gas and thus contribute to the fight against global warming.

Fair enough. If global warming is the threat to human life that we're being told it is, and reducing human-caused carbon emissions is the critical factor, then it will require big changes in the way we live, including how we generate and use energy.

As the coalition's name implies, solar is its preferred form of renewable energy – tapping the rays of the sun to create electricity through photovoltaic panels – although geothermal energy, utilizing heat from the Earth's core, is another source. And, as it happens, California is blessed with copious amounts of both sunshine and geothermal heat.

Merely generating energy from renewable, nonpolluting sources is one thing. Transmitting it from generation sites to where people live is another, and environmental groups that tout renewable energy often oppose transmission lines that would carry the power to homes and businesses, as a long-running battle over a project called "Sunrise Powerlink" illustrates.

San Diego Gas & Electric Co. wants to build the 150-mile-long high-voltage line from solar and geothermal plants in Imperial County to urban users along the coast, but environmentalists and property owners along the proposed route are lining up against it in anticipation of a Public Utilities Commission decision in August.

Environmental groups are especially unhappy with sending the power through Anza-Borrego State Park, even though it would follow an existing power line corridor, while local landowners and governments stiffly oppose alternative routes that bypass the park.

The environmental groups' opposition follows an odd pattern of supporting green policies in a macro sense, only to oppose specific projects that would implement their larger vision.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who's proclaimed himself leader of California's – and perhaps humankind's – anti-global warming crusade, appears to be getting a little frustrated with his supposed allies' attitude toward specific projects.

"One energy expert the other day said that the California Mojave Desert … is one of the best spots on planet Earth for solar power plants," Schwarzenegger said in a speech to a recent climate change conference at Yale University. "Pacific Gas and Electric wants to put three huge solar plants right there. And the whole world – the Germans, the French, the Canadians, the Japanese – they all want to come out to California and put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert and in other places. The only thing is that the problem is getting that new energy to the power grid because of environmental hurdles.

"San Diego Gas & Electric wants to develop solar geothermal fields in Imperial Valley and build 150 miles of transmission lines to go and take this power right into San Diego, but it faces opposition even though it would replace an old carbon-based power plant. So the point I'm making is it's not just businesses that have slowed things down, it's not just Republicans that have slowed things down, it's also Democrats and also environmental activists sometimes that slow things down. … I don't know whether this is ironic or absurd. But, I mean, if we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it."

Indeed.

as my old man used to say: "Put your money where your mouth is"

and here's a link to a youtube video about a discussion on global warming that you probably haven't seen, or heard about. intellesting, velly intellesting.

more evidence that THEY LIE!

Pretty dramatic, i admit. but damn, the hype and hyperbole surrounding the world's global warming phenomenon has my head spinning. i've recounted in this blog several times that the data sets, and analysis of those sets, is not only flawed, but intentionally misleading. just a couple of links from here using the nifty blogger search bar --- bothenook's take on global warming---.
and now this:

...GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

read the whole article here.

i don't know exactly why the pholks behind the whole global warming hysteria are doing what they are doing, but i can make a few educated guesses. i think the main reason is that the truth is not what is important, but the message. the message is that mankind is bad for the planet, and since we (those folks stirring the pot) can't kill everyone to save mother earth, we (again, you know, those folks) will concoct something really frightening, get a big time politician to pimp the idea, and force everyone into doing as we say, and thinking as we want them to think.
just a guess.
but THEY LIE!

UPDATE11/17/08. Gus has his own take on the article here. interesting stuff.
ditto that for Photios

Babs, you are running true to form

yeah, barbara boxer is running true to form.
she's the chairclown of the senates environmental committee, and boy, does she have the curly shuffle down pat.
let's see.... there were these leaked emails from a campus server in the UK, emails that on the surface indicates malfeasance on the part of the global warming proponent's side of the fence. i'll not get into the whole what's what regarding this, because there are many many sources of info that can do much better than i.
but when a senator, Sen. Inhofe (who is a vocal opponent to the quick let's do something, even if it's wrong crowd)reasonably asks to have policies in the pipeline inspected vis a vis the revelations about cooked and massaged data, ol' babs starts the smoke generating machine and puts on some cheesy disco to dance to.
"it's not about the potentially skewed data, it's about the email crime" (my paraphrasing, not an actual quote. she wouldn't know how to speak the truth if her life depended on it if the truth somehow countered the paradigm she and saint al are espousing.)
so she is going to kill the scientifically correct investigation into how the bogus data and manipulation of peer review, and insist any investigation includes a criminal one regarding the email source. sorry babs, this happened in Britain. a little out of your jurisdiction. not that will stop her. she's on a mission. a mission to preserve the AGW myth at all costs. she has too much political capital invested in fighting global warming to ever let a little something like facts get in the way. they haven't done so yet, and i see no reason for her to change now.

proof of global warming

from my buddy bill, pictorial verification that global warming isn't just some left wing fringe loony toon junk science.

been a while: bubblesphere blog roundup

been a while since i've done this.
as always, though, if you want the very latest news related to submarines and all things submersible on the web, visit The Sub Report, your one stop shop for submarine related news and opinions.
this is just what the blogging bubbleheads out there have posted this week, and most of it is life in general stuff...

Joel, at The Stupid Shall be Punished has posted a couple of submarine entries, but really seems disheartened by his wishy washy senator. Joel, don't take it too hard. there are so few politicos out there that show any integrity at all these days.

and Chap has a couple this week regarding political backbiting (humor) and military culture both are worth a read, but i strongly recommend you look at the military culture post. chap is a pretty smart guy, and i'm glad he's on our side.

and our resident objectivist gus has an interesting take on the recent "civil rights" issues that have been cropping up in the news lately. and as i've said before, his roundups are always informative.
hell, you should make gus and chap two of the manditory stops while browsing every day. both bring intelligent analysis and reasoning to a variety of topics that affect us. if you can't tell, i'm a big fan of both of them....

and i'm not going to point to a specific post by vigilis over at molten eagle. let me just direct you to his site. he constantly surprises me with submarine and military posts about stuff i've never heard of, or analyzes info in a way completely differently than i do. and that's a good thing...

and nobody can ignore the humor over at the cookshack. this week cookie posted a great video reminding us to say thanks. thanks cookie.

and Myron posts a video that's been running around for a while titled women in film. i've seen it before, but it's still worth looking at again, and again, and... . oh, and stop by and congratulate the proud grandpa of a new baby girl. yes myron, she is sweet...

and Mike comments on how hard it is to be a Jewish conservative at family gatherings. hell, mike, you ought to try hanging out with my wife's family. talk about feeling like the odd man out! fortunately i'm bigger than all of them, and they know i'm armed! that keeps things under control somewhat!
and i recommend Mike's blog to everyone that will listen. smart guy, even if he is now a lawyer....

the old coot introduced me to a new holiday this year. i think i can get behind this one...

and do not go to old gary's site http://oldgary.blogspot.com/ for a while. looks like it was jacked! GARY!!! SOMEONE'S JACKED YOUR BLOG WITH SPAM SPAM SPAM

our resident eater megamunch posts a pic/recipe for an interesting looking burger. sorry dude, chocolate and cranberries?


so the A-ganger chief tells us what he really thinks, with no reservations: "Seems the only security guard that came to work that day with a gun AND a set of balls was the chick. The "less" twins (Hope & Dick) were too busy playing peek-a-boo to do what had to be done. If you set the balls of this pair on a razor's edge it'd look like a set of BB's on a four-lane interstate!"
i'm with you, that chick needs and medal, and those "guards" need a kick in the ass.

and DSC posts a timely quote

dalejarret4ever passes on a Christmas wish to us all. you too, bub.

over at Right Mind, there's an interesting tidbit about a student fighting back against a moonbat teacher.

midwatch cowboy looks into the 313 ship Navy. whatever happened to the 500 ship fleet of not so long ago? have they gotten so "advanced" and specialized that we can only afford a couple? stupid question, because i already know the answer.

and Doc MacDonald let's us know what he thinks about saint algore's recent comments regarding the culpability of our nation regarding the impending disastrous and really really bad global warming armageddon just weeks away.

ditto for the Chucklehead

and one of my new favorite bubblesphere bloggers has a great post about a petition to end global warming if you haven't spent any time wandering around the sleepy eyed whiner of the deep's site, i recommend you do so.

so that's all that's new this week. some of our bubblehead brethren haven't posted anything new this week, or in many many weeks. bummer. some smart and funny guys out there, and i miss their inputs

wonder what St. Al has to say about this?

gee, global warming has decided take a break. never would have seen this coming, unless, of course, you actually read many of the real scientific studies done by real climatologists and atmospheric chemists. as opposed to the roundtable gathering of biologists and others not trained in this field, and most of the folks that espouse warming ends the world.

researchers are getting closer in the fight against alzheimers

amid all the generated noise surrounding pseudo global warming, the economic turmoil and subsequent government fascistic intervention (look up fascism in a reputable, non-politicized source), there is good news that gets out there but is buried under the smelly pile of crap the news dudes are trying to feed us.
how about good news for a change? how about if medical researchers are creeping up on a cure for alzheimer's disease, one of the most devastating and insidious diseases suffered by modern man?
really good news that provides at least a glimmer of hope for the future.

seems a bit late in the season for robin chicks

but out in the backyard, up in the magnolia tree, we have a robin's nest. in it are at least 2 and probably 3 1 to 2 week old chicks. i always thought they were a springtime event. must be all that global warming.
anyway, they are a loud bunch, raising hell if they don't get fed often, but really squawking when one of the parents shows up with a tasty treat like a cricket or worm.
i climbed up onto a ladder to take some pictures. since the nest is up a ways, and snuggled down into the branches, i couldn't get a straight on shot without disturbing the nest, which i wouldn't do.
so here are a couple of shots taken the other day, showing at least one of the chicks, and a parent.
as always, click picture for other size choices

look between the leaves to see the chick's head

feeeeeed meeeee

feeed meeee NOW!

Mom's back, with snacky treats!

Mom's not too sure what to do about the voyeur

Liberal Fascism: a very interesting read

That Che Guevara has become a chic branding tool is a disgusting indictment of both American consumer culture and the know-nothing liberalism that constitutes the filthy residue of the 1960s New Left. Ubiquitous Che shirts top the list of mass-marketed revolutionary swag available for sale at the nearest bobo chic retailer - including a popular line of children's wear.
... "Viva la revolution!" Now even the smallest rebel can express himself in these awesome baby onesies. This classic Che Guevara icon is also available on a long-sleeve tee in kid's sizes...Lon live the rebel in all of us...there's no cooler iconic image than Che!"
Th Argentine henchman of the Cuban revolution was a murderer and goon. He penned classically fascist apothegms in his journals: "hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective and cold-blooded killing machine." Guevara was a better writer, but the same muse helped to produce Mein Kampf. Guevara reveled in executing prisoners. While commenting revolution in Guatemala, he wrote home to his mother, "It was all a lot of fun, what with the bombs, speeches and other distractions to break the monotony I was living in." His motto was "If in doubt, kill him," and he killed a great many. The Cuban-American writer Humberto Fontova described Guevara as "a combination of Beria and Himmler." Guevara certainly killed more dissidents and lovers of democracy than Mussolini ever did, and Mussolini's Italy was undoubtedly more "free" than any society Guevara the "freedom fighter" was seeking. Would you put a Mussolini onesie on your baby? Would you let your daughter drink from a Himmler sippy cup?

source: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg pp. 193-194.

this is how far into the book i am, and it's an amazing read. the parallels to the whole global warming hysteria and many other "calls to action" that can be seen coming directly from the fascist's handbook are sobering. and this quote reminded me of a little tempest that went on back in February. Remember it? click on the picture to take you to one of the better blog entries of the day.

and of course, i can't miss the opportunity to share my favorite "Che" shirt:

bet they're hoping for global warming

The temperature has been down as low as -24 degrees Celsius, and for the first time in living memory there has been snow in the country's southern deserts.

i suppose if it's snowing in the deserts of Iran, since they're the bad guys, it doesn't count. right Al?

hey algore, can i borrow a fur coat?

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.

And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.

interesting reading at Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

Where are the grown-ups? Peggy Noonan

One of the things i look forward to on Friday is the Peggy Noonan column in the online Wall Street Journal Opinion site. you will find a link to the site over in the news and opinion section of my bloglinks.
today's column is as good as always, delving into the responses to the Virginia Tech horror. check out the whole article at this link. i am not sure how they archive these articles, so i'll just give you a taste of one paragraph.

The anxiety of our politicians that there may be an issue that goes unexploited was almost--almost--comic. They mean to seem sensitive, and yet wind up only stroking their supporters. I believe Rep. Jim Moran was first out of the gate with the charge that what Cho did was President Bush's fault. I believe Sen. Barack Obama was second, equating the literal killing of humans with verbal coarseness. Wednesday there was Sen. Barbara Boxer equating the violence of the shootings with the "global warming challenge" and "today's Supreme Court decision" upholding a ban on partial-birth abortion.

One watches all of this and wonders: Where are the grown-ups?

interesting news on the autism front

California has experienced an 8 fold increase in autism cases since 1990. conventional wisdom was that the increase was due to an increased rate of diagnosis. a new study by the MIND Institute at UC Davis disproves that theory. some other environmental issue seems to be at the root of the problem.
AlGore would tell you that it's probably due to global warming.

me, i have a couple of theories.
1: the state of california required a reformulation of the gasoline we burn in our cars in this state. and it was around that time.
2: the advent of personal computers has given most homes and businesses in california a ready source of EMF surrounding the computer/monitor. and these sources are RIGHT THERE in front of our faces/bodies.
3: what has changed in the the last 16 years culturally? how about the burgeoning use of wireless communications devices running from cordless phones to cell phones and WiFi computer connections?
so what are your pet theories? i have no scientific basis for my proposed sources of this problem. but when you look around and see major changes exhibited in the population, you look at the big things first....
hey, at least i'm thinking about the problem, and i have no sacred cow to protect.

i'm just guessing

but i bet there are a lot of folks in the midwest and others travelling with a connection in Denver wishing that there was a little more global warming.

ya think?

damn, may have to change my argument

so it looks like i may have to change my argument regarding bringing back nuclear power. you are aware, i am sure, that greenhouse gases have been given the blame for global warming. so i, as a good nuke, have contended on many occasions that we should build nuclear power plants and scrap the fossil fuel plants that generate so many stack gases. damn german and swiss scientists, now i'll have to come up with a whole different argument. of course, i shall keep it in reserve, because the loony enviro's haven't had a chance to try debunking this report. they'll probably just stick their fingers in their ears and sing lalalala and not hear anything that doesn't meet their preconceived ideas. ho ho ho, santa doesn't need to go to miami for a suntan anymore.