Author: admin

By Alan Caruba
Watching President Obama’s third prime time press conference in three months, I found myself wondering how the White House press corps had been reduced to a bunch of bit players in the great drama of Barack Hussein Obama. They are absolutely in love and enthralled.

He, of course, knew exactly who he was going to call on so it hardly mattered that the other reporters even showed up. They were just part of the scenery. Those who were called upon did not ask anything that evoked anything more than his typical long response designed, I suspect, to bore everyone to the point where the original question was forgotten. There were no follow-up questions. The New York Times reporter was pathetic, an embarrassment to the profession of journalism.

Notably, this third press conference attracted far fewer viewers than numbers one and two. After the first hundred days of White House orchestrated massive media exposure, people have experienced Too Much Obama.

All this, however, probably wouldn’t matter were not for the fact that the President of the United States is telling some very big lies and not being called on them. From my personal perspective, Obama seems to lie about everything all the time. On the campaign trail a certain amount of hyperbole is expected, but when the liar is the President, it becomes a serious matter.
Just about everything Obama said is a flat-out lie

In remarks in Arnold, Missouri on April 30, released by the White House Press Office, the President said,

“The average person problem thinks, yes, climate change, that’s kind of a drag, but it’s not one of my top priorities—because you don’t really see it or feel it, it doesn’t hit your pocketbook, it doesn’t have to do with your job directly. And so the tendency is just to kind of push it off. People think, well, this just has to do with polar bears, and I feel bad about polar bears, but I’ve got other things to worry about.”

For the record, the polar bear population is just fine and has been expanding for decades since the 1950s.

“I don’t think people fully appreciate the potential damage—economic damage, as well as environmental damage—that could be done if we are not serious in dealing with this problem,” said Obama. “If the temperature goes up a couple of degrees, well, it will change weather patterns pretty significantly. It could create droughts in places where we haven’t had drought; it could bring insect-born diseases up into places like Missouri that we haven’t seen before.”

Obama went to say, “You’re now looking at huge, cataclysmic hurricanes, complete changes in weather patterns. Some places will get hotter, some places will get colder. Our economy would be disrupted by tens of trillions of dollars. So this is no joke. And the science shows that the planet is getting warmer faster than people expected.”

Just about everything Obama said is a flat-out lie. It begins with the biggest lie of all; that human beings have any control or influence over the weather. When I say weather, I mean what is happening outside right now. When I say climate, I am talking about trends that involve hundreds of years.

To claim that the Earth “is getting warmer faster than people expected” is a more specific lie. The Earth has been in a cooling cycle for a decade. No doubt the President will, at some point, say he received poor information, but the truth is he knows full well that “global warming” is the vast hoax that underpins the justification for his administration to impose a punishing, needless tax on all energy use via the “cap and trade” legislation making its way through Congress. It is a so-called “carbon tax” and it will do more harm to the nation’s economy than anything anyone can imagine.

Earth to Obama! All the recent polls regarding “global warming” demonstrate that most Americans know it is a pile of crap. A Zogby survey found that only 30% support “cap-and-trade” of emissions, while 57% oppose it and 13% were not sure. In February, a Rasmussen telephone survey revealed that 54% of U.S. voters said the news media “make global warming appear worse than it really is. Only 21% say the media present an accurate picture.”
President’s lapdog media

So the President is lying about something most Americans distrust and don’t believe. Meanwhile, the lapdog media continues to report “global warming” despite the fact that more than half the voters have concluded they are just hyping it. And that’s exactly what they and the President are doing.

A voter backlash is coming, but those living in the D.C. bubble and drinking deeply of the Potomac waters have no clue.

By C3 Headlines

Although the global warming theory has been the favorite adopted theory of the political class, grant-seeking scientists and guilt ridden celebrities/journalists, it has not returned all the love bestowed on it by the reverent. Other than the period between the mid-70’s and late 90’s, the hypothetical human CO2 causation of global warming has meager observation evidence to support it. That being the case, the term “Global Warming Theory” has become an incorrect scientific description, no longer deserving the respect of ‘theory’ status.

Instead, based on the following widely accepted definitions, a simple review reveals it has become, at best, Global Warming Speculation, unsubstantiated by any real world data or proof. Unfortunately for the devoted, global warming can’t even sustain a position of being a convincing hypothesis.

A speculation is a conjecture expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

A hypothesis is a proposition that attempts to explain a set of facts in a unified way. It generally forms the basis of experiments designed to establish its plausibility. Simplicity, elegance, and consistency with previously established hypotheses or laws are also major factors in determining the acceptance of a hypothesis.

A scientific law is a hypothesis that is assumed to be universally true. A law has good predictive power, allowing a scientist (or engineer) to model a physical system and predict what will happen under various conditions.

A theory is a set of statements, including laws and hypotheses, that explains a group of observations or phenomena in terms of those laws and hypotheses. A theory thus accounts for a wider variety of events than a law does. Broad acceptance of a theory comes when it has been tested repeatedly on new data and been used to make accurate predictions.

Global warming is not a theory; not a scientific law; and, no longer a hypothesis. Its relevance in the rational, scientific realm is tenuous, and as a UK judge recently ruled, global warming belief is actually a religion. In addition, as the believers of global warming not only embrace, but proclaim profusely, at every opportunity, the belief of catastrophic, doomsday results caused by the hand of global warming, the terms religious beliefs or speculations have become that much more appropriate.

Source

US energy and climate plans would drag us back to 1905 – or 1862

By Paul Driessen

Think back to 1905.

The Wright brothers had just made history. Coal and wood heated homes. Few had telephones or electricity. AC units were handheld fans. Ice blocks cooled ice boxes. New York City collected 900,000 tons of vehicle emissions – horse manure – annually, and dumped it into local rivers. Lung and intestinal diseases were rampant. Life expectancy was 47. Today, President Obama wants to prevent “runaway global warming,” by slashing US carbon dioxide emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. According to Oak Ridge National Laboratory data, this reduction would return the United States to emission levels last seen in those halcyon days of 1905! But America’s 1905 population was 84 million, versus 308 million today. We didn’t drive or fly, or generate electricity for offices, factories, schools or hospitals. To account for those differences, we’d have to send CO2 emissions back to 1862 levels. The Civil War was raging. Nine of ten Americans were farmers (versus 2% today). The industrial revolution was in its infancy. Malaria halted construction on the Washington, DC aqueduct. Typhus and cholera killed thousands more every year. Life expectancy was 40 – half of what affordable hydrocarbon, hydroelectric and nuclear power helped make it today. None of this seems to matter to the Obama Administration or liberal Democrats. The 648-page Waxman-Markey climate bill would compel an 80% CO2 reduction, by imposing punitive cap-and-tax restrictions on virtually every hydrocarbon-using business, motorist and family. That’s making some legislators nervous, as they ponder the health, economic and employment effects of restricting energy supplies and driving up the cost of everything we eat, drink, make and do – especially in 20 states that get 60-98% of their electricity from coal. So to prod Congress into action, or achieve the 80% target via regulatory edict, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency has decreed that natural, plant-enhancing, life-sustaining carbon dioxide “endangers human health and welfare.” The authoritarian actions it is contemplating would regulate cars, trains, boats and planes; pave the way for regulating farms and factories, hospitals, schools, malls and apartment buildings, computer servers and lawn mowers; and send energy prices skyrocketing. It is astonishing how casually activists, bureaucrats, politicians and even some corporate executives advocate arbitrary CO2 reduction targets and timetables – as though they were possible, desirable or necessary. The targets reflect worst-case scenarios generated by computer models. But the models assume human CO2 now drives climate changes that have been occurring for eons. They ignore many natural forces, and inadequately analyze incomplete data, based on our still limited grasp of complex climate processes. They cannot accurately replicate last year’s regional climate shifts or predict changes even one year in the future. They ignore Earth’s history of repeated climate changes, and failed to anticipate the slowly declining global temperatures of 1995-2008. Thousands of climate and other scientist say there is no climate crisis, and CO2 plays little or no substantive role in climate change. A new Rasmussen poll finds that 48% of registered American voters now believe climate change is caused by planetary and other natural forces. Only a third still believe it’s due mostly to humans. Climate realists also recognize that, even if America eliminated all of its greenhouse gas emissions, increasing Chinese and Indian carbon dioxide emissions would promptly offset our draconian cuts. This alarms Climate Armageddonites. They fear it’s now or never to wrest control over energy and the economic, manufacturing and transportation activities it fuels. Now or never to profit from cap-and-tax laws, renewable energy mandates, and a forced shift away from hydrocarbons that now provide 85% of US energy. “Socially responsible” corporate groups like the Carbon Offset Providers Coalition are banking on passage of Waxman-Markey or similar legislation. They want to ensure that any CO2 regime is “rigorous and efficient,” to foster high carbon prices, maximum subsidies and strong profits. President Obama says cap-and-trade will “raise” $656 billion over the next decade. The National Economic Council and other analysts put the tax bite at $1.3 to $3.0 trillion. This is not monetary manna. The wealth will be extracted from every hydrocarbon-using business, motorist and family. The intrusive energy rules and taxes will clobber households, manufacturers, farmers, truckers and airlines. The poorest families will get energy welfare, to offset part of their $500-3,000 increase in annual heating, cooling, transportation and food expenses. Everyone else will have to trim health, vacation, charity, college and retirement budgets to pay for energy. Every increase in energy prices will result in more businesses laying off workers or closing their doors, more jobs sent overseas, more families forced into welfare, more school districts, hospitals and churches into whirlpools of red ink. Exactly how will they, your family, your business eliminate 80% of CO2 emissions by 2050? Exactly how will you pay those skyrocketing fuel bills? The Nature Conservancy predicts that, by 2030, “eco-friendly” wind, solar and biofuel projects will require extra land equivalent to Minnesota, to produce the energy we now get from oil, gas and coal. Interior Secretary Salazar’s proposal to have offshore wind turbines replace gas, coal and nuclear electricity generators would mean 336,000 3.25MW behemoths off our coasts – if they operate 24/7/365. Far more if they don’t. Where exactly will we site those turbines – and get the billions of tons of concrete, steel, copper and fiberglass it will take to build and install the expensive, unreliable, subsidized monsters? My grandmother used to say, The only good thing about the “good old days” is that they’re gone. Few Americans will be enthralled by the prospect of returning to that era. Fewer will relish the hefty price tag – and damage to their freedoms, budgets, jobs and living standards. The White House, EPA and Congress need to take a chill pill. _______________ Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. Sourced via email

By ILCD

On April 24, 2009, CBC’s Quirks and Quarks blog ran a story entitled Another Blow For Climate Change Skeptics. Written by Bob McDonald, clearly an AGW alarmist, the article tries to discredit the recent cooling of the Antarctic as being a product of man-made climate change and claims it will revert to full-blown warming “within decades”.

Once again, an incredibly unscientific article full of very weak theories and classic alarmism typical of the CBC. So here’s our response:

—-

We’re growing extremely tired of these AGW (anthropogenic global warming) myth believers shouting about “unprecedented pollution from humans” causing “climate changes”.

Pollution? Maybe so, like oil spills and nuclear waste, etc, but CO2 (carbon dioxide) is NOT pollution and it is NOT at high levels. More CO2 equals more plant life and it’s been at levels over ten times higher than today, even during ice ages, and an ice age is exactly what many many many climatologists are predicting we are currently heading into due to the quietness of our sun. The planet has been cooling overall for over a full decade now, and this is not disputed. It’s simply ignored by alarmists, major green corporations, and Big Environment who are all cashing in on all the “warming” hype.

This includes Al Gore’s own “carbon credit” company, None of these people will tell you that Greenland was once green, and warmer is always better than colder for all life.

Regardless, anyone who actually believes mankind’s microscopic contribution to the already microscopic CO2 portion of the 3% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing anything but the further greening of our planet, well, is often simply a Gore-loving, human-hating, and science-ignoring alarmist. Carbon is life. It’s not something we should be restricting. However, it’s so easy to tax, unlike the sun. Now that’s what I call an inconvenient truth. And it won’t be struck down as fraudulent in court, like Al Gore’s science fiction movie was.

AGW believers are the real deniers. They seem to deny the existence of the SUN and it’s incredible affect on our planet, and they cling to their ridiculous belief that a harmless trace gas and plant food called CO2 can affect global climate changes.

Outside of the UN’s fraudulent IPCC reports (which are not approved by all their scientists and many have resigned over it), it’s clear the majority of the NON-GOVERNMENT FUNDED scientists around the world do not agree with the AGW theory. Get educated. Start here:

http://www.petitionproject.org
http://www.ilovecarbondioxide.com
http://www.co2science.org
http://www.nothingtodowithco2.com
http://www.icecap.us

… if all you’re going to do is tell me to stop picking on that nice Al Gore and David Suzuki.

By Lorie Goldstein, Toronto Sun

Today’s column is written as a public service to all my readers who think everything they need to know about global warming they learned from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and who demand I stop attacking that nice man, David Suzuki. I implore you, I beg you, I beseech, you — STOP READING THIS COLUMN. I can barely keep up with my correspondence from readers who have intelligent things to say. Then there’s you. To all those described above — who don’t understand the difference between weather and climate or how cap-and-trade works, although you always think you do — please, go buy a book on climate change, sit down, read, learn. Then maybe we can have a rational discussion. Look, I’ll help you. Start with Robert Henson’s The Rough Guide to Climate Change: The Symptoms, The Science, The Solutions — the most readable, balanced, and informative book on the subject I’ve come across. Read just the first chapter “The basics — global warming in a nutshell” and, at the end of 40 pages, I promise you, you’ll know more about climate change than 90% of the politicians promising to “fix” it. And don’t worry, Henson’s no “denier.” Even Suzuki would endorse him. After that, read George Monbiot’s Heat: How to Stop The Planet from Burning; The Heat is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-up, The Prescription, by Ross Gelbspan; The Weather Makers: How We Are Changing the Climate and What it Means to Life on Earth by Tim Flannery; Stormy Weather, 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change by Guy Dauncey with Patrick Mazza; The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting Back and How We Can Still Save Humanity by James Lovelock; and a new Canadian book, Carbon Shift: How The Twin Crises of Oil Depletion and Climate Change Will Define the Future, edited by Thomas Homer-Dixon. I encourage skeptics to read these books as well because (a) as some of these authors point out, the energy industry did try to discredit scientific research on global warming — although these days it’s looking for ways to cash in; (b) it was only after reading books like these that I understood why, if the science is right, none of the “solutions” to global warming spouted by our politicians — Kyoto, carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, carbon credits — will work, and (c) reducing our reliance on fossil fuels makes sense to reduce air pollution and increase global security, regardless of global warming. But the problem, if you only read books of this type, is that you don’t come to understand that Kyoto wasn’t an environmental agreement at all, but an economic one, primarily designed to hobble the U.S. economy and that far from lowering global greenhouse gas emissions, it guaranteed they would rise. You don’t understand the irresponsible way Jean Chretien signed Canada onto Kyoto, without realizing the consequences for a big, cold, energy-exporting country with a small population and huge land mass. You don’t understand how a toxic combination of UN bureaucrats, opportunistic politicians, special interests, rent-seekers and scientists-turned-ideologues, has oversold not the reality of anthropogenic climate change, but the certainty about what’s going to happen, where, when, how severe and most important, what we should do. To understand those controversies you need to read books like The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution and Fraud by Lawrence Solomon; Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick; The Emperor’s New Climate: Debunking the Myths of Global Warming by Bruno Wiskel (these first three books are by Canadians); The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, and Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception To Keep You Misinformed, by Christopher Horner. (Paul Wells’ Right Side Up, The Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper’s New Conservatives, while not about climate change, describes the bizarre way Chretien signed us on to Kyoto.) IT’S COMPLICATED Finally read A Moment on the Earth — The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism by Gregg Easterbrook, who, while highly critical of environmental fear-mongering, as opposed to environmentalism, has also come to view global warming as a much more serious threat than when he wrote this thoughtful and authoritative work in 1995. In other words, it’s complicated. So please, go read a book. After all, if global warming poses the immediate, existential threat you say it does, don’t you think you should read at least one !!@#$#$* book on the subject before the apocalypse? Just one? Can’t connect to mysql.