Wednesday, December 2, 2009

If You Think It's Butter . . .

It's not nice to lie about Mother Nature!

Oh, goody. Now I don't have to feel bad about the fact that almost every car in my garage gets 2.75 miles to the gallon.

P.U. I've been smelling rotted fish parts for years:


A folder containing documents, data and, e-mails purportedly "hacked" from Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) may be smoking-gun proof of a worldwide conspiracy to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming. And the list of apparent conspirators includes many of the world's leading climate alarmists -- the very scientists on whose work the entire anthropogenic global warming theory is based.

What you folks think? Should we still go to Copenhagen or should Obama reduce his carbon imprint and stay at home? I for one say we quit shoveling the shit and put our energies into things we know are real and that we can DO SOMETHING about.

Edited to add:

Speaking of DOING SOMETHING. Why haven't we? There is nothing, after all, stopping those of us who believe in the Climate Crisis from altering our lives so that we can address the issue. And by that I mean, really, really DOING SOMETHING, like radically changing our lifestyles to the point where, say, we ride bicycles instead of cars, move back into the cities from the 'burbs, grow our own food, stop spending money on anything produced by polluters, etc.

Why? Because we don't really want to DO SOMETHING. That's way too hard. Instead, we want our leaders to blather on and on about how they are going to DO SOMETHING and then we'll turn the other way when they pass a few Draconian but ultimately ineffectual laws and treaties, which only shift the money from the private sector into the gub'mint one, but hey, we can now go to bed at night feeling oh so smug that our Leaders have DONE SOMETHING.

Finally, if our Congress – the majority of whose members believe in the Climate Crisis – were so all fired up serious about actually DOING SOMETHING, why did they bail out the American auto industry instead of letting this "dinosaur" go the way of, well, the dinosaur?

Why, because it's all a crock.

33 comments:

pam said...

I've always thought it was a crock. Mother Nature will do what she do do, and man is foolish to think he can stop it. Like the Ozone layer has a hole in it? Well quit putting rockets through it, that might help. My state has the leading climate-change skeptic, Senator Inhofe, who has taken a lot of punches for being on the *wrong* side of the political issue. I say, Go Jim, Go Jim, because at least on this issue, he speaks for me.

Aunty Belle said...

Natcherly!

The whole thang --climate crisis du jour :new ice age, global warming or WHATever--is part of ole Maurice Strong's "sustainable development" ,part of the UN's Agenda 21 (21st century).

Strong --adviser to UN secretaries general --ackshully said that a perceived climate crisis was the best means of forcing the world into a global gubmint.

I'se prayin' the COP 15 will self-destruct. They had a prelim session in Barecelona whar' they hissed at each other an' some stormed out--a pox on 'em all!

Good post!!!

K9 said...

i will never forget when i landed on a website years ago when i was researching my post about Gore (where we met Moi) and a guy laid out very completely how activity on the sun causes the cooling and warming on earth. very compelling and reasonable. not to say we dont have smog, or pollute our rivers and real problems like monsanto doing life altering damage to food and nature.

no....you dont think they gave obama that peace prize cause he is cute do you? when you see obama, the first president to ever do so, sit at the head of the un security counci, it was clear whos agenda he serves. he tells us in his books what he thinks. he doesnt have americas back thats for sure.

Gnomeself Be True said...

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/12/02/climategate-it-aint-just-about-the-weather/

Milk River Madman said...

Post of the week!

moi said...

Pam: Well, I appreciate his skeptical frame of mind, but I'd take him more seriously if he left religion out of his arguments.

Aunty: Every good despot and their slavering minions know the recipe for subduing the masses by heart: 1 part scary story, 1 part punitive legislation, 2 parts positioning themselves as the solution. Mix, bake in 350 degree oven for 45 minutes, and voila! Instant Jackbooted Regime.

K9: Hear ya. I get tired of explaining over and over again that just because I believe the climate "crisis" is bunk – and even on the eensy beensy chance it isn't, I don't believe there is anything we as a species can do to halt it, how's THAT for egomania? – doesn't mean I believe we should continue to poop all over Mother Nature.

Gnome: Hits the nail on the head immediately: Climategate is about a lot more than climate. It’s about science and its relationship to politics and profit, the academy, the state and, perhaps most importantly, information control.

Mad River: How're those Montana temperatures working for ya this December? Y'all throwing any pool parties :o)?

Boxer said...

don't you think it's interesting how little this is being reported in the news? All I get is party crashers and car crashers. THIS subject is one they don't want to report. I first heard about it on K9's radio podcasts.

moi said...

Boxer: Oh. Yes. Very interesting. See my addendum to the post.

TROLL Y2K said...

I think you can usually tell which side of a dispute is correct by the tenor, tone, and structure of their arguments.

I second Pam's thumbs-up to Senator Inhofe who has been DEMONIZED personally by the Global-Warming Cultists but never challenge the substance of his positions.

And I second Boxer's comment about the lack of media coverage. But I'll substitute the word "interesting" for "disgusting".

fishy said...

Hello?
We are talking Al Gore logic here.
So the question is why did anyone EVER give this global warming shiz a second thought?

Boxer said...

I'd like to get in my hole, now please.

Pam said...

Unfortunately, Okie politicans can't leave religion out of anything. Be they for it or against it, religion is an issue around here. It is required in this state. But yeah, I know exactly what you mean.

I posted about a show the Bitches of Fashion might find interesting!

moi said...

Troll: Check this out: http://www.poweronline.com/article.mvc/IS-GLOBAL-WARMING-UNSTOPPABLE-0001?user=430733&source=nl:26139&VNETCOOKIE=NO

Tim Garrett, associate professor of Atmospheric Sciences at University of Utah says: "Stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions at current rates will require approximately 300 gigawatts of new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power production capacity annually - approximately one new nuclear power plant (or equivalent) per day . . . Physically, there are no other options without killing the economy."

Further: "Making civilization more energy efficient simply allows it to grow faster and consume more energy . . . it's not really possible to conserve energy in a meaningful way because the current rate of energy consumption is determined by the unchangeable past of economic production. If it feels good to conserve energy, that is fine, but there shouldn't be any pretense that it will make a difference."

So, I guess it would follow that the ultimate solution to the Climate Crisis is the extinction of the human race.

Fishy: I was expecting Al Bore to show up by now. Perhaps he is moving his carbon credits from his Suisse to Bahamian account.

Boxer: No need. Everything's fine. Just keep swimming.

moi said...

Pam: I respect deeply held religious beliefs. But it's most definitely two steps backward when our politicians can't leave them out of otherwise solid arguments. Oh, and I'll be right over!

TROLL Y2K said...

The "Inhofe as religious fanatic" media-created myth is part of the problem.

He's bravely spoken out against grotesquely inaccurate Global Warming hysteria HUNDREDS of Times without mentioning religion in any manner.

And hell, Global Warming IS a religion to it's blind-to-the-facts fanatic adherents.

moi said...

Troll: Touche.

K9 said...

thats right troll. you must make carbon credit tributes to GAIA or you will burn in a lake of fire along with the polar bears.

the treaty, as usual, allows big bidnesses to continue on unabated while individuals pick up the tab. sound familiar? like the banking crisis? or how about the animal registration bill? yeah, it allows tyson to tag each group of one thousand chickens as one at whatever fee, but K9, independent organic hen wrangler has to tag and pay per hen. cool huh?

i dont know why there isnt a wholesale freak out and refusal to work or do anything until every single pol is thrown out of office and goldman sachs and al gore are in jail for fraud. or hung for treason.

and in addition to al gores crimes against this nation and the world, he brought WTO to us which killed jobs, money and paid oversees partners with megacorps. the whole structure is rotten to the core.

czar said...

I really have no dog in this hunt, but one problem is that both sides are cooking the books.

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300161038

I worked on this book, in which the author eviscerates this joker Lomborg footnote by footnote, literally. Lomborg, a bestselling climate-change-disputing darling, cites studies that don't exist, page numbers that don't exist, journals that don't exist. He splices together sentences from different articles to create the straw men he wants to destroy, leave quotes dangling in mid-sentence to present them out of context. Not exactly honest research or reporting either.

And the New York Times (yes, the NYT) and the Wall Street Journal reviewed Lomborg's work quite positively, without ever doing any research of their own. And Oxford University Press published Lomborg's stuff. Don't know which of their editors was asleep at the switch.

So when it comes to manure, spreading it around appears to be an equal opportunity endeavor.

moi said...

K9: EU President Herman Von Rompuy: "2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet." SHUDDER.

Czar: No doubt. That's because the problem is not a scientific one, but a political one. You may not have a dog in this fight, but political factions on both sides DO. While Mother Nature? She simply whistles.

No doubt as well that our climate is changing and it would be foolish to think that the actions of 6 billion people on this earth don't or haven't in some way impacted climate. But to what extent? And if we were to suddenly choke the dog by turning around and going the other way, what "change" for the better would we affect?

Do YOU want to tell the peoples of this planet's emerging nations that they cannot enjoy a first world lifestyle because we need to save the South American spotted booby beetle or a few acres of beach on some island in the South Pacific somewhere?

Then again, you won't have to. Idiots like Obama and Rompuy will go ahead and do it for you, asking they sacrifice their lives, futures and those of their children to the gods of climate and economic crisis.

Look at history. CRISIS! has always been the first step towards totalitarian rule. You freak a people out, make them tremble and shake in their space boots, and you'll get anything you want. Today's boogymen, however, are not localized. They are "global", i.e. the climate and the economy. Both are being used as excuses to implement a one world government that will outline for all of us just what we can and cannot do as relates to our economic and environmental relationships.

Now, the only question becomes WHY? Why would anyone want to do that? Hmmm. I bet if Hitler or Stalin were alive, we'd have an answer.

Heff said...

"I still love you".

-John Q. Republican

moi said...

Fudkin hell, Heff, were you been? Working for Obama? Bwahahahahahaha.

LaDivaCucina said...

I try to "do something" just by riding my bike around the beach instead of driving and what do I get for it? No where to lock up my bike! All new park down at South Pointe and hardly any bike racks! And a few weeks ago the parking enforcement was trying to give me crap for having a cover on my car and parking in the street for more than one day! There is no sign that says I can't park for more than one day or have to move my car! So much for being green!

Just to remind you about the culinary throwdown, darling! YOU is de judge! Are you going to participate?

Click here for info

Have a great weekend and PAR-TAY! Can't wait to hear all about it!

czar said...

I am risking it all by posing the question below:

Let's assume -- and it's a big assumption -- that the vast majority of people in the world might be benevolent. (Most might also be drop-dead idiots, but let's put that aside for a moment.)

And allow me to preface my question with my notion that human nature is the reason that neither capitalism nor communism has a chance in hell of success in their purest forms.

If, if, if a one-world government (and I'm not saying it would by any means, but just hypothetically) . . . if a one-world government meant that the incidence of war would drop precipitously, that there would be a chance to bring nutrition and decent water and education to all the world's populations, that such a government would still allow freedom of thought and expression and worship, if, if, if . . . would you be willing to give up the notion of "America"?

Again, I don't think a one-world government would or could do these things, because I don't have that much trust in people. Then again, I don't think that we are marching on the road to totalitarianism, as do many of the other posters here, but if we could move -- hypothetically, utopianly (if that's a word) -- toward a more perfect union in a global sense, and in the very long view, would the notion of preserving this rather young nation of ours be that important? And why?

Alright, let me have it.

LaDivaCucina said...

We are too selfish and egocentric for THAT to ever happen!

Making Space said...

What the HELL? As Troll once said, having stumbled upon my blog, "This is not a food blog." Holy freakin' moly the green goblin was right about my blog and I'm echoing that sentiment right here for this post and the one just before it. Heh.

So I can't figure it out. Are foodies conservatives or anarchists? How does this work?

I wanna cook and stay all liberal and shit. I'm a classic dyed-in-the-wool tax-and-spend liberal, boooyaaaaa! (With a big shout out to federal marriage equality NOW, please and thank you!) Do I have to stop cooking to maintain my liberal street cred?

Hope not. I was just getting started. Grumble grumble.

TROLL Y2K said...

I missed the Auto Bail-Out question on first reading. Sorry.

The truth is that the Democrats bailed out THE UAW's fanatic UNION GOONS in the USA and Canada. It was NOT a bail-out or even an assistance to the US Auto Industry as a whole.

Indeed, the MUCH more environmentally sound and effecient Auto Manufacturing Facilities in the South were hurt by the bail-outs of the UAW and Chrysler and GM's wretched dinosaur Big Shots.

moi said...

La Diva: Well, it starts locally, doesn't it. That is, if it were possible to start locally. When I lived in town, I rode my bike everywhere. It is also both my brother and my father's sole method of transport. Albuquerque, in fact, is one of the most bike friendly cities around. But how many bicyclists does one actually see on the streets? Very few. Oh, and yes, I’m participating, thanks for the reminder. K9 created a way cool new logo and I’ll put up a post showcasing it soon.

Czar: Actually, you post a very good question. I would say the very least of the problems would be one of simple logistics. Suddenly, instead of teaching a thousand 5-pound babies how to walk, we're stuck with one gigantor billion-pound baby that, like one of those Thanksgiving Day puppets in the parade, a billion people are trying to wrangle this way and that. And, yes, while our common humanity means we all seek clean water, unspoiled food, and safe shelter, the earth is diverse enough that each country also has needs and issues particular to its geology and geography. So the world can’t help but become parceled into individual “states” if you will, with individual “leaders” governing those particular concerns. So at the very least, a global government is a waste of resources, time, and money.

You also ask if a global government wouldn’t mean less war. I guess that would depend on your definition of “war.” If you mean by war, the untold suffering of millions of people at the hands of tyrants, I would say, no. Contrast the tens of thousands who have suffered over the last eight years due to our “war” in Afghanistan and Iraq versus the million plus who have suffered during these same years at the hands of warring tribal factions in Africa. Do you really think a global government is going ever going to be able to eradicate tribal and ethnic warfare?

Making Space: Hmmmm . . . can one cook and still be a liberal? Why, yes, of course! Most of my friends are liberals and I can't say I blame them, given the utter knuckleheaded behavior of the "other side" for so many years. But, there is another way :o)

So, if I told you that I believe that women and men, not the state, should govern their individual reproductive futures that every single one of my friends, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to be as miserably – er as blissfully – wedded as the rest of us, would you call me a Democrat? And then if I told you that I believe the Second Amendment should be the First Amendment because the right of the individual to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property from theft by tyrants is the most important right of all, would you call me a Republican?

I could tell you a whole bunch of things that I believe – including that we currently live in a Cloud Cuckoo Land political regime rivaled only by the one we just left – but they wouldn’t fall under the pat philosophy of any one political party. I believe the right of each individual to his or her life, liberty, and bliss (i.e. our civil rights), is non negotiable and our rights are not to be sacrificed for whatever perceived "common good" comes down the pike, and that goes for both the Patriot Act and Cap and Trade. The individual good IS the common good.I believe that people mandate governments, not the other way around, as a lawful means of protecting our civil rights. I believe that emotional investment in a politician as a savior (thank you, K9) is as dangerous as using the text of the Bible as justification for law. I believe Crocs should be outlawed and people should put away their shopping carts when they’ve finished unloading their groceries. Oh, and I believe pork fat rules.

Troll: No doubt.

Making Space said...

Thanks for your response, Moi! I'm not sure what I'd call you, heh. But I wouldn't call you (or Mr. Diva) late for dinner, hardeeharharhar. Phew. I shall continue to cook. Woot!

EmmaK said...

Because we don't really want to DO SOMETHING

I don't know is it really that easy? The US infrastructure of cities, suburbs, highways, shit public transport etc makes it pretty difficult to live an environmentally friendly life unless you live in Oregon. The infrastructure is terrible, there are few cycle routes etc. I think to do something one would need to move to a big city like new york or maybe move to Europe where there are tiny cars, everything is recycled and in many ways it is a more environmentally friendly life.

Marko said...

Moi:

I have a theory as to your fish smell problem. In college, as a practical joke, I hid some smelts within the side view mirrors of a dude's car. He also had easy to remove hubcaps and I put some there also!

He couldn't figger out where the smell was coming from for weeks and the car became undrivable!

But, before you think I,m some Monster, I only did it in relation to a practical joke he had played on me!

He and couple other guys "walled" me while I was fast asleep!

M

Anonymous said...

[url=http://www.ile-maurice.com/forum/members/wetter-vorhersage.html][b]wetter forecast[/b][/url]

[url=http://www.ile-maurice.com/forum/members/wetter-vorhersage.html][b]wie ist das wetter[b][/url]

Anonymous said...

Hello.

A bank is a financial institution that accepts deposits and channels those deposits into lending activities. Banks primarily provide financial services to customers while enriching investors. Government restrictions on financial activities by banks vary over time and location. Banks are important players in financial markets and offer services such as investment funds and loans. In some countries such as Germany, bank have historically owned major stakes in industrial corporations while in other countries such as the United States bank are prohibited from owning non-financial companies. In Japan, banks are usually the nexus of a cross-share holding entity known as the keiretsu. In France, bancassurance is prevalent, as most banks offer insurance services (and now real estate services) to their clients.

The level of government regulation of the banking industry varies widely, with countries such as Iceland, having relatively light regulation of the banking sector, and countries such as China having a wide variety of regulations but no systematic process that can be followed typical of a communist system.[url=http://projectcontrol.v3host.nl]CLICK HERE[/url]

Anonymous said...

[url=http://www.facebook.com/pages/weathercom/298713874092l]www.weather.com[/url]