Posts Tagged ‘evidence’

Rick Perry Doesn’t Believe In Man-Made Global Warming. And Neither Should You If You’re Capable Of Thinking For Yourself.

August 22, 2011

To the left’s abject horror, Rick Perry doesn’t believe in anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming:

Perry: Theory on manmade global warming unproven, based on scientists manipulating data
 Article by: STEVE PEOPLES , Associated Press
Updated: August 18, 2011 – 3:30 AM

BEDFORD, N.H. – GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry told New Hampshire voters Wednesday that he does not believe in manmade global warming, calling it a scientific theory that has not been proven.
 
“I think we’re seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists that are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change,” the Texas governor said on the first stop of a two-day trip to the first-in-the-nation primary state.
 
He said some want billions or trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to address the issue, but he added: “I don’t think from my perspective that I want to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question.”
 
His comments came at a packed breakfast meeting with local business leaders in a region known for its strong environmental policies. And he made his global warming comment in response to a question by an audience member who cited evidence from the National Academy of Sciences.
 
But Perry’s opinion runs counter to the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet. Perry’s home state of Texas releases more heat-trapping pollution carbon dioxide — the chief greenhouse gas — than any other state in the country, according to government data.
 
Global warming has become an issue for contenders for the Republican nomination to run away from, since many conservatives question overwhelming evidence showing climate change is happening and the big government solutions to stem it.
 
Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney — who all at one point supported steps to curb global warming pollution — have since tempered their stances. But unlike Perry, both Romney and Huntsman acknowledge the scientific evidence.
 
On Wednesday, Perry promised to return regularly to a state that was not kind to a past Texas governor; Arizona Sen. John McCain upset GOP frontrunner and former Texas Gov. George W. Bush here in the 2000 presidential primary.
 
For many New Hampshire voters, Wednesday offered their first close look at the longtime Texas politician, who formally launched his White House bid over the weekend.
 
At the breakfast, Perry also questioned the loyalty of the Federal Reserve, just days after saying that if the Federal Reserve puts more money in the U.S. system, it could be considered a treasonous act that would be treated “pretty ugly” back home.
 
He noted the criticism he took for the comment, but did not back away from them. And he called on the institution to open its books.
 
“It would go a long way toward either finding out whether or not there is some activities that are improper of that they’ve been handling themselves quite well,” he said. “But until they do that, I think there will continue to be questions about their activity and what their true goal is for the United States.”
 
Perry also said he would not have signed the debt-ceiling compromise brokered by congressional leaders and the White House to avoid a national default.
 
“No I would not have signed it,” he said. “We got to quit spending money.”
 
Perry was meeting with more business leaders Wednesday before touring the seacoast region Thursday.

Let’s see: “Perry’s opinion runs counter to the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet.”  And “many conservatives question overwhelming evidence showing climate change is happening.”  This “journalist” loves the word “overwhelming.”

How about the first use?  Describing “the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists.”  Is that one legit?

Nope.  Fake.  Liberals created a false report and have kept coming back to their false report that confirmed their false assertion again and again and again.  I wrote about this bogus pseudo-consensus in my article entitled “What You Never Hear About Global Warming” that I wrote in June 2008.  And BELIEVE me that any “consensus” is a LOT THINNER since the Climategate shennigans emerged:

The truth of the matter is that scientists from around the world are having to gather to discuss academic misconduct – the falsification or misrepresentation of research data – which is described as an “open sore” in scientific research. But the media does not seem to be interested in anything that would undermine their narrative of a crisis caused by global warming.

History professor Naomi Oreskes’ 2004 paper purporting to show “a unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming” garnered a great deal of media exposure. However, Dr. Benny Peiser’s devastating refutation of that paper by revealing its terrible methodology was largely shunned. Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte provided another refutation of Oreskes’ work. No matter: Oreskes paper is accepted as gospel by global warming advocates and by the media. Thus a history professor with an obviously biased and flawed methodology declares a scientific consensus on man-caused global warming, and that view has become the gospel-truth with the media which disregards the truth in favor of a footnote that supports their agenda.

Dr. Benny Peiser went on to present an 18 April 2007 paper titled EDITORIAL BIAS AND THE PREDICTION OF CLIMATE DISASTER: THE CRISIS OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION at the conference “Climate Change: Evaluating Appropriate Responses” before the European Parliament. He said:

Over the last 10 years, the editors of the world’s leading science journals such as Science and Nature as well as popular science magazines such as Scientific American and New Scientist have publicly advocated drastic policies to curb CO2 emissions. At the same time, they have publicly attacked scientists skeptical of the climate consensus. The key message science editors have thus been sending out is brazen and simple: “The science of climate change is settled. The scientific debate is over. It’s time to take political action.”

Instead of serving as an honest and open-minded broker of scientific controversy, science editors have opted to take a rigid stance on the science and politics of climate change. In so doing, they have in effect sealed the doors for any critical assessment of the prevailing consensus which their journals officially sponsor. Consequently, their public endorsement undoubtedly deters critics from submitting falsification attempts for publication. Such critiques, not surprisingly, are simply non-existing in the mainstream science media.

Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, has decried the myth of “scientific consensus,” and pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists. He has also pointed out that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of GHG-induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed. But he has largely been ignored by the media. Other scientists, such as Dr. Richard S. Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have similarly come out to declare their scientific skepticism of global warming alarmism. “I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council’s report on adapting to global change.”

There are plenty of scientists who have officially put their skepticism to anthropogenic global warming in writing.  And that list is growing.

We had Climategate, in which it was revealed that numerous leading global climate change researchers were conspiring to conceal and even purge data and use “trick’s to conceal declines in temperaturesWe’ve also got NASA-gate.  The same NASA which has repeatedly “refused Freedom of Information requests on why it has repeatedly corrected its climate figures.”

Then there’s the issue of “WHAT THE SCIENCE REALLY SAYS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.”  And what the science says, in summary, is that we have overwhelming evidence of warming cycles that have repeatedly and routinely occurred in earth’s history throughout time about every 1,500 years.

And to make it worse for the proponents of man-made global warming, there is ALSO the fact that the same “global warming” that’s occurring on earth is occurring on other planets in our solar system which presumably don’t have carbon-spewing humans crawling all over them:

“Evidence that CO2 is not the principle driver of warming on this planet is provided by the simultaneous warming of other planets and moons in our solar system, despite the fact that they obviously have no anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Mars, Triton, Pluto and Jupiter all show global warming, pointing to the Sun as the dominating influence in determining climate throughout the solar system.”

Finally, I urge you to read the following easy-to-understand article that explains why this argument was framed by people who had little interest in “science” and basically framed the issue in a way which DEMANDED a conclusion that man was to blame:

An inconvenient truth: SOS from Al Gore
BY PATRICK BEDARD, September 2006
 
He’s baack! Just when you thought the scolding was over and it was safe to pull your ear plugs out, Al Gore has a brand-new harangue going.

Actually, it’s the same old doomsday prediction he’s been peddling since he was a senator bucking to be President back in the ’90s, only this time it’s packaged as a 94-minute film. An Inconvenient Truth previewed at the Sundance Film Festival last January. “This is activist cinema at its very best,” said the official festival guide.

You can guess what activated him; his long-playing paranoia about global warming. He and the mainstream media say it’s a done deal. We’re toast.

“Be Worried. Be Very Worried,” blared the cover of Time in April. “Climate change isn’t some vague future problem — it’s already damaging the planet at an alarming pace. Here’s how it affects you, your kids, and their kids as well.”

This is, by the way, the same Time that was telling us as late as 1983 to be worried, very worried, that temperatures were descending into another era of “glaciation.”

Gore’s “inconvenient truth” is that — there’s no tactful way to say this — we gas-guzzling, SUV-flaunting, comfort-addicted humans, wallowing in our own self-indulgences, have screwed up the planet. We’ve hauled prodigious quantities of fossil fuels out of the ground where they belong, combusted them to release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the sky where it shouldn’t be, and now we’re going to burn for our sins.

This feverish sort of should-and-shouldn’t evangelism plays particularly well these days among those who are looking for something to believe that carries no obligation to sit in a church pew. Nature has left us no scripture, so Gore can preach it as he feels it. Faith, brother. Don’t even pretend to understand. Anyway, humans, except for the rare enlightened ones like Al Gore, are alien trespassers in nature.

Let’s not dispute the earth’s temperature. It’s warmer than it used to be. As an Iowa farm boy, I learned about the soil we tilled. Most of Iowa is flat, graded smooth by glaciers. The rocks we plowed up in the fields, or plowed around if they were big, were rounded in shape. The glacier tumbled them as it scraped along, and it ground their corners off.

The North American ice sheets reached their largest expanse about 18,000 years ago and then began to recede. Within 5000 years they had pulled back considerably but still reached south as far as central Ohio. After another thousand years, however, the U.S. was largely ice-free.

Needless to say, there have been no glaciers reported in Iowa as long as anyone can remember. It’s warmer now. And if it would just warm up a bit more, fewer Iowans would need to trot off to Florida, Texas, and Arizona during deepest winter.

The long absence of farm-belt glaciers confirms an inconvenient truth that Gore chooses to ignore. The warming of our planet started thousands of years before SUVs began adding their spew to the greenhouse. Indeed, the whole greenhouse theory of global warming goes wobbly if you just change one small assumption.

Logic and chemistry say all CO2 is the same, whether it blows out of a Porsche tailpipe or is exhaled from Al Gore’s lungs or wafts off my compost pile or the rotting of dead plants in the Atchafalaya swamp.

“Wrong,” say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man’s contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature’s, and that only man’s exhaustings count.

Let’s review the greenhouse theory of global warming. Our planet would be one more icy rock hurtling through space at an intolerable temperature were it not for our atmosphere. This thin layer of gases — about 95 percent of the molecules live within the lowest 15 miles — readily allows the sun’s heat in but resists its reradiation into space. Result: The earth is warmed.
 
The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapor, up to four percent by volume.

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.

Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.

They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it’s a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”

When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

If everyone knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, why do Al Gore and so many others focus on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapor is almost entirely natural. It’s beyond the reach of man’s screwdriver. But when the delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto in December 1997 to discuss global climate change, they could hardly vote to do nothing. So instead, they agreed that the developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. At the top of the list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapor, but unquestionably man’s largest contribution.

In deciding that it couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warning. But that’s an inconvenient truth that wouldn’t make much of a movie.

Notice that the article acknowledges that it is getting warmer now.  Also notice that the author basically points out that “Greenland” is called “Greenland” because it used to be very GREEN rather than white with ice and snow.  And the glaciers that are melting now have formed, melted, formed again and melted again, over and over. 

It also points out that the global warming theorists arbitrarily decided to rule out 99.9 percent of the greenhouse gases that generate global warming in order to focus on the 3.2 percent of the man-caused carbon dioxide which is itself just one-tenth of one percent of said total global warming greenhouse gasses.

I’ll tell you what: Rick Perry says he doesn’t want to be forced to gut the American economy by forcing it to pay the $76 TRILLION that the United Nations says we need to fork out to “solve” the “crisis” of global warming.

If you want to doubt Rick Perry, fine: just bankrupt yourself by sending every single penny you’ve got to the U.N. and go crawl under a rock until you starve.  But please don’t inflict your foolishness on rational people who frankly have a lot more problems than global warming to worry about.

Advertisements

Racist Left Seeks To Employ Racist Plants To Falsely Depict ‘Evidence’ Of Tea Party Racism

April 13, 2010

There’s a response to name-calling that many children have at one time or another employed: to say, “I know you are, but what am I?”  It actually works to a ‘T’ against leftist attacks against the tea party of being a bunch of racists.

The fact of the matter is that the tea party is composed of a FAR broader and more representative spectrum of the American people than anything the Democrats – who have rammed most of their boondoggle policies through on strictly partisan votes – can claim.

Just about everybody has heard about the allegations of racism at the March 20th tea party rally in Washington D.C.  At that rally, Democrat legislators deliberately went through the tea party protesters in order to try to gin up a reaction (They had seventeen different routes they could have taken which would NOT have taken them through the tea party crowd).  Interestingly, the Democrats’ tactic was markedly similar to the National Socialist Party of America’s infamous march through the heavily Jewish populated town of Skokie, Illinois – only the Democrats didn’t appear to get the rise out of the crowd that they were hoping for.

Not to worry.  They invented “incidents” – and the lamestream media propaganda machine reported these “incidents” as though they were facts rather than merely unsubstantiated politically-motivated accusations.

Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 to anyone who had any video or audio evidence that any “racist” incident occurred.  There were thousands of people with cell phone cameras and other audio-visual devices.  But nothing.  The lack of evidence IS evidence in this case.  And in fact, the actual evidence even demonstrates that the Democrats making these allegations were stone-cold race-baiting liars.

But when you are on the left, you don’t need facts.  All you need is a narrative such as, “We already KNOW all tea party people are a bunch of racists, so our accusation of racism at a tea party event must be true.”

Now we are finding out that leftists have been seeking to brand the tea party as “racists” are literally seeking plants to go into tea party events and fabricate their own examples of “tea party racism.”

As one example of this, there is the CrashTheTeaParty.org movement.  As Newsbusters reports:

Their plan is to “infiltrate” Tea Party protests to create the false impression that protesters are racists by … being racists. That’s right, they will bring with them offensive signs and give wildly offensive interviews to reporters, all with the intention of smearing a movement that wouldn’t bring those signs or give those interviews themselves. It remains to be seen whether the mainstream media will take the bait.

This is nothing new.  Saul Alinsky advised students to falsely demonize the right by planting people in Ku Klux Klan robes at conservative speeches in the 1970s.  More recently, the Democrat headquarters in Denver, Colorado had a brick thrown threw a window during the health care debate last year – by a Democrat.

Will Mainstream Media reporters and editors expose, screen out, or help Tea Party saboteurs?
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
04/11/10 3:06 PM EDT

Have you seen the “Crash the Tea Party” web site? It’s among the most illustrative expressions ever of the thirst on the Left to suppress dissent by whatever means are necessary. It is Saul Alinsky on steroids.

Whoever is behind the site claims that it represents “a nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are all sick and tired of that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes and morons; who constitute the fake grassroots movement, which calls itself ‘the Tea Party.'”

That’s another way of saying that most Americans are racists, homophobes and morons, since there is abundant and growing evidence that the Tea Partiers are more representative of the center-right conservative majority of Americans than President Obama.

But then the Left has always been about an elitist minority of power-hungry ideologues telling the rest of us what to do, so no surprise there.

Where Crash the Tea Party really gets interesting, though, is in its description of its purpose: “To dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary.” But if the average American is really as sick and twisted as the geniuses behind Crash the Party claim, why rule out the use of violence to demolish them?

The answer, of course, is that inclusion of the “non-violent” qualifier is for show; historically, once Leftists gain power, they always use violence to “dismantle and demolish” all opposition (See Lenin, Stalin, the Gulag, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, etc.).

Now comes the aspect of Crash the Tea Party that ought to get the attention of all mainstream media journalists: Crash the Party is undertaking to sabotoge Tea Party events by “infiltrating the Tea Party itself” and then acting “in ways which exaggerate their least-appealing qualities (misspelled signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.).”

In other words, some on the Left in American politics are running a KGB-like “false flag” operation to discredit the Tea Party. They couldn’t sell the transparently nonsensical idea that Tea Partiers are just a bunch of racists, homophobes and morons, so the Crash the Party agents on the Left are infiltrating the Tea Party in order to pose as a bunch of racists, homophobes and morons.

It’s a classic KGB-style disinformation campaign. Will mainstream media editors and reporters be fooled? Will they know it when they are being scammed by Crash the Party? Will they expose Crash the Party operatives or cooperate with them in their effort to misrepresent millions of Americans?

It’s going to be an interesting spring and summer.

HT: Examiner contributor Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.

And of course we know what the mainstream media will do: because they have become the very sort of Joseph Goebbels demagogic Ministry-of-Propaganda-type media ideologues who have been the rule of every single leftwing totalitarian government apparatus in history.

Had the media reported on the March 20 tea party event honestly, they would have actually bothered to check the evidence before running the story of racism – and they would have at very least reported that no supporting evidence of any such claim actually existed.

These are bad people doing this stuff, and it is bad people who are reporting it as news as though it were true.