I read the Los Angeles Times this morning. It’s an ugly, nasty habit that I usually do wearing only underwear while sipping on hot, black water that is supposed to pass for coffee. When I go out to pick up the paper on the driveway (I’m usually wearing a robe for that trick), I always wish I were rich enough to be able to afford an actual NEWSPAPER like the Wall Street Journal.
Because advertisers clearly think the LA Times is an ugly, nasty habit, too.
I take my shower after reading the Times. Otherwise, I’d have to take another one after throwing the bird-cage-liner down in disgust.
Anyway, with that undoubtedly unwanted description of my morning habits aside, what I found this morning was in many ways par for the course, but I thought I’d share it with you anyway.
We all have our newspaper peccadillos. I remember my dad always reading the sports page first and my mom always reading the comics first. I always read the op-ed section first, my theory apparently being to start the day annoyed and then just keep adding caffeine to it. So I come across the usual “climate change” garbage from the unhinged left.
The content of the leftwing op-eds really isn’t that important, but I found the online versions just to show you what I saw. The first was titled (in the print version of the LA Times) “Stanford’s Choice.” The author of the piece doesn’t think energy or anything produced by energy is quite expensive enough, and demands a carbon tax. You know, help the planet, screw the human race. The second one (titled, “Storm clouds over climate policy” began thus:
Miami will likely be underwater before the Senate can muster enough votes to meaningfully confront climate change. And probably Tampa and Charleston, too—two other cities that last week’s National Climate Assessment placed at maximum risk from rising sea levels.
Even as studies proliferate on the dangers of a changing climate, the issue’s underlying politics virtually ensure that Congress will remain paralyzed over it indefinitely. That means the U.S. response for the foreseeable future is likely to come through executive-branch actions, such as the regulations on carbon emissions from power plants that the Environmental Protection Agency is due to propose next month. And that means climate change will likely spike as a point of conflict in the 2016 presidential race.
Well, I could either have given up and gone back to bed to hide from all the moral idiots or I could face the day. So, bravely – and with another hit of caffeine – I turned the paper over in disgust to the front page news section. And the most interesting story was about ancient skeletal human remains found some 12,000 years ago in an underwater cave. So I read it. And I’ll reproduce it for you here and stop at the point that put all of the above into the “idiot” context that the two above articles deserve:
DNA from skull links Ice Age girl to Native Americans alive today
By Monte Morin
May 15, 2014
The divers called her Naia, for “water nymph,” because they discovered her teenage remains in a dark, underwater cave in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula.
She had been hidden there for more than 12,000 years — along with the bones of dozens of extinct Ice Age beasts — and divers quickly spotted her skull as they swept the chamber with flashlights.
“It was a small cranium laying upside-down with a perfect set of teeth and dark eye sockets looking back at us,” recalled diver Alberto Nava of Bay Area Underwater Explorers, a nonprofit conservation organization based in Berkeley.
On Thursday, researchers published a formal analysis of Naia’s skeletal remains in the journal Science, calling it the oldest, most complete specimen ever discovered in the Americas.
The study authors say the buck-toothed 15- or 16-year-old girl did not resemble today’s Native Americans — her cheeks were narrow and her forehead very high — but that her mitochondrial DNA reveals she is related to 11% of living American Indians, and links them genetically to a population of early humans who inhabited a land now submerged beneath the Bering Sea.
The researchers say the girl was probably very slight and stood just 4 feet, 10 inches tall. Her eyes were wide-set and low, and her nose was broad.
Carbon-dating of her teeth and isotope data from crystals that formed on her bones helped study authors determine that the girl lived 12,000 to 13,000 years ago in what would have been a very parched environment. They believe she was probably searching for water when she entered a dark, underground cave and then plummeted 100 feet into the massive chamber now called Hoyo Negro, or black hole.
Unable to escape — her hip bone shattered from the fall — she died amid a menagerie of similarly doomed megafauna, including saber-toothed cats, elephant-like gomphotheres and giant sloths. As the Ice Age ended and glaciers melted, sea levels rose and slowly filled the chamber with water, sealing it off from humanity.
Or at least it did until 2007, when scuba divers first explored the natural ossuary and discovered “a time capsule” of Central American life at the end of the Ice Age, according to study leader James Chatters, a paleoarchaeologist at Applied Paleoscience, a private research company in Bothell, Wash.
Well, allow me to wrap this package up in a nice little bow for you.
“Miami will likely be underwater before the Senate can muster enough votes to meaningfully confront climate change…” the snotty leftwing turd begins his piece.
You know what, idiot? IT PROBABLY WILL BE UNDERWATER.
Because that’s kind of what happens over time, isn’t it? And anybody who has any connection whatsoever to something called “reality” understands that.
To put it in biblical terms, “There’s nothing new under the sun.” — Ecclesiastes 1:9
Including “global warming,” “climate change,” ice ages and melting glaciers. This old earth has had them all before and it’s had them all keep happen in cycles that keep repeating over and over and over again.
The only thing that IS apparently new is a particularly loathsome species of whackjob liberal who runs around like Chicken Little screaming about the falling sky because they are totally ignorant about the fact that the damn sky falls every single night. The only thing that IS new is complete jackass idiots who in the name of global warming “science” pronounce “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
But children DO know what snow is. The problem is that global warming morons don’t know what truth is. They don’t know what reality is. And therefore they don’t know what facts are.
When I first heard the phrase, “global warming,” I had no ideological axe to grind. I was (and remain) an evangelical Christian who believes the Bible and therefore believes biblical prophecy. And of course there is all kinds of stuff about crazy weather in the last days. I was QUITE ready to accept the hypothesis that the climate was changing.
Do you want to know what tipped me off that these leftists had their skulls filled with cockroach poop? When I subsequently heard about the 1995 Kyoto Protocol on global warming. The thing that they did – which STILL proves the whole issue is either a giant load of crap or is being treated LIKE a giant load of crap by those pushing its agenda – was say a) global warming gasses present a clear and present danger to human existence and b) we’ll allow China, Russia, India and all the third world nations to keep spewing the pollution that is murdering the planet and only annihilate all the western free market-based economies instead.
This was NEVER about “science.” This is and always has been about politics and the socialist redistribution of wealth in the name of “science.”
A short article by Patrick Bedard exposes the fraud that is “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever the hell these propagandists will call it next after their current lies are exposed:
An Inconvenient Truth: SOS from Al Gore
September 2006
BY PATRICK BEDARD
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.
Do you understand the bait and switch? “Global warming” – redubbed “climate change” as too many lies were discovered to call it “global warming” any longer – was always and remains always about POLITICS rather than “science.”
CO2 is responsible for less than 0.1 percent of our “global warming” gasses. That is simply a fact of science. Moreover, CO2 is a gas that is actually fundamentally necessary for the existence of life. It is NOT a pollutant; LIBERALISM is a pollutant.
I read a book titled, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years that just blew the “anthropocentric global warming” garbage right out of the water. Every single measurement science has taken, ice core samples, sea core samples, sediment samples, tree ring samples, fossil records, pollen records, records of human descriptions of climate throughout history, you name it, has over and over and over again conclusively documented that there is a recurring PATTERN of climate change. In fact legitimate science has discovered that there have been 600 natural 1,500 year climate cycles over the past 1 million years. What we’re seeing now is absolutely NOTHING new; in fact the warming period that the Roman Empire flourished under was warmer than our temperatures now. Without there being so much as a single SUV to blame it on. I wrote an article titled, “What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming” to summarize what I learned.
I always bring this up – you know, “facts,” to people who believe in human-caused global warming. I point out the “600 natural, 1,500 year climate cycles over the past million years” thing. I bring up the fact that if humans are the cause of global warming/climate change on earth they must also be the cause of the same thing happening in the other planets of our solar system. I point out that Michael Mann’s famous – I submit INFAMOUS – “hockey stick graph” that was frankly proven to be a fraud years ago nevertheless had temperatures skyrocketing into the future. Whereas in actuality we have had ZERO global warming for the last sixteen freaking years. I’ve seen and documented many outright frauds committed in the name of “science.” What does it take for even our biggest idiots to realize these people are just WRONG??? And they invariably just look at me with these empty, vacuous eyes that other than size are identical with COW eyes. I am looking through a set of glazed lenses directly into a brain with a completely synapse-free environment.
The human beings who believe they can stop climate change with the power of human government are morally, spiritually and intellectually the equivalents of the fools who built the Tower of Babel to get to where God was. It is a stupid, futile endeavor that will fail to the extent that the people pushing it even have any intention whatsoever to actually DO anything about it versus just seize trillions of dollars – $76 trillion, to be specific – so that they can “reward their friends and punish their enemies” via a massive totalitarian government takeover of everyone and everything that interferes with their socialist (i.e., crony capitalist fascist) agenda.
If you believe that the United Nations with $76 trillion of Other People’s Money will stop global warming, you are an idiot. And if you have seventeen freaking PhDs and you think the United Nations with $76 trillion of Other People’s Money will stop global warming you are an even BIGGER idiot – because at some damn point in your educational process you should have actually learned something and finally figured something out and finally learned how to get a damned clue.
It’s biblical, again: “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” — 2 Timothy 3:7
What we are seeing from the ideological left – and that very much includes the entire movement behind “climate change” – is a rabid, fascist intolerance that has come to be the ESSENCE of the left and everything the left touches. You talk about “journalism” (see more here) which today is another word for “propaganda” thanks to the left; you talk about unhinged, doctrinaire bias and intellectual discrimination in our universities (see more here) where you find a level of ideological “purity” that is “statistically impossible” apart from rabid purges of any pro-conservative thought whatsoever.
And so:
SAN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.
Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”
It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.
“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.
“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”
For the official damn record, THAT is what happened to “climate change scientists.”
And so let’s consider the “science” of “climate change” and the “scientists” who have fabricated the “consensus” that we keep hearing about:
A climate change researcher has claimed that scientists are confusing their role as impartial observers with green activism after his paper challenging predictions about the speed of global warming was rejected because it was seen as “less than helpful.”
Professor Lennart Bengtsson says recent McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics forced him to resign from his post on a climate sceptic think-tank.
The research fellow from the University of Reading believes a paper he co-authored was deliberately suppressed from publicatoin in a leading journal because of an intolerance of dissenting views about climate change by scientists who peer-reviewed the work.
“The problem we have now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist,” he told the Times.
Professor Bengtsson claims a scientist advised that the paper, which challenged findings that global temperature would increase by 4.5C if greenhouse gases were to double, should not be published in a respected journal because it was “less than helpful.”
The unnamed scientist, who was asked to peer review Professor Bengtsson’s paper, said in his comments: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics side.”
The paper, co-authored with four other scientists, challenged the findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but was rejected by Environmental Research Letters published by the Institute of Physics, one of the most highly regarded journals in the area.
Professor Bengtsson said he accepted emissions would increase the global temperature but questioned the rate at which this would take place and suggested more work needed to be done to determine this.
However he said it was unacceptable that a paper was rejected on the basis it might advance the argument of climate sceptics, as he suggested scientists were losing their impartial role.
He added: “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views.”
We are routinely finding that climatologists who are in ANY way, shape or form skeptical of the garbage that is the global warming alarmist industry are intimidated, threatened, purged and at LEAST find themselves marginalized and excluded from funding.
I am beyond SICK of rabid fascists imposing themselves on every sphere across the board, be it “science,” “morality,” “religion,” you name it – these people have perverted it and distorted it and have created a system that rewards themselves and their allies while punishing everyone who won’t knuckle under to them.
This climate change is a pile of crap driven by biased ideologues who are FAR more “politician” or “bureaucrat” than they have EVER been “scientists.”
I’ll close with this point about how truly morally idiotic progressive liberalism has become as epitomized in Nancy Pelosi’s shrill rant, “I’m trying to save the planet! I’m trying to save the planet!”
By their own count (as opposed to young earth Creationism’s most radical interpretation based on Usher’s Chronology) Earth is over 4.5 BILLION years old. Anyone who isn’t a complete fool knows that planet Earth has been around a very long time and will continue to be around for a very long time. But liberals, being irrational, believe they need to save it. And because of that liberals, being truly demonically evil, also believe that in order to “save the planet” humans need to be treated like a cancer and exterminated:
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society
“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
– United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]
Of course, for liberals, “saving the planet” is always done at the expense of OTHER people. So they demand the right to spend Other People’s Money and they demand the right to exterminate Other People.
Liberals have murdered fifty-five million babies. And like the Islamic fascists talking about the Jews murdered in the Holocaust, if you bring up the 55 million they’ve murdered in their abortion mills they say, “Not enough!”
Let me say it again: Earth has been around for over 4.5 billion years and it will be around for a long time to come. And you are a true idiot indeed if you believe somebody’s SUV is going to kill the Earth.
Real scientists – rather than the pseudo-scientist whores who have prostituted themselves for their pimp Sugar Daddy “Climate Change” – have documented that we’ve had over 600 climate change cycles over the past one million years. And since a billion is a thousand million, and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, by that count we’ve had 2,700,000 cycles of climate change.
But Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and every liberal are vowing that we’re not going to have 2,700,001 cycles on their watch. Not even if they have to spend $76 trillion of Other People’s Money to do it.
I suppose they have a slightly better chance of succeeding at stopping climate change than they would have of stopping the sun from going down at night. But not by much.
Earth doesn’t need “saving.”
Do you know what DOES need saving? The republic.
Unlike planet Earth, which has been around for a very long time and won’t be going away anytime soon, nations and even civilizations have come and gone with dismaying frequency.
Ours is in jeopardy.
The United States of America is the oldest nation on earth, in terms of the antiquity of its Constitution which birthed it. Many nations came before America; many nations have risen and collapsed since our republic was formed.
As we speak, liberals are murdering America with crushing debt that we cannot possibly repay and which will ultimately cause our certain collapse.
In 2012 – thanks almost ENTIRELY to liberals and their morally insane fascist policies – the U.S. fiscal gap (our assets minus our unfunded liabilities) was $222 TRILLION according to the Congressional Budget Office.
That gap is growing by a rapidly accelerating pace as the cumulative weight of our interest on our debt piles higher and higher. In 2012, it grew by $11 trillion. It will continue to grow by a more and more insane figure every single year until America implodes. So we’re probably close to a true “national debt” of nearing $250 trillion today.
Currently, we’re able to get away with this madness because as a result of American dominance in the aftermath of World War II the United States is the world’s “reserve currency,” with most commodities being bought and sold entirely in U.S. dollars. That will end soon; it simply has to. And America will financially collapse overnight in a manner that will make the Great Depression seem like a sunny day on a lovely beach.
What needs “saving”?
Liberals aren’t “saving the planet.” They are destroying America. And their destruction will bear terrible, lethal fruit very soon.
Start Thinking Right 