Sunday, June 29, 2014

The Supreme Court still buying into Global Warming Junk Science

Recently a fractured Supreme Court largely upheld the EPA Environmental Protection Agency’s radical rule designed to shut down the power plants that produce the most affordable electricity. The justices continue to accept the EPA’s labeling of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.” This harmless gas, the agency insists, is melting the planet.

Only the brave deny man’s responsibility for super-heating the globe in precincts where the wise and wonderful (just ask them) gather to reassure each other than they know best. “We know the trends,” President Obama told the graduates at the University of California at Irvine the other day. “The 18 warmest years on record have all happened since you graduates were born.”

The charts and graphs devised by NASA and the government’s other science agencies back up the president’s words. And well they should, because the charts, like the “science,” were faked.

The “Steven Goddard Real Science” blog compares the raw U.S. temperature records from the Energy Department’s United States Historical Climatology Network to the “final” processed figures, to demonstrate how the historical data have been “corrected,” using computer modeling.

The modifications made to the past temperature record had the effect of cooling the 20th century, which makes temperatures over the last 14 years appear much warmer by comparison. Such changes don’t square with history, which shows the decade of the 1930s the hottest on record. The Dust Bowl storms were so severe they sent clouds of debris from Texas and Oklahoma to the East Coast, even darkening the skies over the U.S. Capitol one day in 1934.

In an inconvenient article from 1999, written before the data had been “corrected,” James Hansen, then a NASA scientist, acknowledged that the climate had held steady after the Dust Bowl storms. “In the U.S.,” wrote Mr. Hansen, “there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.” Mr. Hansen, recognized as a godfather of the global warming doomcriers, then predicted that the first decade of the 21st century would be even hotter than the 1930s.

To produce this hotter result, the scientists “adjusted” the temperature records to make it appear so. NASA redrew the temperature chart Mr. Hansen used in 1999, and the new chart shows a dramatically cooled 1930s. The 1990s that Mr. Hansen once said were not so hot became warmer than the 1930s.

With the global warming scam unraveling before his very eyes, President Obama and his administration want action now. “The question is not whether we need to act,” says Mr. Obama. “The overwhelming judgment of science, accumulated and measured and reviewed over decades, has put that question to rest. The question is whether we have the will to act before it’s too late.”

Too late for what? The planetary thermometer hasn’t budged in 15 years. Wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes and other “extreme” weather events are at normal or below-normal levels. Pacific islands aren’t submerged. There’s so much ice the polar bears are celebrating.

Read More: Washington Times

Thursday, June 26, 2014

76 Percent Think IRS Destroyed Lerner E-mails

A new Fox News survey tested Team Obama’s credibility: "The Internal Revenue Service says that two years of emails from IRS employees about targeting conservative and tea party groups were accidentally destroyed because of a computer crash and cannot be recovered. Do you believe the IRS that the emails were destroyed accidentally or do you think they were destroyed deliberately?"

The answer: only 12 percent believe the lame “accidentally destroyed” thesis, and 76 percent picked “deliberately.” Asked if Congress should keep probing, 74 percent said yes. No one at the networks will be touching this poll, but James Taranto at The Wall Street Journal wondered:

What percentage of respondents do you think believe the IRS?

We'd have said between 30% and 40%. The administration, backed by its allies in the Democratic Party and the media, has cast the scandal in partisan terms, as a Republican witch hunt. Obama himself told Fox's Bill O'Reilly in February that while "there were some bone-headed decisions," there was no "mass corruption. Not even a smidgen of corruption."

Given the partisan polarization of America's political culture--a long-term trend that predates Obama's presidency but certainly has not been arrested by it--we'd have expected at least Obama's hard-core political base to express support for the IRS position.
He was shocked by the 12 percent: “That's congressional-approval-rating territory." Jennifer Harper at the Washington Times included the partisan breakdown: 90 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of independents, and even 63 percent of Democrats aren't buying the "accidentally destroyed" claim...and 66 percent of Democrats back more congressional investigation.
Taranto concluded:
The president's claim that there was no corruption never quite made logical sense. To believe it, you have to accept two premises: that the IRS acted on its own, without direction from the White House or other politicians; and that it did so incompetently rather than corruptly. Both these premises could be true. But if the first one is--if the problem at the IRS was the lack of supervision rather than the following of corrupt orders from above--then Obama is in no position to make authoritative declarations about what the IRS was up to.

The Fox poll is a stunning vote of no confidence not just in the Obama administration but in the government itself. Public skepticism of government is a healthy impulse, and in this case it seems fully warranted. A government that cannot inspire even a minimal degree of public confidence is a danger to itself and to the country.
Hat Tip to: NewsBusters

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Greenpeace Flavored Green Hypocrisy

One of Greenpeace’s most senior executives commutes 250 miles to work by plane, despite the environmental group’s campaign to curb air travel, it has emerged. 

Pascal Husting, Greenpeace International’s international programme director, said he began "commuting between Luxembourg and Amsterdam" when he took the job in 2012 and currently made the round trip about twice a month.
The flights, at 250 euros for a round trip, are funded by Greenpeace, despite its campaign to curb "the growth in aviation", which it says "is ruining our chances of stopping dangerous climate change”. 

One Greenpeace volunteer on Monday described Mr Husting's travel arrangements as "almost unbelievable". 

Another said they were cancelling their payments to support Greenpeace in the wake of the disclosure and series of other damaging revelations of of disarray and financial mismanagement at the organization, in documents leaked to the Guardian newspaper

Greenpeace was last week forced to apologise for a "serious error of judgment" after it emerged that it had lost £3m of public donations when a member of staff took part in unauthorised currency dealing. 

Each round-trip commute Mr Husting makes would generate 142kg of carbon dioxide emissions, according to airline KLM. 

That implies that over the past two years his commuting may have been responsible for 7.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions - the equivalent of consuming 17 barrels of oil, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. 

But Mr Husting defended the arrangement, telling the Telegraph that while he would "rather not take" the journey it was necessary as it would otherwise be "a twelve hour round trip by train". 

"I spend half my life on skype and video conference calls," he said. "But as a senior manager, the people who work in my team sometimes need to meet me in the flesh, that’s why I’ve been going to Amsterdam twice a month while my team was being restructured." 

He said that from September he would switch to making the trip once a month by train due to "the work of restructuring my team coming to an end, and with my kids a little older". 

The head of Greenpeace in the UK on Monday denied that funding Mr Husting's commute showed a lack of integrity.

Read More: The Telegraph

The US has been cooling since the 1930s

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century. 

When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology. 

via: The Telegraph

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Some of the Reviews of Hillary's New Book are not so kind

There are plenty of wonderful reviews of Hillary Clinton's new book. I guarantee that some of these same reviews were written far ahead of the book release. 

What I did find, is an interesting lot of bad reviews that were not so glowing. Alas, I am sure, that many of these were written without a thorough read as well. But, I figured, they are at least good for a laugh.  SF

Sickening: I became violently ill before finishing the first chapter and had to burn it in a bio-hazard incinerator. Dangerous stuff.

Boring: The directions on shampoo were more interesting than this. I feel like the Clintons owe me 4 hours of my life back.

Toilet Paper: Totally unequivocally pure unadulterated stinky no good terrible crap. I would not recommend using this as toilet paper, maybe kindling, do not waste your money.

Lies start with Cover Photo: Who is that person on the cover of the book? It isn’t Hillary, as Hillary has more wrinkles than Rip Van Winkle.

Putrid partisan puke: Acquired this steaming load of tightly coiled excrement from a friend who warned me of its content but as the fool I am, I read it anyway…. well, as far as I could get before my digestive tract rebelled in an excellent demonstration of sympathetic nervous system functioning.

I feel so sorry for her I had to buy this book: How did she survive leaving the White House dead broke? They could hardly pay their multiple mortgages for their multiple houses, send Chelsea to Columbia, carpet bag in New York, or anything! And no help from the United Way, Salvation Army, or Pants Suits for the Homeless. Oh, the horror!

Book sucks: Her last book is on sale @ Amazon for .1 cent…. kinda tells one how acclaimed this book is… pure trash…

Time to wake up America: Boring, nothing of substance, and purely a transparent ramp up to her 2016 campaign. Voters made a terrible decision (twice) putting an unqualified candidate in the oval office. Time to wise up America and stop electing ideologues, or candidates for “historical” reasons and elect qualified candidates who can lead. To the libs questioning reviewers ability to read a paltry 600 pages in a day, I will point out that is pretty slow when compared to all of the democrats who read the 20,000+ ACA bill overnight.

Beyond Pathetic: So out of touch with the American people. A liar, & & & oh well at this point WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES MAKE??? I would NOT recommend this to no one, not even my dog.

How is this NO.2 on Amazon? Did the clinton camp and associates buy up all the books to keep it at the top like they did in the past? Bought this locally and it is full of lies and subtle blame games. She has no record other than being a failure.

Horrible! Just Horrible! Wow, I don’t know what made Hillary think she had enough literary skill to write in complete sentences, but this is not helping her case. Even the “hard” choices she talks about, without spoiling anything, are so dull and lacking in expression, I really thought I was reading a weekly journal or something. Just horrible. The most boring thing I have EVER read. This does NOT make me excited to think of her giving ANY Presidential speech or presentation. What was she thinking!!!!??? DO NOT BUY!

Booooorrrrriiiiiinnngggggggg! Thank you Hillary for curing my insomnia. I now just pick up you book and within seconds I’m asleep. And just what exactly were the “hard choices” you made? There clearly aren’t any of them listed in this piece-of-crap book.

75 year old brain damaged grandmother: Absolute garbage. Another reminder why this evil, disgusting person needs to be prevented from ever again entering the white house or into any position of power.

Poll Tested, Blow Dried Tripe for Political Fodder: More mumbo jumbo from the political set. I think a Putin book of his speeches would be as or more enlightening!!

That's just for starters. The rest of the fun at: Truth Revolt

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Chris Hedges: Plagiarist, Pulitzer Winner and Left Wing Idiot

Chris Hedges is a big deal in left-wing circles, and according to the left-wing New Republic, Hedges is also a serial plagiarizer. Writer Christopher Ketcham details a list of incidents going all the way back to Hedges first book, which was published in 2002.

Apparently, it all began to unravel in 2010 after Hedges submitted a manuscript to Harper's and the magazine's fact checkers found numerous incidents of not only plagiarism, but Hedges claiming original reporting done by others as his own. 

The trouble began when Ross passed the piece along to the fact-checker assigned to the story. As Ross and the fact-checker began working through the material, they discovered that sections of Hedges’s draft appeared to have been lifted directly from the work of a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter named Matt Katz, who in 2009 had published a four-part series on social and political dysfunction in Camden.
Ketcham summarizes it as a "leading moralist on the left … caught plagiarizing at one of the oldest magazines on the left." 

In Hedges' book, "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning," which Ketcham describes as a "classic," Hedges apparently went so far as to plagiarize Ernest Hemingway. After being caught, for later editions, Hedges changed the wording a bit but still (and without attribution) stole original ideas and thoughts from the author's "A Farewell to Arms." 

The New Republic details disturbing and chronic incidents of Hedges' plagiarism -- where he lifted from and/or published in a number of elite, left-wing magazines and websites, including Harpers, Salon, Truthdig, and the Nation. 

According to Ketcham, this detailed reporting on Hedges "first took shape as an investigation for The American Prospect and then for Salon, both of which eventually declined to publish it."

Most of the allegations against Hedges go well beyond the kind of honest mistakes those of us who write for a living live in fear of making: forgetting to link a source or inadvertently plagiarizing simply because you forgot to put something in block quotes. NRO's Jonah Goldberg puts it best:

As a busy guy with lots of deadlines, I’ve always understood and feared the dangerous possibility of sloppily copying something by mistake. What I have never been able to get my mind around is willful, sustained, and clearly deliberate plagiarism — particularly when committed by very successful writers. I can see why some insecure kid might do something stupid. I don’t condone it, I can just understand it. But how do you explain Chris Hedges? If this New Republic piece is right, then he’s a grotesque and wanton plagiarist.

What happens now? Will Hedges' publishers (book, magazine, and digital) do the right thing and investigate his work fully. The fact that The American Prospect and Salon refused to publish Ketcham's investigative piece is not a good sign that the organized left is eager to face the idea of holding one of their cherished own accountable.

via: Breitbart

VIDEO Biden Predicted Iraq Would Be "One Of The Great Achievements Of The Obama Administration"

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Funnies From Arthur: Gov't Authority Over All

A DEA officer stopped at a ranch in Texas , and talked with an old rancher.

He told the rancher, "I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs."

The rancher said, "Okay , but don't go in that field over there.....", as he pointed out the location.

The DEA officer verbally exploded saying, " Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me !"

Reaching into his rear pants pocket, he removed his badge and proudly displayed it to the rancher.

"See this badge?!  This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish.... On any land !!

No questions asked or answers given!!  Have I made myself you understand ?!!"

The rancher nodded politely, apologized, and went about his chores.

A short time later, the old rancher heard loud screams, looked up, and saw the DEA officer running for his life, being chased by the rancher's big Santa Gertrudis bull......

With every step the bull was gaining ground on the officer, and it seemed likely that he'd sure enough get gored before he reached safety. 

The officer was clearly terrified.

The rancher threw down his tools, ran to the fence and yelled at the top of his lungs.....    

"Your badge, show him your BADGE........ ! !"

Fox New Most Trusted by a Mile

A new poll should have the minions at the left-wing, Soros-funded, tax-exempt, union-busting Media Matters scrambling for a rewrite at the drawing board for it shows that Fox News is the most trusted name in all of news and the left-wing MSNBC is the least trusted.

In a poll about a whole lot of things (religion, immigration, Obama) the Brookings Institution also surveyed 1538 adults about the news networks. When asked "which of the following news sources do you trust the most to provide accurate information about politics and current events?," Fox News beat everyone with 25%. MSNBC landed dead last with a humiliating 5%. CNN came in well behind Fox with 17%. "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" came in second to last with 8%

Fox News even beats the broadcast networks, which came in second with 23%

Independent voters also choose Fox News first and over MSNBC with a 26% to 4% margin. CNN sits at 16%. The broadcast networks, 17%.

Via: Breitbart