Google Crawls into Bed with Al Gore (Yuck!)

Thank goodness for Google!

It seems Google has teamed up with Algore to make the world safe for everyone.  They have decided to add the ocean floor and Mars to Google Earth.  That’s cool.  I’ll probably poke around a little and try to learn something from this.

But wait!  What was Algore  doing there?  Oh yeah, he was there to show his support for their new ‘Global Warming Add-on’ feature.  It seems they will use mounds and mounds of satellite data (sometimes dating back as far as a decade) to us how we are destroying the Earth.  This is a new low in the shallow-data scientific propaganda that is the favorite weapon of the Greenies.  Maybe, they drove up and down my street last week to get updated maps of how Global Warming was effecting the ice from the storm we had last Wednesday.  I do live in Texas so the effects of Global Warming were pretty apparent the next day on that ice.

They intend to focus on ‘evidence’ that will support their view.  For instance, they will show the melt off of the biggest glacier in Glacier National Park over the last decade.  They probably will not focus on the glaciers that are growing in Norway, the Himalayas, on Mount Logan in Canada, on Mount Shasta and other places.  This would not be good for their agenda.  Just in case, however, people are not able to interpret disaster from the images, Google will provide videos ‘contributed by scientists and organizations around the world.’   By doing so, they will explain how the images support their Global Warming contentions.

I find it irresponsible and disingenuous for Google and a group of people who claim to be scientists (Al Gore and Jimmy Buffett are definitely not scientists) to put this out as if it will educate people about global warming.  There cannot be enough data at Google’s disposal, at this point, to allow anyone, even a scientist to draw a conclusion about Global Warming, Earth warming trends or the possible effects of either.

The clincher was at the end of the FoxNews article where Google CEO Eric Schmidt said, “What it really is… is a platform for science and research and literally understanding the future of the world.”  Isn’t that statement a little much?  I buy that having this data as a repository for future study could be beneficial down the road, but a good scientist does not draw a conclusion, or ‘predict the future’ when only 1% of the data is available to study.  Truly, you might as well use the melt off from my lawn last week to predict the future.

Obama’s Short Honeymoon

Today’s inauguration went off with pomp and circumstance which has not been seen in the world since the wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana.  Just as when these two were married, the sky seems to be the limit.  How could anything ever go wrong?  Everyone, it seems, is smashing themselves together with the sole aim of showing their support for a new messiah…, I mean president.

I, as most good Americans that voted for someone other then Obama (I am not saying you are a bad American I you voted for Obama), will support him as the elected leader of our country, and hope that he leads us well as a nation.  I am struck with the fear that he will appoint several young, liberal Supreme Court justices in his first year, and then follow in Clinton’s footsteps and expand the use of executive orders, thus legislating from the desk (oval office).

As far as the honeymoon goes, I hope Obama is ready.  Of course, the Republicans in Congress will be looking for anything and everything to criticize.  I look back on Clinton’s presidency and remember how ashamed I was when Republicans refused to support the use of force to stop the genocide that was happening in Bosnia.  If Obama looks to the right for support, he will get none.  This, I think, is expected.

What will be unexpected will be that the first shots will come from his own supporters.  In a few months, as he begins to face the reality of what withdrawal from an instable Iraq means to international peace, he will stall the withdrawal, and former supporters like Cindy Sheehan will draw first blood.  This, however, will only be the beginning.

Guantanamo will be another place where former supporters will turn on him.  It cannot be shut down.  Even if we decide to put all the detainees on trial, it will take years perhaps even a decade to hear them all.

The environmental movement will be even worse.  These people have lived their lives blaming the U.S. and lack of government intervention for every problem that they can conceive (and I do mean conceive).  The point is that in these economic times, it will not benefit Obama to hop on board with a bunch of wealth sapping green ideas, and he won’t.  Their expectations will be through the roof, and he will be able to deliver even less than he probably wants to.

Eventually, all of these and other special interest groups will realize that they are getting little more with Obama than they had with Bush, and then they will re-arm themselves with the only real weapon that they have, blame.  Unfortunately, for Obama, the there will be no one else to blame but him.

Let it Mellow?

I was appalled a couple of months ago while watching Battleground Earth.  The only reason I watched any of it in the first place was to hate on the green-loving global warming crowd, and I was given richly rewarded with ample amounts of fodder in this context.

In this program, whenever they would come backfrom a break, there would be a mini-PSA which included a celebrity giving an ‘informative’ suggestion for helping to stay ‘green.’  It was during one these bits that I became shocked and appalled.  A rock group (I think it was the Black Crows) suggested, most offensively, “Remember, when you go to the restroom, ‘if it’s yellow, let it mellow’, but ‘if it’s brown, flush it down.'”  Now, it is possible that I am naive or sheltered, but I had never heard this before.  However, I understood immediately what they were suggesting and felt revulsion.

So, now the green-Nazis not only tell you how to live your life, and how to be buried, they follow you into the restroom and leave you with a nice smell of rank ammonia.  For me, any of this is too much.  I will not take part.  Most unfortunately, however, it appears that someone that I work with watched the same episode of Battleground Earth, and took it to heart.  It seems every time I go to the restroom at work, some nice greenie has left their smelly yellow behind and neglected to flush.  So, the first thing I do is cancel their green vote by flushing the contents, and de-fouling the air a little.  Then, I make my own contribution, and flush again to make sure that the water is effectively wasted.  Besides, I am sure the Bible has something in it somewhere that forbids a righteous man from mixing his pee with that of an unrighteous man.

New Ideas from the Wordsmiths (liars) in the Global Warming Community

Once again, I find myself drawn like a moth to the Global Warming alarmists’ flame.

I have always been a firm believer that words mean things.  I try to use precise language to convey my thoughts whenever I am writing or speaking (though I do not always succeed).  It frustrates me whenever I say something and the person I am speaking to misses my meaning.  How we choose to use the English language to express ideas is important, that is why whenever I see someone absconding with it or warping it for their personal gain, I become offended.

Such has been the track record of the environmentalists in the Global Warming movement.  They take ideas and words and shape them in strange ways in order to blur arguments and lines of thought.  For example, ‘Global Warming’ itself is out as a catch phrase.  Why would this be?  It would be like Kleenex or Coke deciding to change it brand name.  The reason is strategy.  Environmentalists are now attempting to substitute the phrase ‘Climate Change’ for ‘Global Warming” when they speak or write, and it’s pretty obvious why. 

The proponents of Global Warming have long been accused of playing both sides of the fence.  For a while, when the temperature was going up, it was ‘global warming.’  Then, when the temperature went down, it was ‘snowball earth’ or “ice age.’  The temperature went back up, and we were back to ‘global warming.’  For the past decade, if the temperature went up, it was because of global warming,  but if the temperature went down, that was also because of global warming.  Finally, some people began to question the legitimacy of these ideas.  And, now that the temperature has steadily gone down over the past few years, rather than switch back to the ‘ice age’ theory, environmentalists have chosen to abscond with all possible theories and incorporate all possible data into their theories of doom.

They have replaced the term ‘Global Warming’ with ‘Climate Change.”  Now, if the temperature goes up, it’s a result of Climate Change, and is obviously the result of mankind’s abuses of the planet.  However, if the the temperature goes down, this would also be caused by climate change, and the cause this time would also be man.  It’s a win-win for them.  How could they lose?  With logic like this mankind can be blamed for everything whether there is an actual problem or not.  Unless…the Earth were to throw them a real curve ball and suddenly stabilize itself in a constant state of Eden like uniformity.  But since that has never, ever happened, it not likely to begin now.

I saw a second equally egregious example of this linguistic modification this weekend.  I began watching the first five minutes of a program on the Science Channel (I don’t remember the name of it because I did not hang around long).  It was soon apparent that this would be another program preaching the gospel of Global Warming.  However, just before I turned the channel, I heard the host make this statement (and I paraphrase the beginning of it), “We have to do more to combat the problems of Climate Change while avoiding nuclear proliferation.”  I went ahead and changed the channel to something better but the phrase ‘nuclear proliferation’ kept echoing in my mind.  Of course no one wants nuclear proliferation.  Surely we need to keep the bomb out of the hands of the Iranians.

Then it hit me.  He was talking about nuclear energy. 

For the past few years nuclear energy have been the elephant in the room.  Traditionally, environmentalists have viewed nuclear energy as some sort of bogey man.  But, contrary to their efforts, nuclear energy has proven itself to be the safest, cleanest and cheapest form of energy in the world.  However, while the world has embraced nuclear energy as the panacea that it is, the United States has labored under strict laws that make it almost impossible financially to construct new plants.

This worked as long as fossil fuels were cheap.  Now that the price of oil has gone through the roof, everyone- environmentalists, conservatives, and liberals- is trying to find alternative sources of energy.  And now, we see the nuclear elephant looming in the room- not that environmentalists are not trying their hardest to ignore it.  Some programs that stress Global Warming issues and possible solutions simply ignore nuclear energy while others tend to tack it on to the end of the show as an afterthought.  In either case it is egregious. 

I have stated in another post that I will not take these people and their arguments seriously until they make nuclear energy a primary possible solution to current energy issues, and I still stand by that.  However, referring to to ‘nuclear energy’ as ‘nuclear proliferation’ is sly at best disingenuous at worst.  Sure, we cannot allow certain irresponsible countries, such as Iran, to build reactors of their own, but we do not include ourselves in this list.  Even if we do not allow Iran to have a reactor, that does not mean that we will not work out a deal with them in which reactors are still built to supply their energy needs, but are maintained by someone else.  The point is that much of the world is using safe, efficient nuclear energy.  The french produce 100% of their domestic electricity through nuclear plants, and so should the U.S.

But, I digress, the point is that the term ‘nuclear proliferation’ has a military connotation.  The proponents of Global Warming theories are attempting to saddle nuclear energy with the negative connotations revolving around nuclear warfare.  The point of this is easy to see.  These proponents are using their favorite weapon, fear, to avoid dealing with the issue of nuclear energy.  It should come as no surprise.  Fear drives the whole Global Warming debate.  The unfortunate thing is that they will use this fear to prevent the U.S. from benefiting from the one possible positive impact of Global Warming- that we might actually reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy by implementing the broad use of clean, efficient nuclear energy.

Swinging a Big Bat

Global Warming theorists carry a big bat around in order to effectively beat anyone who disagrees with them.  It sometimes seems that they feel that their agenda is so important that no discussion is needed or desired, anything that supports the Global Warming agenda is good in its own right, and needs no other justification.  Take Evan Almighty (please) for example.  Here we have a movie that purports itself to be a comedy with two of the most popular stars in America today, Morgan Freeman and Steve Carell.  When I saw this movie, I was left with the impression that the director and writers felt all they had to do was include an ‘Earth friendly’ global warming theme, and people would be forced to like it.  The movie was ghastly.  I expect a comedy to have decent writing, and be funny.  This bomb had neither of the two.  It’s as if proponents of global warming think it is a ‘pretty puppy dog’ that everyone is just going to like and accept because of its inherent goodness.

This expectation of acceptance of all things green is nothing new however, Global Warning scientists have approached the whole issue with a sense of entitlement since the beginning, and I for one, am growing exceedingly tired of it.

Have you ever known a guy who was so immersed in his own ideology, surrounded by sycophants that agree with every thing he says, that he eventually loses touch with reality.  These people see no boundaries of logic, reason or propriety except for the cause that they endorse.  PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk is a great example.  PETA repeatedly makes calls for the most irrational solutions to animal issues.  They do not care about the people they damage, be it emotionally, physically or mentally, on the way to getting their desired result.  The more shocking the statement or commercial, the better they like it, and the press is only too willing to give them free air time depending on the outrageousness of the statement.

I don’t agree with or like these people, but I’ll say one thing in their defense, at least most of their funding is driven by the private sector (or at least I hope it is).  The same cannot be said for Dr. James Hansen.  This nut is also known as the ‘Father of Global Warming,’ and he works for NASA.  This means that you and I are paying for this nut to say the stupid things that he says.

I have addressed the disturbing ‘this science is settled’ mantra that comes out of the Global Warming camp in past posts.  The basic idea of this statement flies in the face of the modern scientific method.  It is egregious for any person who calls himself a scientist to get away with saying ‘science is settled.’

This guy, being the psychopath surrounded by sycophants that he is, has no boundaries in his speech.  In a recent speech, he says that “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual.  In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”  It would be hard to quantify the hyperbolic nature of such a statement, but suffice it to say I think he is exaggerating a little in this statement.  First of all, as a paid employee of the US government, he places himself in the odd position of calling for some Nuremburg-like trial founded on wholly fabricated charges against some of the top executives in the world who simply disagree with his science.  And, we…are paying this guys salary?  I work for the government, and I can assure you I am not allowed to go to the press and say anything, much less something as irresponsible as this, but this is the climate that we have allowed to be created.  The holy war, crusade, political agenda, religion- whatever you want to call it- that has become the Global Warming agenda has no boundaries. 

Up to this point, anyone who has dared to question their gospel, has been dismissed and ridiculed.  Some have even lost their jobs, and now, we have the first suggestion that people who do not agree with them may actually have committed a crime.  Amazing…, talk about thought police.  Don’t these liberals know what kind of fire they are playing with here?  Are they willing to sacrifice all of the freedoms that they so easily take credit for achieving for power and control? Absolutely they are.

He also says, “Special interests have blocked the transition to our renewable energy future….”  Really, is he talking about Democrats like Hillary Clinton who repeatedly block votes to expand the use of nuclear energy, the safest, cleanest and most efficient form of energy available?  No. 

I find it odd and disingenuous that these types continue to spew their drivel using phrases like “renewable energy,” but rarely dealing with the real issue- the fact that a bunch of backward-assed ex-hippies are blocking the only practical, domestic solution for dealing with high energy costs, nuclear energy.

But to make sure that we are all in lock-step (I hate Nazi analogies, but when in Rome…), he says, “Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming,…”  Really.  I suppose we should burn the old ones.  No, that would cause more carbon emissions.  We had better compost them.

He later states, “To cut emissions, coal-fired power plants that don’t capture carbon dioxide emissions shouldn’t be used in the United States after 2025, and should be eliminated in the rest of the world by 2030.” And that, “carbon-capture technology is still being developed and not yet cost efficient for power plants.”  So now this guy has set himself up as the arbiter of technological innovation.  It’s OK to investigate unproven and highly ineffective means of producing energy such as solar, but he immediately dismisses carbon capture coal-based technologies on the same basis.  The reason is that his motivations are social and political, not scientific or altruistic. 

It is time to start paying attention to what these people are saying, if only to put their feet to the fire.  Every day they come out with more outrageous predictions based on models that have more and more baseless starting suppositions.  The world has to hold them to their own ‘science.’  If he makes predictions like, “Earth’s atmosphere can only stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide for a couple more decades without changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises,” then we must hold him to it.  When it does not happen, then we consign him to the dustbin of history as simply another false prophet and a liar.  Of s course, Global Warming theorists do not want to wait to be proven right, and we do not want to have to listen to him for the next two decades before he is proven wrong.



We Should Start Calling This Guy ‘Chicken Little’

First of all, someone should let Al Gore know that, unfortunately, he is winning.  He continues to spout his mantra regarding Global Warming and continues to escalate the rhetoric even though he has much of the scientific community, many politicians from both sides, and almost all of the media on his side.  With such a following of heavy-hitters, why would he constantly be ratcheting up his speech?

He obviously is terrified of the prospect of having to defend his views on either political of scientific grounds.  Any time a person, no matter their credentials or facts, comes forward with an argument or evidence contrary to the dogmatic views held by Al Gores and his supporters, they are greeted with the statement that ‘the science is settled’ on this issue.  That is perhaps the biggest load oxymoronic of crap to ever be foisted on the scientific community and the world in general.  It is referred to as the ‘Global Warming Theory’, not the ‘Global Warming Fact’.  By definition, the Global Warming Theory is debatable, and as a scientific theory, it is the responsibility of scientists to test the veracity of the ideas that it proposes.  Al Gore knows there are serious problems with the theory and the data that is used to back it up.  He, therefore, refuses to have any part of the theory debated or his data challenged.  Al Gore sees his best tact to be to destroy the credibility of anyone who questions his ‘facts’. 

This all brings me to this article.  Here, Gore uses another popular tactic that is most often used by those whose arguments are weak, attempting to give their position more weight by tying it to WWII and the fight against Fascism.  I’ll give him credit for not invoking Holocaust imagery in this speech, but that and slavery can not be far off.  This is the political side if the same argument that he uses against the scientists mentioned above.  Any scientist who argues against Global Warming has no credibility, and any politician who does might as well have supported the Fascists in WWII.  In the speech, Gore tells the students that their generation has the ability to be heroes on the level of those heroes of WWII who delivered the world from the Fascists.

Al Gore may have already won the battle, but he is not taking any chances.  He does not want to let any issues like, the fact that the globe is actually cooling or world hunger to get in the way of his political and social agendas.  I, personally, would just like to see the debate occur, but as it is right now, I doubt that will happen.  To use my own hyperbolic analogy, the Global Warming proponents’ tactics most often remind me of those employed by the Inquisition.

Green, the Color of Vomit

When I was a child, like most boys, my favorite colors were blue and red.  If it was time to buy a shirt, it was usually blue, red or if I was getting way out there, maroon or orange.  There were clearly defined colors for boys and girls.  Girls wore yellow, pink and purple, and boy wore the colors referenced above. 

Then there was green.  Green did not seem to have the same gender connotations that the other colors did.  What could a young boy do with a color like this?  For me, green became my least favorite color.  I never bought anything green.

Of course, we grow out of these silly ‘kid’s stuff’ attitudes as we grow older, and by late middle school green shirts were just fine.  Now, olive green, khaki, brown and navy (women refer to these as neutrals) permeate my wardrobe.  And up till now this has been fine with me, however, recent social events which I will now refer to as “The Greening of America,” are beginning to turn me against this color once again.

I have had an issue with the new religion of ‘Global Warming’ and its modern inquisitional tactics toward anyone who has the nerve to question the ‘science’ that it is proposing.  There are actually educators and scientists who are losing their positions for daring to question the accuracy of global warming theorists and their models.

I, personally, believe this is a completely social agenda that had unfortunately become a government funded (your tax dollars) phenomenon.  There is no legitimate debate over the issue, and there are no real ideas being proposed to help alleviate the problem if one really exists. 

Here we are several years into a full-blown panic over global warming, and no one has yet begun building the first new nuclear reactor in the United States.  Why is this?  It’s because the ignorant nuts that are driving this issue are the same ignorant nuts that condemned nuclear energy in the 1970’s before it proved to the world that it is the safest, cleanest, cheapest, most sustainable, most environmentally friendly type of energy in the world.  Until these people, and the politicians they support, begin a serious and substantive move toward nuclear energy, I will have little respect for them or their cause.

The economic impact of policies being enacted by governments around the world, together with oil prices, has begun to take its toll around the world as we speak.  Now, there is talk of a world food crisis.  Economists are correctly placing blame for this on oil prices and the new ‘environmental’ policies especially those involving corn/ethanol production.  Of course, global warming theorists will blame, what else, ‘global warming’ for these food shortages.  It gets blamed for everything else.  It will be interesting to see which crisis wins if global warming and starvation of the poor worldwide driven by lack of food actually occurs.  My guess is that deep-down global warming theorists will feel that countries and cultures where human growth is unchecked could use a little thinning out.  A few million deaths in Brazil, for example would be that much fewer people that could cut down the rain forests, and that much fewer cooking fires, and we all know how terrible these fires are for the planets (I would like, at this point to reiterate the fact that I am speculating on the thoughts of other people, and would never harbor such thoughts myself).  It will be interesting to see how the mainstream/liberal media deals with all of this.

And, this all brings me back to my original point.  I’m beginning to like the color green a little less these days.  I could take it if it was just a political issue that was running its course, but now, it has not just invaded my own life, but has begun to permeate it.

I watch quite a bit of television, but recently my television watching has been marred by what I will call ‘green pollution.’  Every PSA on television seems to be about saving the planet.  Every Primetime program, “My Name Is Earl” for example, has become polluted by green references, and programs on Discovery and other educational channels (usually my favorite type of television) have become dumping grounds for the green message.  These channels, for me, are veering toward unwatchable.

Last year, discovery aired a program called “Expedition Borneo.”  The program documented man’s destruction of one of the last uninhabited forest regions on the Earth.  I got past the bleeding heart stuff at the beginning, and the rest of the program chronicled the majestic beauty that can be found all over Borneo, and it was truly a beautiful place.  I learned about that part of the world, and on the whole I really liked the program.

This year, Discovery followed up with “Expedition Alaska.”  They even devoted the whole week to ‘Alaska’ programming.  Unfortunately, the ‘expedition’ was nothing but a global warming fest with scientists racing all over the state to show us how global warming is destroying it.  Scientist after scientist made wild speculation about the consequences of global warming in general saying things like (and I paraphrase), “We don’t know exactly what impact global warming will have on these animals, but we have to do something to protect them.”  As this show droned on I found my interest drifting farther and farther away, until I just turned it off.

Eventually, there will be no intellectual refuge on television that is unspoiled by this green pollution.  Then, I guess I will have to make the unsavory decision to begin watching programs about motorcycles, tattoos and NASCAR.  At which point, I will sit back, drink my Gatorade, and wait for the Idiocracy to take over.  Bad Ass!