From Melanie Phillips comes a great short article
Dirty Work At The Green Crossroads

As is habitually the case, the media seems to have missed the real story of the IPCC’s fourth report on climate change, which has been universally reported as predicting that the imminent global apocalypse is going to be even worse than previously anticipated and so it’s Even More All Our Fault Than Ever.

What has been largely overlooked is that what has been published is merely the summary for policymakers, while the actual science on which that summary is allegedly based will not be published — extraordinarily — for a further three months. As with previous IPCC reports, the summary is a political document written not by scientists but by officials. And now, various folk who have read the draft scientific material for the fourth report are saying that the IPCC summary bears little relation to the IPCC science which tells a very different story indeed — namely, that previous IPCC forecasts of the climate change apocalypse were exaggerated and wrong and that accordingly current forecasts have been drastically scaled back.

And she points to Christopher Monckton’s great summary of the lack of scientific evidence, but here’s even one more One pdf file; two parts. Print them out, hold onto them, distribute! This is from the second one; go over to Melanie’s to read some of the excerpts from the first.

Apocalypse Cancelled I

In summary, Christopher Monckton is pointing out that global warming is the worst market failure ever. Climate change is less about saving the planet than what Jacques Chirac pointed out is the real agenda behind the environmental movement and global warming: ‘creating world government’.

James Hansen, a climatologist, told Congress in 1988 that the temperature would rise .35C by the end of the century (it rose .1C), and that sea level would rise several feet by 2100 (one inch by 2000). The UN set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change to further bolster the hysterics of the environmental fascists.

The UN implies that CO2 ended the last four ice ages. Two 450,000-year graphs - a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that’s scaled to look similar is the evidence. Similar curves are usually superimposed for comparison, but the UN’s report didn’t do that. If it had, the truth would have been known: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.

The UN then abolished the mediaeveal warming period. In 1995, David Deming, geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, wrote an article resconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: “With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant creidiblity in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said, “We have to get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period.”“

So, they did! The UN’s second assessment report of 1996, had a 1,000-year graph showing that temperatures in the Middle Ages were warmer than today’s. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no mediaeval warm period. It falsely concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years.

He goes into how they forced their conclusion into the models.

In some places it was warmer now in the Bronze age than in Roman times, but the important thing of note is- it wasn’t carbon dioxide that caused those warming trends, it was the Sun. Not to be deterred from that minor detail, the UN adjusted the math and all but extinguished the Sun’s role in today’s warming!

If that’s not enough, the UN slashed the natural greenhouse effect by 40% from 33C in the climate-pys textbooks to 20C,making the man-made additions appear bigger than they really are.

The constant repetition of wrong data doesn’t make it right.

Apocalypse Cancelled II

All artificial government intervention advocated by climate change ‘consensus’ will be futile without the consent of the Third World’s fast-growing nations. That consent will be withheld until the UN produces soundly-based, scientifically-honest, fair and realistic projections.

But…don’t hold your breath for them.

See “Global Warming: Do ALL Scientists really agree on this?”

Junk Science dot Com further illustrates there is little scientific evidence behind the IPCC’s recommendations for more government with the draft report itself.

With a hearty tip o’ me tam and a thank you to Rotty Pup for the tip.

Thanks to: The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, basil’s blog, Shadowscope, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Jo’s Cafe, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The HILL Chronicles, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, and Gone Hollywood

This is the true face of Kathryn Cramer.

Photo credit: her post called it seems that Cao has invited Me To mudwrestle“.

What I’m responding to, however, isn’t that. But that post points to how nasty she can be; she thinks this is all a big joke. What I’m responding to is just some of what she has put up at Wikipedia. This woman’s actions scream of desperation. Nobody is helping her pursue Cafasso because as Robert Young Pelton put it, ’she was dating him’. What she’s doing is simply wrong on so many levels. She puts herself out there, but then turns into the victim if anyone is critical of her highness, but now she has crossed another line by pulling my name into this. This is another sign of her utter desperation, lack of self control, narcissism, and total disregard for others; that everything is all about her. Blackwood’s charade was known a good month before anything went up on any blog. So it was old news by the time it hit the blogosphere.

Cramer and Dolan are busily duking it out at Wikipedia on Cramer’s ‘talk’ page. The fact that Cramer thinks Dolan has some nerve countering her lies is evident. What I find amusing is that Cramer is now calling me “Jack Idema’s publicist”. Not only did Cramer and Cafasso go after my job after finding out my name, and blast private information all over the internet when I’m a private citizen, but now they’ve given me a new job, Jack Idema’s publicist, which is absurd! That’s like Cramer saying she’s a researcher for private military contractors or an editor at Wikipedia!

She, in complete collusion with Cafasso, willingly stalked me and harrassed me. They did this together on their blogs, but didn’t stop there. She fully admitted through email that she paid for him to interstate stalk me. If that wasn’t enough, she verbally assaulted me, called me homocidal, tried to get me fired from my job, and then fully admitted to all of this in October, claiming she wants to ‘help’ me. huh? Then, she took what little information she gleaned from that encounter and posted it on the internet, after making me promise that none of what she passed over to me was to appear on the internet. heh. The rules she applies to others never apply to Ms. Cramer, that we’ve seen through her past history. Here is an excerpt from her aol live journal blog which was deleted and is now available only through cache:

We’re fully aware of your tendency of distortion and lies, Kathryn. You deleted that entry, but if you compare it with this one at Kathryn Cramer dot com We get letters, it’s missing that little delicious morsel at the end. Why would you do that, Kathryn? That’s why you are not to be trusted. Your not signing the agreement just demonstrates that the reasoning that you were using to contact us wasn’t fully disclosed; and the sole reason contact with you was withdrawn. We wished you luck in your endeavors, remember?

Psychotic people can make people crazy, and Cramer and her present behavior is an unfortunate byproduct of Joe Cafasso’s psychosis. Once the real deal was exposed publicly, on July 25th, she freaked out because of all she’s done on her blogs to Jack Idema and me.

Why did she call me on my private unlisted phone number that was only available on the web on Stuporpatriots’ post of December 17th that was taken down by blogger and contained my autotrack information? How could she claim that I’m Cafasso’s victim? Both of them have done their best to victimize me, but I keep standing up for another round. This must have them both in sane.

bwahahahahahahahaha! Nobody should dream of criticizing the all-perfect, all-knowing ‘researcher’ who was so astute she didn’t catch that Joe Cafasso was Gerry Blackwood until she was entertaining the thought of leaving her husband for him. DUH!

Look at this whole thing:

Argument: Plesantville

There is no substantive disagreement that I know of.

Oh, REALLY? The disagreement, it seems to me, is that Dolan has extensive background as an investigative reporter and Cramer doesn’t. Dolan dug deeper than reading articles spewed out by the lying MSM and has concluded as have many of the rest of us have, that Jack Idema is innocent. All you really need to do is compare the lies that come out of the Smear Jack Cabal and the character of the people on Jack’s side. The all-seeing all-knowing Kathryn Cramer has made devastatingly stupid assumptions in the past, like the one about Mookie Spicoli and the Blackwater Turkey Shoot video; the two guys are not one-in the same. Or Michael Teague and the assumption that he was a nazi (she found a guy who was a nazi who had the same name), and the way she went after Charles Johnson when he exposed her hypocrisy. Cramer is an example of why blogs can be dangerous and can damage peoples’ reputations and lives based on false information, lies and hyperbole. And that doesn’t include her characterization of me having themes of homocide and revenge over here. But then her boyfriend, Joe Cafasso, says that I’m psychotic and homocidal and a candidate for spousal abuse. These are examples of projection from people who are desperate and reaching; who are, in fact guilty of the very behavior they’re accusing me of.

I would like Ms. Dolan to be blocked from editing of my talk pages.

Why?

That’s all. Her quarrel with me is primarily financial, involving charges that ended up on my Amex card without my consent;

But Cramer didn’t have anything to do with those charges winding up in her card? So then we should pose the question: why didn’t her prosecution of Cafasso pass muster?

they have their origins in a June 3rd motor vehicles police report. I am not trying to collect, nor have I attempted for some time.

Wherever they turned up, I’m certain that law enforcement took your claiming to be a CIA researcher into account, or the fact that you were Cafasso’s willing accomplice.

Ms. Dolan and I were both victims of the con artist Joseph A. Cafasso in June/July of 2006, whom I knew exclusively under the alias “Lt. Col. Gerry Blackwood”. Ms. Dolan first met Cafasso in 1998 at an Accuracy in Media conference;

She was a speaker, he posed a question from the audience. Again, not a very honest characterization.

I do not know the history of their relationship.

Then stop tryng to draw inferences and make insinuations from things that have no connection to each other!

My first contact with Cafasso was November of 2005. He introduced me via email to Ms. Dolan in May of 2006. As a result of her experience in June, Ms. Dolan suffered a conversion experience to Jack Idema’s cult following;

Now THAT is rich. “Suffered a conversion experience to Jack Idema’s cult following”. Dolan suffered a ‘conversion experience’ to the Jack Idema Cult? Kathryn, I think you’re having an acid flashback. Once you learn the truth aside from what the MSM, Mariah Blake and Stacy Sullivan have put out there, it’s pretty obvious what the truth is; Jack Idema, Brent Bennett and Ed Caraballo were sold down the swannie river.

The Red Cross – Emergency Hospital Identification Card issued to each TASK FORCE SABER/7, which states they are “political prisoners,” with POW status.

The Red Cross doesn’t categorize them and didn’t categorize Jack as a criminal prisoner, Kathryn. If the Afghans thought he was a criminal, and if that Taliban court ruling that the MSM reported on still stood, they wouldn’t be considered ‘political prisoners’. Criminal prisoners are listed starting with four digit numbers Prisoners of War and “political prisoners” are listed with two or three digit numbers. Idema is registered as Prisoner of War ID #92.

Then you have as even FURTHER proof, the official Pulacharke Prison Roster listing all four personnel remaining in custody as Prisoners of War, officially recognized as such by the Ministry of Justice.

Here it is again for sizing purposes so you can see the entire thing:

Pulacharke Prison Roster for Political and Prisoners of War - Translation:

Dari Language (read right to left):

English Language:

So unless you’re a complete imbecile, you can discern that what Kathryn says next is completely wrong and is a distortion and a lie.

Idema is currently serving time in Aghanistan for kidnapping and torture.

The charges they were arrested for were ‘entering the country illegally’, ‘running a private jail’, and ‘questioning someone without a warrant’. The Taliban court brought up the charges and included ‘proof’ with terrorists claiming they were hung upside down in the basement of the house. The only thing is; there was no basement.

Aside from the fact that there were around 40 safehouses like Jack’s in and around Kabul where interrogations like Jack’s were being conducted, here is a comment from a guy who sent a team in to take pictures of Jack’s Safehouse after their arrest:

Actually, Cao, you might be the first person to be able to wade through the ******** and publish the facts. They were terrorists, they got caught, Idema caught them, and then they lied. Like, here’s a good one: the terrorists were supposed to be hanging upside down in a basement. Problem was there was no basement in the house, I know, I sent a team there to photograph it. Nor has ONE piece of evidence ever been shown against them- Just anonymous sources who have all either dissapeared or been identified, and now fired.

Comment by Command Sergeant Major Donald

They couldn’t provide proof of their injuries like being burned with cigarettes, and burns from scalding water. But Jack and his men to this day can provide you proof of what they went through, but their torture at Saderat is something that you simply overlook in your quest to further malign them. Your behavior is disgusting, your denial doesn’t prove a thing except that you’re deluded and your feelings for Cafasso have completely affected your ability to reason. To my knowledge, you actually stood there alongside Cafasso when he claimed responsibility for putting Jack in jail. Cafasso is so desperate to take the credit for that, that he wrote a letter to Jack Idema and put it up on his blog.

Jack Idema was declared innocent in a trial de novo in a closed door hearing. It is no surprise that the media hasn’t reported it, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t the truth.

Since July, I have had extensive correspondence with Dolan’s attorney, Mark Schamel, on the issue of Ms. Dolan’s defamation of me.

Dolan’s not defaming you, Cramer, for crying out loud! She’s exposing your lies and hypocrisy for what they are, just as I am. The best defense is the truth! And to insinuate that we’re in cohoots is ridiculous. Anyone can check out your hysterical rants at Wikipedia. To imply that Dolan and I are using Wikipedia so I can link to it is implying that we’re doing what you’re doing; writing complete fabrications in order to bolster your blog. It is, in fact, what the Wikipedia editors have been chastising you for.

Jack and his men were found not guilty, Cramer. That is why his id card at Pulacharke identifies him as a ‘political prisoner’, due, in part, to some maneuvering on behalf of members of the Smear Jack Cabal, of which you are an integral part. Your hanging onto the kidnapping and torture allegations of the media just shows how constipated your intellectual capabilities are. You’ve got fogged facts! Or no facts at all! If she was performing at the Apollo, she wouldn’t get past her first sentence; the clown would come out with the hook!

Ms. Dolan has made a large number of accusations, many of which are based on confabulation. She began writing me threatening and provocative letters at the beginning of January 2007. She has unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about me going back years of which I do not know the full extent. I do not know the basis of Dolan’s claim that I am “cyberstalking” Cafasso, nor do I understand why she would not want it known that she was one of his victims. Other than my objections to her edits, I have written nothing about Ms. Dolan on Wikipedia that is in any way negative.

Cramer has paid to have Joe Cafasso come here to stalk me. I am watching Cramer and the crazy things she’s coming up with because I’m taking note of her patterns of behavior and denial. What she’s doing to Christine Dolan is exactly what she did to me, Charles Johnson, Mookie Spicoli and poor late Michael Teague.

Ms. Dolan has no prior interest in or involvement in Wikipedia. Her comments and edits to my Talk page are grandstanding for the purpose of providing supporting material for this blog post by Jack Idema’s publicist, Lynn Thomas: http://caosblog.com/4534. It is one of many posts about me by Thomas

So Cramer is a victim, once again. Not that she’s ever posted anything about me! Let’s see. She’s got “The Themes of Homocide and Revenge in Lynn Thomas at Cao’s blog”, and another little fantasy post tying Idema in with the Serbs “War Crimes”; a complete fabrication with more of her daft complaints about me at the end, and “it seems that Cao has invited Me To mudwrestle” where she shows pictures of herself with mud on her face, not unlike the picture that Jack Idema has up over at RogueRadioLive. This woman somehow thinks it’s cool to put up pictures of herself on flickr with mud on her face! How many people do you know of who do that? And are proud of it? Kathryn, book yourself an appointment at Elizabeth Arden and take off the disgusting puke green bathrobe.

The group who she refers to as the “Jack Idema cult” support Americans who have the balls to fight in the WoT. We are regular people, not sipping the koolaid like Cramer does; but in her case, it’s Jack Daniels.

Jack and his men found themselves in the most horrible of circumstances; tried by a Taliban court for kidnapping and torture (those were not the charges that precipitated their arrest), and later found innocent of those charges. But people like Cramer go no further than what’s been reported by the mainstream media; lies. And they celebrate the dire circumstances and attempts on these Americans’ lives. Jack has withstood over 20 attempts on his life now, and I’m sure that is making all of you members of the Smear Jack Cabal very nervous. In addition, she adds to the lies and then complains when she’s exposed, because she has no defense! Why shouldn’t I write to expose this dishonest behavior designed to destroy people who aren’t even here to defend themselves? The thing is, they’re doing it BECAUSE they’re unable to defend themselves, and that is a sad story to tell about the ‘victim’ status of Kathryn Cramer. Kathryn Cramer is a vicious liar and willing accomplice, and continues to be that, she’s not a ‘victim’ at all.

So, for rooting for innocent Americans who’ve been injustly treated and tortured, normal people who can see the injustice are called the Jack Idema CULT. I support all the guys who do work like Jack Idema; like Colin Berry, who found himself in a similar situation and ended up writing a book about it. Of course, Colin spent eight months in an Afghan prison, Jack’s been there over two years. Shades of the American government in the Idema case: the British government disavowed Berry, too.

Cramer claims that she knows no ‘criminals’ or ‘convicted felons’. If Cafasso and the rest of the Smear Jack Cabal get what they deserve, that will no longer be true. It seems today as though a lot of decent people are being brought up on charges for things they didn’t do. You can bet that if you’ve ever killed a terrorist, there will be a lot of explaining to do; we’re not even allowed to shoot at them anymore. That is a bad omen when we’re at war with a head hacking enemy that rapes and disembowels women for pleasure. We’re in a war of political correctness while the enemy does unspeakable things and the human rights organizations look the other way, and hold our guys under a microscope of scrutiny.

Jack Idema is a lot of things, but he’s more like Eric Campbell characterized him; not like the cabal does. The more we get to know him, the more it is clear he will rise again like a phoenix from the ashes and come back to destroy them all (and I hope he does). That is probably one of the reasons Cramer and Pelton are having meltdowns.

Previous:

Message to Kathryn Cramer

The Ugmo Show

Catch me if you can!

Characteristics of Abusive Men

Kathryn Cramer’s leftist fantasy world; one of denial

here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush!

Theory: Joe Cafasso is a celebrity stalker

Licensed to Lie: Robert Young Pelton

Kathryn Cramer et al

the duplicitous behavior of Kathryn Cramer

Poor Kathryn

Poor Kathryn, trying to commandeer Wikipedia as her own

Non Existent Collage of Kathryn Cramer Pictures

Cramer’s posts on Idema and me:

We get letters

Robert Young Pelton’s License to Kill: A Review

A Review of Jack Idema’s Radio Show

Mirko Miskovic, Jack Idema, and 32Win.Mydoom.O

Jack Idema’s Lawsuit Against Columbia University Thrown Out

It seems that Cao has invited me to mudwrestle.

What could be a sadder spectacle than bounty hunters who pretend to be Secret Agents?

The First Annual Jack Idema Awards: The Winners are Robert F. Kane aka “Captain America” & Ben Thomas aka “Mookie Spicoli”

The First Annual Jack Idema Award to Be Announced Tomorrow

Lynn Thomas and the Great Columbia Conspiracy, continued.

Jack Idema: Space Cowboy

Satire Mistaken for News: Bush then took the opportunity to meet with Americans Jonathan Keith Idema, Edward Caraballo, and Brett Bennett in a show of support.

Thou Shalt Not Hot-Swap Monitors, plus Idema Unplugged, the Spooky Magic Kingdom, & More

Pul-e-Charkhi Prison Riot & Jack Idema’s “Coverage”

The Themes of Homicide & Revenge in Lynn Thomas’s Cao’s Blog

Looking for a Few Bad Apples

Private Jailers Found Guilty in Afghanistan

Bushworld: Atrazine & Private Jails

From her AOL blog also entitled “We Get Letters” (Kathryn has several blogs) -Which she has deleted but is still available through cache and I am keeping archived-this one is her showing the confidentiality agreement online which was between Idema, me and Kathryn which she never signed, so we withdrew contact.

Thanks to: Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, basil’s blog, Shadowscope, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Jo’s Cafe, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The HILL Chronicles, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, and Gone Hollywood, Church and State, Stop the ACLU

French President Jacques Chirac provided the key clue as to why so many in the international community still revere the Kyoto Protocol, who in 2000 said Kyoto represents “the first component of an authentic global governance.”

As most of us who are not buying into the global warming alarmism know; global warming is an illusion based on very little science, only hysteria meant to propel Congress to legislate us into more of a nazi state.

This is Senator Inhofe talking with Glenn Beck about it from Inhofe’s website.

Below you will find excerpt from his Speech titled “Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming” that he delivered approximately 3:00pm ET, Monday, September 25, 2006 on the floor of the United States Senate. This is something that is being buried by the leftists who don’t want this position to even get a hearing.

This is an excerpt from his speech in front of the Senate on media coverage of global warming:

“Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media pedaled a coming ice age.

It is an inconvenient truth that so far, 2006 has been a year in which major segments of the media have given up on any quest for journalistic balance, fairness and objectivity when it comes to climate change. Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try and convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Just last week, the vice president of England’s Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism.

After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today’s voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom.

Above all, the media must roll back this mantra that there is scientific ‘consensus’ of impending climatic doom as an excuse to ignore recent science. After all, there was a so-called scientific “consensus” that there were nine planets in our solar system until Pluto was recently demoted.”

Senator Inhofe on projections of global warming disaster:

“In fact, after years of hearing about the computer generated scary scenarios about the future of our planet, I now believe that the greatest climate threat we face may be coming from alarmist computer models. This threat is originating from the software installed on the hard drives of the publicity seeking climate modelers.

The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future.

The more the eco-doomsayers’ predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict.”

Senator Inhofe on the Kyoto Protocol:

“Many of the nations that ratified Kyoto are now realizing what I have been saying all along:

The Kyoto Protocol is a lot of economic pain for no climate gain.

The alarmists freely concede that the Kyoto Protocol, even if fully ratified and complied with, would not have any meaningful impact on global temperatures. And keep in mind that Kyoto is not even close to being complied with by many of the nations that ratified it, including 13 of the EU-15 nations that are not going to meet their emission reduction promises.

I firmly believe that when the history of our era is written, future generations will look back with puzzlement and wonder why we spent so much time and effort on global warming fears and pointless solutions like the Kyoto Protocol.

In addition, we now have many environmentalists and Hollywood celebrities, like Laurie David, who have been advocating measures like changing standard light bulbs in your home to fluorescents to help avert global warming. Changing to more energy-efficient light bulbs is a fine thing to do, but to somehow imply we can avert a climate disaster by these actions is absurd. Once again, symbolism does not solve a climate crisis.”

Senator Inhofe on former Vice President Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth:”

In May, our nation was exposed to perhaps one of the slickest science propaganda films of all time: former Vice President Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” In addition to having the backing of Paramount Pictures to market this film, Gore had the full backing of the media, and leading the cheerleading charge was none other than the Associated Press.

On June 27, the Associated Press ran an article by Seth Borenstein that boldly declared “Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore’s movie.” The article quoted only five scientists praising Gore’s science, despite AP’s having contacted over 100 scientists.”

Senator Inhofe on the media’s coverage of climate alarmist James Hansen:

“Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen’s huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation.

The foundation’s money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money.”

Senator Inhofe on Time Magazine’s Global Warming Special Report:

“The April 3, 2006 global warming special report of Time Magazine was a prime example of the media’s shortcomings, as the magazine cited partisan left-wing environmental groups with a vested financial interest in hyping alarmism.

So in the end, Time’s cover story title of “Be Worried, Be Very Worried,” appears to have been apt. The American people should be worried — very worried — of such shoddy journalism.”

Senator Inhofe on Tom Brokaw’s July 2006 Global Warming Special on the Discovery Channel:

“You don’t have to take my word for the program’s overwhelming bias; a Bloomberg News TV review noted

“You’ll find more dissent at a North Korean political rally than in this program” because of its lack of scientific objectivity.”

Senator Inhofe on Reuters News article (September 15, 2006) about polar bears in the arctic appearing to be exhausted:

“The article did not state the bears were actually dead or exhausted, rather that they “looked” that way. Have we really arrived at the point where major news outlets in the U.S. are reduced to analyzing whether or not polar bears in the Arctic appear restful? How does reporting like this get approved for publication by the editors at Reuters?”

Senator Inhofe on what the a British group called the Institute for Public Policy Research has termed “Climate Porn” to describe the media’s relentless hyping of global warming:

“Fortunately, the media’s addiction to so-called ‘climate porn’ has failed to seduce many Americans. According to a July Pew Research Center Poll, the American public is split about evenly between those who say global warming is due to human activity versus those who believe it’s from natural factors or not happening at all.

Yes — it appears that alarmism has led to skepticism.” On CBS’s “60 Minutes” one-sided global warming segments of 2006:

“Why would “60 Minutes” ignore the basic tenets of journalism, which call for objectivity and balance in sourcing, and do such one-sided segments? The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelley told the CBS News website that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of ‘Holocaust deniers.’”

Thanks to Jo’s Cafe

Photocredit: Michelle Malkin See the Left’s Definition of a “hero” at Hot Air here

Is the real leftist goal of Watada’s court martial to make ‘conscientious objectors’ legitimate? It would seem to me that is what they are striving for, but this is interesting:

As his court-martial got under way, military judge Lt. Col. John Head refused to allow almost all defense witnesses to take the stand. Head previously ruled that Watada’s attorney, Eric Seitz, could not debate the legality of the Iraq war in court.

With that strategy out of the way, I wonder what other legal maneuvers his lefty lawyers will pull.

It’s good to see that there are people countering the anti-war people:

Outside the base, a small group that included actor Sean Penn demonstrated in support of Watada. A few others demonstrated against him, including one man who carried a sign calling Watada a “weasel.”

Look, if our nation is in a military conflict, and our fighting forces are volunteer, I don’t see how you can expect to sign up and not be sent to the Middle East. Most, as a matter of fact, support the war, and that’s why they volunteer. Watada’s family has a history of ‘dissent’, which pro Castro Leslie Cagan characterizes as “patriotic”. heh. That is an definition of an anti-American position, but fits in with the empty slogans.

What an interesting teleclass Barbara Winter had last night! It was on ‘resistance’, and how it manifests in our lives. She gave us tips on how to overcome it, and wow, is this woman well-read! She referenced so many books, I have to go back over it to get all the information that was in there! Being that it was late for me (I go to bed early), I missed about the last 10 minutes or so, but it was a really good class. She’s looking into recording her classes, and I’m sure that people would go for a recorded class. Although one of the benefits of getting on it live is that there are points in the class where she has interaction, and asks questions and asks people to respond with their own personal stories. I look forward to taking another one!

See the teleclasses Barbara has scheduled for February here.

The book she referenced several times is The War of Art: Break Through the Blocks and Win Your Inner Creative Battles (Paperback) . I’ll have to pick that one up and add it to my stack!

Huh. The WaPo is talking about the IPCC report, which to me seems very odd. The IPCC report is actually a series of conclusions and recommendations which do not supply any data for scientists to review. In fact, it follows the religious dogma of leftists in their puff pieces on politicians, the war in the Middle East, and issues like global warming: first, decide your conclusion. Next, back all evidence into it that fits, or manufacture evidence that fits, and then throw away *or ignore* the rest. In the religious dogma of the leftist, censorship is paramount. This reminds me of the nazi propaganda of the 30’s.

Which reminds me; before I move on to talk about the environmentalist’s touting the generalizations made in the conclusions that were ‘likely’ in the IPCC report, you should take a look at how Switzerland is killing off its mental patients over at Raven’s. This is another example of how eugenics is incapable of compassion or feeling; and propels and ideology akin to Nazi Germany in the ’30’s. But I see this all as a bigger picture; the Green movement in America, and eugenics is alive and well here in the US killing off our infants and our sick and helpless in a horrible silent holocaust. As much as the leftist communist and socialist organizations will bang on the ’social justice’ drum, they’re not for ‘justice’ at all. Look at the countries who have those ‘utopian’ forms of government; they are rife with corruption, greed and murder. They might have very little crime, but the people have very little freedom. Ok back to the Green wackos and the IPCC report.

Pat Cleary at the Shop Floor does point out that the WaPo suggests at the end of their article that the George Marshall Institute says we should exercise caution about conclusions one might draw from what I would categorize as ‘wondering is not analysis’ in the IPCC report, until we receive the scientific documentation which backs up the conclusions that were just published.

Two important points in Pat’s post at the Shop Floor are:

• The WaPo is now going to make it a policy to mention the funding sources of the groups citing the ’scientific research’.
• And we can look up at Capital.org to see where on the political spectrum 1 being radical environmentalist, and 8 being free market right.

We should probably further make a dilineation and call the 1-8 scale from left to right as Green Environmental Nazis on the 1 scale, and 8-Capitalists for the Disappearing Free Enterprise System.

Watada, as you recall, joined the army, but refused to go to Iraq, calling the war ‘illegal’. U.S. Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada now faces a court martial.

It’s a trend that I see growing, although this article says that churches taking this position are not the mainstream. Years ago, my family went to the Methodist Church in the town we lived in, and one of the reasons we left was because it funded leftist causes. I think this is rampant within the Methodist Church in general. This is devastatingly daft, the story of how a methodist church is taking the moveon.org position against the war, and defending Watada; offering him, dissenters and veterans “sanctuary”. In taking this leftist position, the Tacoma United Methodist Church is ignoring some foundational principals and ignoring the denomination’s official stances on war and the historic war teaching of Wesleyan Christianity.

Rev. Smith told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that “any war, particularly this one, is inconsistent with Christian teachings.”

Tacoma First United Methodist Church is not your typical Christian congregation, of course. Its website has helpful links to MoveOn.org, Jim Wallis’s Sojourners, Michael Lerner’s Tikkun, and the Rainbow Center, which resources the “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Questioning and Allies (LGBTIQA).” First Church is a “reconciling congregation” in opposition to United Methodism’s stance that marriage is for man and woman.

It’s not just the United States that First Church denounces; it also maligns the Bible. Its website declares: “We acknowledge our Holy Scriptures contain texts that affirm slavery, child abuse, woman abuse, abstention from sexual activity of any kind, and that presume an earth-centered universe.” Instead, the church devotes itself to “social justice.”

“It’s important that we provide space where people can find their moral compass,” the congregation’s lay leader told the United Methodist News Service, as she was explaining their creation of “sanctuary” for dissident U.S. military personnel.

Naturally, this is just more propaganda that is meant to undermine the war effort. So it’s important that we call upon our clergy to defend the teachings of the Bible, and the teachings of the church and remind them of the church’s own teachings!

It’s time we remind everyone; it’s winnable; we need to stay the course, in spite of the propaganda the MSM and our own churches are spreading on behalf of the terrorists. Watada is going to be court martialed. I can only imagine that he joined to begin with to find some reason to be a conscientious objector. The fact that a church would come to the ‘aid’ of ‘dissenters’ is disgusting.

See her post at Townhall.com We’ve become spoiled and soft, and the environmentalists have too much time on their hands to destroy the hopes and dreams people have for the basic necessities of life. We’ve already seen what environmentalists did with DDT; but that hasn’t stopped them while millions are dying from malaria. They’re trying, as we’ve said so many times before, to restrict human activity for the sake of the environment; even if it kills people.

From Delaware online there was a letter published that I thought warranted a few answers. What’s great about letters to the editor is that they just sit there without a response; and the editors can decide whether or not to publish responses.

Biased critics attack state’s global warming position

I would call that a biased headline, lol, in other words, as Iraq the Model said, ’since when did wondering become analysis?’ Today, we see many examples of it; particularly in the first few pages of the UN IPCC Report see UN Releases Its Global Warming As Caused By Man Report (Part 1) and UN Releases Its Global Warming As Caused By Man Report (Part 2). Bill points out that the term “very likely” a number of times in the first few pages. Instead of getting a report outlining a definitive cause and effect, which actually would be science, we get ‘very likelies’.

How can our state climatologist file briefs opposing our state’s position on global warming? And how does a university department head get to appoint a state title?

Maybe they’re looking at other data which hasn’t been produced by the obedient jackboots of the radical green environmental movement.

As for The Competitive Enterprise Institute , which calls itself “a non-profit, non-partisan research and advocacy institute dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government,” it is in fact an ideologically-driven, well-funded front for corporations opposed to safety and environmental regulations that affect the way they do business.

Now this is a revealing paragraph. It actually is a non-profit, non-partisan research group. What you’re revealing there, is that much like Hillary Clinton, you’re advocating that evil corporations don’t deserve any profits from their work; that it belongs in the deep pocket of government. This is about redistribution of wealth; not really about the science behind global warming, which is vague and inacurrate, at best.

These people exist to confuse the public on issues important to saving corporate profits. Exxon Mobil Corp. has contributed over $1.6 million to CEI since 1998. CEI also gets funding from other oil companies through the American Petroleum Institute.

Remember the free enterprise system? Wave it bu-bye.

The science behind global warming is indeed considered indisputable. Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus that the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program concluded that humans are driving the warming trend through greenhouse gas emissions.

Patricia J. Madore, Hockessin

Science magazine also spreads Evolutionist propaganda of the secularists who favor nature over man. This is about restricting man at the hands of government, which many of us who still believe in a free enterprise system, would like to stop. The more we have legistlation, the higher the taxes, the fewer the freedoms. Limited government, in fact, is a very basic tenet of conservatism. Or, at least it used to be. Now we see RINOs who actually support some of this environmental mumbo jumbo. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who does, has completely sold out. But that doesn’t mean I have to accept your selling my tax dollars down the river; or converting all businesses into government-owned and controlled entitites, either.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Rockefeller and Snowe are criticized by editors in their own states for their attempts at stifling debate on this issue. It is revealing that they’re so open about it. But, as Hillary said once; ‘we’re going to take things away from you for your own good.’ She also recently said something about taking the taxes from the oil companies to use toward environmental causes. Summing it all up, these people should be taken down a few pegs; they’re not our superiors, and they should not be given the power to make decisions for the rest of us; particularly when we have no input into them.

In the still heated debate between those who are blindly following the empty rhetoric as opposed to those who are willing to look at the motivation behind those who are spouting these theories, it is wise to proceed, I think, with caution. But as long as they can keep up with the hysteria; Congress is likely to respond with legislation. I thought I saw a report that said the President himself is starting to give on the issue, which is something that I’m thoroughly anticipating. The UN’s report said “very likely” too many times for something that is supposed to be ‘indisputable’. I also saw reports that the eeevvvviiillll oil companies have ‘paid to suppress’ scientific evidence of global warming. The hysteria on that side is up to a practically fevered pitch, but that’s what is going to motivate Congress. Let’s hope that it doesn’t go much further and that there are enough voices out there to combat what the Teresa Heinz Kerry’s are looking to accomplish with all of their money thrown at the Green causes. I didn’t expect that things would be happening so rapidly on all of these scores; it’s difficult to keep up with, and the big picture view is a looming disaster for what was once the ‘free enterprise system’. Remember good old capitalism? What kind of country are we going to be passing down to our progeny? I shudder to think.

I am satisfied when both sides of an issue get a hearing. Unfortunately, many times the conservative viewpoint is now censored. This is noted in Bill’s post here about the ’scientific method’, concluding with

if you do not 100% agree with them, then shut the hell up:

A report summary issued Friday by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “should erase any doubts, even among the most dedicated skeptics, that the time for action to combat global warming is now,” said National Audubon President John Flicker.

As for those who question the latest scientific consensus on global warming — ignore them, Flicker suggested: “The clarity and completeness of the IPCC’s global warming findings permanently relegates skeptics to the fringe,” he said.

Got that? You are wasting your time trying to have a discussion with those who believe/feel deeply in climate change. They will refuse to not only have no rational, scientific, factual, adult converstations with you, they will refuse to converse at all. If climate change is such an established fact, then why can’t they debate it? Because feelings are not facts.

Facts never bother leftists.

Thanks to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, Right Truth, Big Dog’s Weblog, Shadowscope, Common Folk Using Common Sense, Stuck On Stupid, Thought Alarm, The Amboy Times, Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog, Pursuing Holiness, Sujet- Celebrities, Right Celebrity, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein… has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate’s Cove, The Right Nation, Renaissance Blogger, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Right Pundits, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, 123 Beta, Maggie’s Notebook, basil’s blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, Jo’s Cafe, Adam’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Thought Alarm: And the Truth Shall Set You Free (If It’s Not Supressed), Wake Up America, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Open Trackbacks Wednesday

Kathryn Cramer put up her own page on Wikipedia, referencing herself.

Note the warnings that they are giving her:

Kathryn, you risk being blocked for disruption without further warning if you continue to edit this way. You’re creating articles that don’t assert the notability of the subject. You created a page about yourself. You’re relying on blogs and personal websites as sources. You created an attack page on someone you claimed had defrauded you — you even included his description, presumably so that Wikipedia’s readers could help you to track him down? You’ve made serious personal attacks against editors on and off wiki. In short, you seem be trying to turn Wikipedia into an extension of your blog, which won’t be allowed. Please read the content policies and try to edit in accordance with them; see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP. You should also review WP:NOT. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well knock her off of there, then, and stop being so nice to this crazy woman! Behavior rewarded is behavior repeated.

Kathryn, your transparency of what you are doing at Wikipedia is clear. You even took your version of Cafasso entry after wikipedia editor deleted parts, you moved the unredacted - your version - to Google, posted it and superimposed wikipedia’s logo on that to lend credibility to something that was not acceptable to wikipedia - that is like slapping a CBS, CNN logo on a piece that never aired on CNN? Your use of wikipedia is in question. You are using Wikipedia’s credentials to substantiate your claims and for personal revenge! that is abuse. what you are doing to other cafasso victims is abuse as well. wikipedia does not deserve this and i dont appreciate being dragged into your revenge with cafasso under the umbrella of wikipedia! you have also publicly misled and buried your complictiy with cafasso - so on balance, your overall postings are misleading. on accuracy, it is negligence; on rudimentary standards of substance, an editor would not publish outside of wikipedia, and when cross-reference all these notes on all of these entries, you have inconsistencies. on one entry you claim cafasso is a lone ranger against idema yet you write on GoDaddy, you filed complaints on idema with GoDaddy and 4 police agencies and then do this edit on GoDaddy about idema and harassment; you list victims and then you neglect to mention your complicity as in charges on your credit card for cafasso to commit interstate stalking against Lynn Thomas at casoblog. there is alot editorially that should be questioned. this analysis of what you are putting wikipedia through is as close to a full blown mainstream news story on the abuse and misuse by some of wikipedia to settle sources - this breaches ethics journalistically; this is very transparent. christine dolan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.156.57.153 (talk • contribs). February 1, 2007 9:12am

Interestingly, I can see no response from Cramer as it would appear she got caught again with her pants down. She is, in fact, self-publishing with her typical delusions of grandeur and here is more on Wikipedia ‘talk’:

I’m not sure I understand why Cramer’s essays in The New York Review of Science Fiction aren’t listed individually. The reason given in the edit summary was that they’re believed to be self-published. I don’t think the NYRSF is an example of self-publishing, as defined in WP:V and WP:RS–the magazine is hardly a vanity publication, as the Hugo nominations and the existence of an editorial board should show. She is one of the editors of NYRSF, but I’d imagine it’s pretty normal for literary periodicals to publish essays by the editors.

Furthermore, the essays weren’t being used as a source for the article, except in the rather narrow sense that they are sources for their own existence, so I can’t even see why self-publishing would be a problem here. –Akhilleus (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We have a “poisoning the well” problem here. Kathryn Cramer has promoted herself both by editing here and by promoting her version of her bio elsewhere. SlimVirgin and others are trying to create an unbiased bio based of reliable published sources; but that is being made difficult by repeated efforts to hijack the process by various self-promotional eforts by Kathryn Cramer who claims Wikipedia is nothing more than a blog and treats it as if it were one. WAS 4.250 22:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the pages on Joe Cafasso, Kathryn Cramer, David Hartwell and GoDaddy, she has been doing a lot of self publishing in order to manipulate interest in one direction. It’s no wonder the editors at wikipedia are having difficulty with her; she’s a mindless drone with an agenda who doesn’t know when to stick a sock in it.

In What Wikipedia is Not, they state:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for talking. This means that you should only put facts in an article. You should not put your thoughts about something in an article. An article is for the truth, not what you think.

Kathryn doesn’t know how to distinguish between facts and her non fiction world, because to her, they are one in the same. It is quite interesting what she’s been publishing at her blog about Cafasso, minus her cooperation and support of what he’s done thus far. In addition, she seems to be on some kind of a mission in order to publish something on her blog and use Wikipedia as the source; even though she created that source. She isn’t getting the kind of resistance that she should be the editors, in my opinion. They also state about original research (like Cramer’s)

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a “novel narrative or historical interpretation.”

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Since the policies complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

I don’t think Pleasantville, the editor of several of the interesting entries, who is Cramer, understands that rules; that they apply to everyone. In typical elitist ‘ruling class’ fashion, she thinks the ‘rules’ are for everyone else.

Thanks to Jo’s Cafe

Cicero:

The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

And so we have some blatant examples of evil propaganda masquerading as news reporting.

The MSM, as Dan Riehl points out, has officially gone to war, seemingly, on behalf of Bin Laden and the terrorists. It’s been completely visible for those of us who’ve been parsing through the reports; and paying attention to what Bin Laden said:

“the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists in the war against crusaders.”

True to their anti-military history, we have people like Hillary Clinton rewriting history when they claim things like they were ‘tricked’ into voting ‘for’ the war, and the MSM propping that idiocy.

We have the MSM portraying Cindy Sheehan as a soccer mom when she’s part of the Marxist movement that wants to destroy America. As if she hasn’t milked enough out of the tragedy of her son’s death in opposition to what he stood and died for.

We have some disgusting examples of nazi-style control over the media like this one:
CNN airing terrorist sniper video

Or Celebrating the shooting of a marine

the CBS journalist uses an Al Qaeda video for her reporting, without identifying where it came from, or who produced it.

We have the basic idea that similar to how the nazis had control of the media in the ’30’s, and the terrorists have control of the media in the middle east, American journalists are helping them to spread propaganda and lies reported as truth

The MSM, on a consistent basis, is a propaganda tool used by the democrats, who for all intents and purposes are out-and-out-socialists, using terrorists and terrorist-connectedphotographers and masked individuals who appear to be terrorists, in their reporting of what they claim to be ‘news’. On a consistent basis, we see how things are going terribly in Iraq, without talking about any of the successes. On another level, we have a military clusterfuck where it seems our own military completely hamstrung by bureacratic red tape. The constant threat looms over their heads that they’ll be brought up on charges for terrorist-manufacturered ‘human rights abuses’ from organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Those same organizations along with Al Qaeda collude with the MSM on ‘human rights abuses’, feed them information, videotapes and photographs, while ignoring the most horrible human rights abuses I’ve ever read about committed by terrorists against our own citizens!

The hatred directed towards not only men in uniform, but people who are working to further the cause of freedom in the middle east until it takes root, which will take a very long time, is astonishing. Hillary actually said the other day that she wants President Bush to clean up ‘his mess’ in Iraq before 2008. Iraq isn’t “Bush’s mess”, it’s a situation that needs attention over generations. If we give up, do you think the terrorists are going to? They are committed to achieving their goals over generations. If we are to succeed, I don’t see that we have a choice but to persevere. Why is it that the MSM is so hung up on failure? They are determined, like Baghdad Bob, or Tokyo Rose, to say that we’ve lost, that there is no chance of winning. The alternative; a chain of 9/11 style attacks and an aftermath of epic proportions along the lines of what happened at the hands of the Khmer Rouge after we left Vietnam is what we’re realitically looking at, if we’d just open our eyes.

They say if you don’t learn from history, your destined to repeat it.

Another example is Arkin’s astonishing Code-Pink-like hyperbolic piece at the WaPo entitled The Troops Also Need to Support the American People, is just another example. Which “American people” would those be? The Lynne Stewart/Ramsey Clark/Curtis Doebbler/Cindy Sheehan/Jane Fonda/Ted Turner/Tom Hayden variety, who want to create a communist utopia??

I agree with Dan’s assessment that it’s only going to get worse.

Nobody said they were all that bright, either. Look at Kofi’s denials about the oil for food program. Why we are looking to the UN to save us is beyond me. Why we are members is even further beyond me, and why the HQ is in the US is astonishing: what other nation was founded on the principles of freedom besides us? Most of them are communist dictators.

I’ve been seeing news reports stating it as fact: global warming is indeed caused by man. But where is the proof? As Bill at Pirate’s Cove mentions in this post, the UN has come out with some stupid report that was produced in France. Let’s not forget Meyssan’s the communist’s idea of what happened to the Pentagon. I take little that comes out of France; including Jean Francois Kerrie as something factual, other than the fact that mold grows on their famous cheeses. Perhaps there is something to the notion that the latte sipping communists in the cafes there let a little bit of that mold seep into their brains.

My fascination with this is growing, based in part on the legislation posed by the democrats within Pelosi’s first 100 hours, and hysterical moonbats who enter into my comments section, completely convinced they can throw their thought control waves in my direction.

There is no clear discernible effect of human activities on global temperatures. Chart from Geologic Constraints on Global Climate Variability (a powerpoint presentation), produced by Dr. Lee Gerhard of the Kansas Geological Society.

This is a very revealing pie chart, because for some strange reason, in spite of the fact that humans are contributing such a small portion to the environment, environmentalists in their hysteria are claiming that restricting our input is somehow going to manipulate the environment. Wouldn’t it seem that even if we completely eliminate our CO2 input to the atmosphere it will have little if any effect overall? If you take this chart in addition to the idea that the environment is totally dynamic and corrects itself, that gives further pause to the ‘global warming myth’ that they’re using to increase the number of government restrictions over us. You can see a lot of this myth completely exposed over at Junk Science dot com. Things like - the earth simply doesn’t behave like a greenhouse. We don’t live in a terrarium. In addition to that, CO2 is not pollution:

There seem to be a few things that your informant forgot to tell you — like carbon dioxide being an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web. Estimates vary, but somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the increase in global food crop yields due to aerial fertilization with increased carbon dioxide since 1950.

My dad said…plants LOOOOOVE carbon dioxide, so the more that’s put into the atmosphere, the more plants will thrive.

This increase has both helped avoid a Malthusian disaster and preserved or returned enormous tracts of marginal land as wildlife habitat that would otherwise have had to be put under the plow in an attempt to feed the growing global population. Commercial growers deliberately generate CO2 and increase its levels in agricultural greenhouses to between 700ppmv and 1,000ppmv to increase productivity and improve the water efficiency of food crops far beyond those in the somewhat carbon-starved open atmosphere. CO2 feeds the forests, grows more usable lumber in timber lots meaning there is less pressure to cut old growth or push into “natural” wildlife habitat, makes plants more water efficient helping to beat back the encroaching deserts in Africa and Asia and generally increases bio-productivity. If it’s “pollution,” then it’s pollution the natural world exploits extremely well and to great profit.

Oh, it’s very much a political issue; but I also agree that environmentalists aren’t very moral, either, since they think a man is a dog is a bug and can’t distinguish between any of them, and don’t elevate man any higher than the spotted owl or a mosquito. They subscribe to the methodoligical materialist evolutionary theory; that man was not created in God’s image.

Bottom line is, they use junk science to make government bigger. And how is that not political? Particularly when some of us are striving to cut back on the size of government in order to preserve our personal freedom, as our founders taught us? Thomas Jefferson said, “Government that governs least governs best.”

But that isn’t what the Greens are trying to achieve. Jane Chastain wrote at WND that Ralph Nader is more red than green, and that is the truth;

Both the Democratic Socialists of America and the Green Party have long histories and red, or communist, roots. The July 2000 Green Bulletin states, “For those of you not familiar with us, The Greens/Green Party USA started in 1984 as the Committees of Correspondence.” Alan Caruba, the editor of the National Anxiety Center’s publication, Warning Signs, has traced this history for us. “The Communist Party that took over Russia in 1917 began as ‘committees of correspondence.’ In 1989, its name was changed to Green Committees of Correspondence and, in 1991, to The Greens/Green Party USA.”

And Ralph Nader has long been fighting ’social injustice’, but you have to take a good luck at the Greens and where they came from. From Alan Caruba, the editor of the National Anxiety Center’s publication, Warning Signs:

“The Communist Party that took over Russia in 1917 began as ‘committees of correspondence.’ In 1989, its name was changed to Green Committees of Correspondence and, in 1991, to The Greens/Green Party USA.”

To make the devastatingly stupid statement that the environmental movement is not ‘political’ is to completely ignore the facts. Michael Moore is a ‘Green’, and we saw how ‘nonpolitical’ he is with his schlockumentary, Fahrenheit 9/11.

As so much of the real evidence suggests, humans are not altering the atmosphere because the earth corrects itself. Even if things continue as they do for the next 100 years, and we do all we can to limit our contribution to C02 in the atmosphere, it will only have an effect of less than .05 degrees.

One of the funniest things about the global warming myth is ‘cooling is due to warming’. The very essence of the debate is we are not to accept any scientific data which is not government funded, and which does not support the growth of government bureaucracy. And to me, that doesn’t equate to science at all; which postulates and tests new theories. Shouldn’t science be open to doing that? Not where global warming and evolution are concerned! Instead of calmly and rationally discussing all points of view, like true scientists would do; in those two instances, other points of view are completely shut out in view of blind hysteria to push through completely unnecessary legislation.

Thanks to Pirate’s Cove, Basil, Bullwinkle, The Pink Flamingo, Woman Honor Thyself, The Hill Chronicles, Adam’s Blog, Is It Just Me?, Ferdy, Phastidio.net, , stikNstein…has no mercy, The Amboy Times, Right Celebrity, The Random Yak, The Renaissance Blogger, Third World County, 123 Beta, Right Voices, A Blog For All, Pursuing Holiness, Right Truth, The Right Nation, Outside the Beltway, Big Dog’s Weblog, Stuck on Stupid, Maggie’s Notebook, Sujet Celebrities, Right Pundits, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of a Mad Pigeon, Jo’s Cafe

From the neo libertarian:

Global Warming is an oft-repeated theory wherein carbon emissions, increased by industrialization, are spiraling out of control and will destroy the Earth in floods, droughts, rampaging diseases, a breakneck pace of extinctions and a general combination of most of the worst parts of the Bible. Of course, the fact that the science behind it is incredibly weak never seems to fully enter the conversation or reporting on the subject.

“weak”? How about practically non-existent.

Always remember that almost every environmentalist has a social or political goal totally independent of environmentalism, enabling concern for nature to act as an auxiliary argument to the other agenda items. While almost certainly environmentalists do have genuine concerns about nature and wilderness, the scatter-shot of disconnected, under-evidenced and over-hyped arguments given to advance their policies betray the true nature of the debate; they believe in protecting nature, but they also believing in limiting the power of businesses and altering the way the market works.

Yes, they have a huge political influence!

The ideological, semi-religious way in which many environmentalists conduct debate needs to be checked by criticism, skepticism and a greater reliance on evidence from all parties involved in the debate. To that end, I offer these essays in criticism of the current state of climatological alarmism.

I would assert iit is a complete religion with values, even their own ‘ethics’ based on the theory of evolution, another sham. Their religion is called humanism or methodological materialism.

More from the neo-libertarian here on the same subject:

#1 Kyoto Treaty: Anti-Industrial Revolution Redux
#2 The Siren Call of Popular Consensus-Science
#3 Feelings vs. Science
#4 Colder Isn’t Always Better
#5 Medicine or Trees

From Rush Limbaugh. This is so great. Got to his site to listen to it, and read the transcript. I hate the sound of her voice.

Rush doesn’t identify Code Pink for what they are: a group of MARXISTS who want to destroy America; and Cindy Sheehan is one of their tools.

Jo noticed Rush’s commentary on Hillary, too.

One of the reasons this thing has been heating up and the reason the leftists are so desperate online when we point out the other side of this issue, encouraging people not to ‘fall’ for it, is what Bill points out here.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US lawmakers called for an end to American complacency over global warming as the new Democratic-controlled Congress weighed measures to reduce greenhouse gases.

After years of relegating climate change to the bottom of the legislative agenda, Democrats who wrested control of the House and the Senate from the Republicans in November elections, have vowed to make it a priority.

At a hearing of the Senate Environment Committee, Democratic Senator
Hillary Clinton said after years of delay, global warming was “an issue whose time has come.”

“If we look at where we are … we are not making progress. In fact, emissions are still going up,” she said.

Nancy Pelosi’s jackboots are trying to push this thing through, with Shrillary screaming at the forefront as their would-be presidential candidate. What Shrillary has over Obama is experience; what Obama has is not much of a record, and his smooth and pleasant star power like presence. Hillary should have a bag over her head, and she really needs to tone down the biting tonality of her voice. But those who worked with the Clintons in the Clinton Whitehouse know that the Clinton family is looney tunes, and quite prone to tantrums and rages. Bill is afraid of her, and rightly so; she’s a feminazi.

As I’ve pointed out at least a few times in the past, it’s kind of funny to see the lefties hopping around claiming that we’re in some kind of a catastrophic situation with global warming when it hasn’t been proven. Watch for the footnotes, I’m using my footnote plugin in this post.

At Answers in Genesis, we have an interesting article that points it out even more graphically. It’s called “Human-Caused Global Warming Slight So Far”. Read the whole article, but here are a few excerpts that I found particularly enlightening:

There are also a number of scientists who believe global warming, so far, has been slight. They believe that doomsayers have not proven their case for the expected huge temperature increase for a doubling of carbon dioxide, and that increased carbon dioxide may have a net beneficial effect. In fact, 20,000 scientists, of whom about 2,700 of them are physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers or environmental scientists, who are in a position to understand the global warming issues, have signed the following statement:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.¹

But of course, the evolutionist green environmentalist cabal doesn’t recognize what it is these people are saying, apparently. 20,000 scientists don’t phase the proliferation of propaganda in order to enslave the industrialized nations and hamstring their populations with environmental restructions, based on the same junk science that outlawed DDT and is killing millions today from malaria.

Examples of misinformation and hysteria are not hard to find. One of the most recent examples of hysteria was a special report on global warming published in the April 3, 2006, issue of Time magazine.² The article flatly states without any qualifications, “The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame.”³⁴ The article claims that serious debate has quietly ended (although this is untrue) and lists many devastating weather, climate and environmental occurrences. Serious debate has only ended because radical environmentalists now dominate the discussion and malign those who disagree. This is not unlike the creation/evolution debate.

That’s because the same totalitarian ideology is driving it.

There are many other examples of wrong information, half-truths and hysteria. In the January 22, 1996, issue of Time magazine, the front cover exclaimed, “The hot zone—blizzards, floods & hurricanes: blame global warming.”⁵ Believe it or not, even blizzards such as the powerful East Coast northeaster of January 1996 have been blamed on global warming by some advocates. It seems like some believe all bad weather is caused by global warming. One of the problems in countering such misinformation is that people have short memories or do not read weather history.

Yeah, they don’t seem all that bright to me, particularly the fallacious arguments the blind moonbats seem to bring up in comments.

Probably the most outrageous example of false information is a video produced in 1990 that claimed world temperatures would rise 55°F (30°C) by the year 2050!⁶

Well that falls in line with the allegation that President Bush has a weather control machine in the Whitehouse. That was the real reason for Katrina, dontcha know.

There is even a dramatic movie promoting an ice age rapidly caused by global warming.⁷ Although the movie was admitted to be a Hollywood exaggeration, many scientists see such an ice age, caused by global warming, developing more slowly, perhaps over of the course of several decades. This belief has been reinforced by what are believed to be indications of abrupt climate change shown by ice cores from the Greenland Ice Sheet.⁸ In the introduction to a special issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research on ice cores, Hammer and others stated:

These millennial-scale events represent quite large climate deviations: probably 20°C in central Greenland … . The events often begin or end rapidly: changes equal to most of the glacial-interglacial differences commonly occur over decades, and some indicators, more sensitive to shifts in the pattern of atmospheric circulation, change in as little as 1–3 years.⁹

Such temperature changes in Greenland are related to the atmospheric circulation and would affect much of the Northern Hemisphere. Such rapid changes are indeed scary, but their deductions are based on their wrong interpretations of ice cores as a result of their assumption that the ice sheets are millions of years old.¹⁰

Al Gore wrote a book on global warming in which he seemed to believe every dire prediction of the radical environmentalists.¹¹ Recently, he has produced a video documentary with an accompanying book, called An Inconvenient Truth. The video contains the same old misinformation. M. Bergen stated:

But Mr. Gore’s radical political agenda and tendency for half-truth have undergone no such makeover … Mr. Gore employs stage tricks, straw men, and well-rehearsed rhetoric to contend that opposition views on climate change are rooted in callous profiteering.¹²

Mr. Gore’s hysterical and ad hominem attacks are typical of doomsayers. It is common for these advocates to claim that those who disagree with them are working for the oil companies. But we should look at the agendas of the radical environmentalists, and the great economic benefit for them to keep the pot stirred. A new website examines this and is trying to calm some of this hysteria at www.fightglobalwarminghysteria.com.

1. Oregon Petition Project, http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm.[back]
2. Kluger, J., 2006. Global warming. Time 167(14):28–42.[back]
3. Kluger, J., 2006. Global warming. Time 167 Humans are blamed for global warming, and the potentially harmful effects are emphasized.[back]
4. ibid[back]
5. Anonymous, 1996. The hot zone. Time 127[back]
6. Anonymous, 1990. The Fragile Planet: Alterations in the Atmosphere. Films for the Humanities and Sciences, Princeton, New Jersey.[back]
7. Oard, M.J., 2004. The greenhouse warming hype of the movie The Day After Tomorrow. Acts and Facts Impact #373, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.[back]
8. Oard, M.J., 2005. The Frozen Record: Examining the Ice Core History of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, pp. 123–132.[back]
9. Hammer, C.U., P.A. Mayewski, D. Peel, and M. Stuiver, 1997. Preface. Journal of Geophysical Research 102 (C12), p. 26,315.[back]
10. Oard, M.J., 2005. The Frozen Record: Examining the Ice Core History of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, pp. 1-199.[back]
11. Gore, A., 1992. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.[back]
12. Bergin, M., 2006. Convenient spin. World 21(24):26[back]

Rock on, Jake!

Communist asshats are commonplace on college campuses, just like setups with literature with Mao Tse Tung’s face on it.

A great article “Ernest Haeckel, Evangelist for evolution and apostle of deceit over at Answers in Genesis exposes more of the hypocrisy of the alleged ’science’ that was invented to prop the theory of Evolution in the 1800’s. There are many more examples besides this one, demonstrating the lies that are being told to prop that the theory is ‘fact’, and which rules out any other form of rational debate on the subject of origins.

Haeckel’s drawings of the eating habit and reproductive cycle of an alleged Moneron to which he gave the scientific name, Protomyxa aurantiaca, as published in his book The History of Creation. The extent of the detail is the measure of his fraud, as the Monera did not then and do not now exist!

Proof that we’ve morphed into an idiotcratic nation.

Brian Maloney gives us the lowdown of Air America’s near-demise, and the fact that there are more people willing to throw more money at this lost cause.

“I look with confidence to the future, to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality.” -Charles Darwin

I have been having an annoying, fascinating, and fun debate with a leftist who I attempted to ban, but found a way to come back. I was more fascinated by what I learned from the exchange than annoyed by the troll-like behavior of the individual, which was why I didn’t nuke the person completely from Cao’s Blog and TWA into the stratosphere. What’s been particularly annoying to me is contemplating where we are in the debate, and how leftists seem to negate what it is we’re talking about, in true authoritarian style. But how can it possibly be done with science? Isn’t science about postulating a theory, a hypothesis and then testing it to see if it’s true? No, that’s not the way it’s done in the natural humanist religion. They have found a way to lock us out of even bringing up our part of the argument. And here’s how it’s done. I found this at The Intelligent Design Network, where there is a collection of completely fascinating articles. It completely filled in the gaps for me on how someone can ridicule my ’superstitious’ belief system. Even though I recognize it as a communist attack on Christianity, I didn’t realize how much this philosophy has invaded other aspects of thinking.

From Design or Occurrences, John H. Calvert, BA (geology), JD, Managing Director of Intelligence Design network, inc. -draft dated 11-10-2203

This is an excerpt from a 32-page report. The question is, are we designs or occurrences? There is a moral and ethical reason why we should be asking these questions, because secular humanism, is in fact, a religion, much like Ann Coulter said in her book “Godless”. The question is, are we designs or occurrences? My lefty commenter said ‘we are designed by evolution’. Which is in itself contradictory; evolution doesn’t ‘design’, the entire premise of the theory is that we ‘happened’ by ‘accident’. When you examine all the different systems in the human body that work perfectly together and have a purpose of function, that assumption seems rather senseless, as though this individual knows nothing about the human anatomy. I am an advocate of ‘design’, because I see the perfect beauty in designs like a string of DNA, or if you look at a leaf close up, or watch a spider spinning its web with due glistening on it early on a spring morning. But there are more serious and far reaching reasons that we should be motivated in asking the question ‘are we designs or occurrences?’

If we are just occurrences, like the secular humanist Dr. Kirk claims, we have no reason to subscribe to traditional religion as a basis for our social systems. The alternative necessarily becomes human reason and science. Evolution then becomes the foundation for ethics. According to Michael Ruse that is now happening:

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality.”

Ernst Mayr, one of the towering figures in the history of evolutionary biology, notes with pride that “Darwin provided a scientific foundation for ethics…to Borrow Darwin’s phrase, there is grandeur in this view of life. New modes of thinking have been, and are being, evolved. Almost every component in modern man’s belief system is somehow affected by Darwinian principles. Similarly, Michael Shermer explains that

“Scientism is courageously proffering naturalistic answers that supplant supernaturalistic ones and in the process is providing spiritual sustenance for those whose needs are not being met by these ancient cultural traditions.”

All of these ideas logically follow if we are occurrences. If life was not intended, then it has no inherent meaning. This creates an ethical vacuum to be filled by whatever can be rationally justified by human minds.

This is a frightening concept, when you think about it.

Formal anlysis of many apparently designed natural phenomena tentd to confirm rather than rebut the inference of design. Some of that analysis is very briefly summarized in Intelligent Design, the Scientific Alternative to Evolution. According to William Harris, Ph.D., a research biochemist, the strength of the design inference increases in proportion to our increase in knowledge about the genome. This is reflected in Gene Myer’s assessment of the “architecture” of life that is unfolding as the code is cracked.

I just love the idea that it’s so complex, that the ‘code’ needs to be ‘cracked’. The answers are still out there, we just need to find a way to study them.

The results of analysis that tend to confirm design include:

• Lack of natural explanation for the laws which appear to be designed to order certain aspects of the Universe.
• Lack of an adequate natural explanation for the “fine tuning” of a universe that is ncessary for our existence.
• Lack of a natural expalanation for the semantic character of biological information.
• Lack of natural expalanation for the origin of genetic code, the origin of the first cell and the origin of the ength set of genetic instructions necessary to sustain life int he most primitive cell. Chemical analysis shows that the sequence of message bearing symbols in DNA is not dictated by law and statistical calculations indicate that chance formation is not a scientifically reasonable hypothesis. If the weight of the evidence favors design for the origin of life itself, then Occam’s razor would seem to cut off any Darwinian hypothesis as an explanation for all the remainder of the diversity of life.
• The fossil record reflects long periods of stasis in biological complexity punctuated by sudden bursts of increased complexity, a pattern more consistent with technological development by design than the gradual increase in complexity postulated by the Darwinian theory.
• Lack of adequate natural expalanation for many biological systems that appear to be ‘irreducibly complex’.
• The lack of adequate evolutionary simulation.
• The fact that much of the evidence that supports evolutionary theory is also consistent with the competing design hypothesis and therefore proves neither.

In the case of the Martian Face, we have used further analysis to test the inference of design and have found natural explanations that show that it is not a face at all, but merely an illusion of design. However, in the case of the messages that we find in DNA, we have looked behind the messages and are not finding natural explanations, but rather deeper layers of design. Rigorous scientific analysis seems to be leading us toward confirmation of design rather than away from it.

The Use of Methodological Naturalism in origins science prejudges the question, and effectively ordains that life is an occurrence and not a design.

Now there is one of the things that has been bothering me about this debate: the religion of methodological; or secular humanism, or however you want to label it-precludes the question, eliminating any other answer.

The pursuit of an informed, scentifically literate society may be a valid goal. But a science policy that prejudges the most important characteristic of natural phenomena is inconsistent with that goal. The prejudgement occurs when methodological naturalism is applied to the question of origins.

Of course ‘prejudging’ it is inconsistent! But there is no relevant science that can prove it, so questions are ruled out, and any science that might point to an alternative is ruled out. This is what I have a problem with.

In practice, methodological naturalism is synonymous with philosophical naturalism and materialism. Philosophical naturalism is “the doctrine that cause-and-effect laws (as of physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that teleological [design] conceptions of nature are invalid. Materialism also rejects design by allowing only material causes to explain natural phenomenon. Although it has been argued to the contrary, methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are synonymous, because a “method” that does not allow its fundamental assumption of no-design to be contradicted as a doctrine. The non-contradictory character of metholodolgical natrualism is seldom disclosed but commonly acknowledged. Its nature as a doctrine is evident in the statement of John Rennie, the Chief Editor of Scientific American, that “A central tenet of modern science is metholodolgical naturalism.” Any theoretical distinction is lost in practice where overt efforts are taken to officially suppress any contradition of the doctrine. The most recent evidence of suppression is found in a resolution adopted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science which urges a ban on any discussion of intelligent design in public schools.

They have their own religious doctrine, just as we have; they just don’t dare recognize it as a religion, because then it would have to be treated as such.

To effectively exclude design theory, one must also censor criticisms of evolutionary theory and its fundamental claim of no-design. Teachers who seek to teach evolution ‘honestly’ are reassigned. A bevy of censors recently turned out in force to oppose a statement placed in biology textbooks that would urge students to understand that evolution is a ‘theory’ that should be ‘approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.’

That’s what these amazingly stupid attacks seem to be about; censoring the criticisms of the theory. And we must admit it’s an ancient theory that has very little scientific evidence to back it up. What I don’t understand is why they call it ’science’ at all. That little blurb they were suggesting to put into textbooks might have encouraged kids to look for alternative answers, and the totalitarians who are leading us with the carrots certainly don’t want them to do THAT.

This is not a case where we are excluding a falsified hypothesis that the earth is flat or a religious hypothesis that a literal interpretation of Genesis is true. In this case, an inference of design that arises from both intuition and analysis of the data per the scientific method is per se disallowed without any objective consideration of the evidence because it conflicts with a philosophical notion that looks very much like religion itself.

Ha! No, what the ID proponents are suggesting is not some crazy idea even taken out of the bible. Still, what they’re doing is guiding people to a godless religion of secular humanism, called methodological naturalism, which as we’ve seen in other nations whose proponents admired Darwin’s theory and whose societies threw out Christianity as a ’superstition’ resulted in utter catastrophes with millions of people being murdered by cruel and heartless regimes.

The use of methodological naturalism in origins science is scientifically problematic for a number of reasons. It converts origins science into a dogmatic religious belief system rather than a theoretical enterprise where all of its statements are open to contradiction. As discussed in note 9 and elsewhere, its materialistic hypothesis that all of nature can be reduced to physical and material causes flies in the face of many non-physical aspects of the natural world, including minds and biological information processing systems which have a semantic characteristic. It violates the scientific method by philosophically disallowing the very hypothesis that evolutionary biology seeks to rebut. This effectively exempts the no-design claim of evolution from any effective scientific test. Since testing of evolution cannot be performed experimentally, the only way to test its claims of no-design is with a forensics approach that requires one to find evidence that both rules out design and rules in natural sorting. Protecting evolutoin from the competition exempts it from a test that is ncessary for it to be a legitimate scientific theory, rather than an untested speculation.

In my opinion, it’s completely an untested speculation, and further than that; because it’s been promulgated and propagated so carefully in our schools in order to indoctrinate generations of children, it seems to be to be a MYTH, not even a ‘theory’ anymore, because it’s so apparent in areas such as genetics and biology where the systems are irreducibly complex, that the mathematical probability of these things occurring and resulting in all of these forms of inderdependent life is completely impossible by pure random occurrence alone.

Evolution has become an answer ordained by ‘the central tenet of modern science’. When that ‘central tenet’ banishes the idea of design from the realm of science, it also places it in limbo: a place where there are no qualified investigators to analyze and test its claims. It takes physicists, chemists, geologists, mathemeticians, information theorists, biochemists, biologists and others to formally analyze and test an inference of design. Theologians and philosophers don’t have the experience or training to do that job. Excluding scientists form the investigation effectively assigns the evidence of design to an intellectual black hole. Under this paradigm, the answer that is ordained - that we are occurrences and not designs - wholly lacks credibility. It is nothing more than a counter intuitive dogma. Instead of swapping lawyer jokes at parties we will shift to jokes about scientists who can’t be believed. According to a quote attributed to Thomas Huxley, “Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed.” In origins science, the central tenet is nothing more than a creed.