The Great Global Warming Swindle

YouTube has the whole program and it is well worth watching. I have no idea if it is correct or not, but it is certainly very well done, at least rings of truth, and the credentials of the people involved are impressive. The main points are:

• The ice core data shows that carbon dioxide level consistently lags climate change by 800 years or so.
  
• The human input to the total planetary carbon dioxide is less than 1% ... volcanoes, termites and the oceans are HUGELY greater sources, accounting in aggregate for 99% of the "problem"
• At least one excellent potential cause of climate change on the earth is solar activity, and the show goes into that.
• There have been a number of fluctuations in climate in the last few thousand years that are very similar or even "worse" (warmer) than the current one. In general, the times of more warmth have been very positive times for life, and especially human life.

It will be interesting to see if this gets any coverage. Anytime a story only has one side as global warming has become, one has to wonder if it is factual or propaganda. CO2 causing global warming SOUNDS plausible, but one thing that true science shows us is that things that sound plausible are often not.

So why global warming? Basically money and power. Once the USSR lost and in general socialist policies lost with it, then a large number of leftists needed something to do that could get funding and fit into their world view. Capitalism still had to be wrong, so claiming that it was "destroying the world" through global warming rather than just creating too much economic wealth was a decent scam.

Commanding the Heights

I ran into a the documentary out on Netflix, and the book is now on order. It appears to be an excellent discussion of the history of economics in the 20th century, and of all places it was done by PBS! Well, unlike doctrinaire liberals, conservatives enjoy truth where it is found, it doesn't need to be discredited just because of source!

An example of the "breath of fresh air" is that they actually admit the obvious fact that the 70's were an economic disaster caused by Keynesian/liberal/government controlled economics. Part of the travesty of the present time is that every rational American is not as aware of the failure of Keynesian economics and the success of free markets as they are of the failure of the model of a flat earth. While the "two crimes" point is more subtle, it is the same--Democracy can't hope to be successful in even the medium term without the general public understanding reality!

Tale of Two Crimes

Follow the link, all the words are over here.

Aren't We All Terminal?

One has to dig in this story a bit to find that she was first turned down by the Supreme Court TWO YEARS AGO! "Justice" is a government program, so the waiting lines tend to be long. I suspect that the case took a couple of years to get to the high court prior to that as well. Let's be generous and say she has only been "hanging on" three years.

I understand what message the MSM is TRYING to brainwash me with on the heartless(Bush) government here, but they need to think of consistency if they want to reach this particular sheep. They would ALSO like me to hand complete responsibility for my health care over to that same heartless government!

I guess if she died waiting in line for "universal" healthcare she wouldn't have to hang on for years smoking pot! 

clipped from www.cnn.com Court: Dying can be charged for using marijuana POSTED: 2:00 p.m. EDT, March 14, 2007 Story Highlights • Appeals court rules dying not immune from drug charges for marijuana use • Doctor says marijuana is only drug keeping Angel Raich alive • Raich has a brain tumor and chronic nausea, her doctor says • She sobbed when told of the court's decision The Supreme Court ruled against Raich two years ago, saying that medical marijuana users and their suppliers could be prosecuted for breaching federal drug laws even if they lived in a state such as California where medical pot is legal.

Politcal Firing of US Attorneys

The complete fantasy story of Scooter Libbey has done so well that the Dem / MSM factory has created a new one. Bush fires 8 US attorneys that serve as political appointees at the pleasure of the executive branch. Clinton summarily fired 93 in one fell swoop in March of 1993. News at 11, your boss can fire you too!

Was it a story when Clinton did it? Well, of course not! Need we remind, there is a "D" after his name! Since he had a perfect right to fire all 93 in 1993, there was no reason for it to be a story at that time, but of course 8 ought to have been even less of a story now for those few that believe in the fantasy of an "unbiased press".


A Republican "acting reasonably / contrite / nice / etc" is merely blood in the water to the left. If Republicans hold ALL the cards, then they can ALMOST survive ... Bush and company are the main course at a Dem / MSM Bar-B-Q . Even if they circle the wagons and fight as dirty as they can (which would be about 1/10 as dirty as Carvell, Begalla and Hill-Billy during the '90s), they are still turning on a spit with hot hickory underneath and MSM vinegar sauce being liberally applied

clipped from www.opinionjournal.com The Hubbell Standard Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys. Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

Hillary Still Not Completely Amoral?

Does Hillary still have some actual morality left, or is she just doing the calculation that there still may be more voters with some slight morality than there are Gays / completely amoral voters?

clipped from www.cnn.com Story Highlights • Clinton now says she "does not share [Pace's] view, plain and simple" • Clinton avoided question on whether she thinks homosexuality is immoral • "I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said when asked by ABC News • Clinton recently told gay-rights activists she was proud to stand by their side WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton sidestepped a question about whether she thinks homosexuality is immoral Wednesday, less than two weeks after telling gay-rights activists she was "proud" to stand by their side. Clinton was asked the question by ABC News, in the wake of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace's controversial comment that he believed homosexual acts were immoral. "Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said. (Watch why gay-rights groups are angry with Clinton )

Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.



read more | digg story

Frost Bite Ends Global Warming Trek

The Bancroft-Arneson trip to the North Pole to show the devastating effects of global warming has been ended by extreme cold and frostbite. While certainly not enough to give up the AGW faith, they were at least able to see the "irony".


The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.
Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.
"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability.

All this means is that "Global Warming" is being re-branded as "Climate Change", which is much more flexible, Ann and Liv just need to get with the program.

A theory that explains everything explains nothing (Popper).

Jesus Appalled

In an interview with http://www.beliefnet.com/story/213/story_21312_1.html#extndVer

Edwards had the following to say.

What parts of American life do you think would most outrage Jesus?

Our selfishness. Our resort to war when it's not necessary. I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, actually.

One thing that the right really misses are more cartoonists, they do a great job of getting point across. At least with the web, there are now a few!

clipped from powerlineblog.com

"Universal" Walter Reed

One would think "National", "Continental", "Planetary", "Solar" or "Galactic" would be big enough for health care, but we seem stuck on "Universal". If we are going to go that far, we really ought to cover the 10 to the 500 multiverse. "Multiversal Healthcare"? Seems like a concept that Democrats could get behind. Here in MN, the Dems are focused on the important issue of medical marijuana. Enough of that, and how long the lines are for the Multiversal Healthcare really won't matter. If you get sick, you can just take another drag and even ignore the rats chewing up your feet.

It always shocks me when liberals are surprised when there are serious problems with massive federal programs. You name the program ... veterans, medicare, drug benefits, defense, etc, and they will point out how bad the implementation is. Right after they complain, they will ask for more money for the current failing programs and some new ones to start failing in even nastier ways. Don't I feel sorry for the wounded veterans? Absolutely, they are saddled with government healthcare, EVERYONE ought to be feel sorry for them! Walter Reed is just the latest issue. Horrible treatment of veterans requiring medical care is as old as the VA system. The MSM only tends to complain about it when there is a Republican President, but just like a host of other problems endemic to large bloated bureaucracies with no competition or profit motive, it is always there.

The problem with government health care in a democracy is that there are many more well voters than sick voters, and many more slightly sick voters than really sick voters. Even worse, the very sick ones almost never vote. Markets are like death and gravity--you don't have like them, believe in them, or even acknowledge them and they will still work. Politicians are drawn to buy the most votes that they can for as little as they can in their market. They may not even understand what they are doing, but the ones that win in the market for votes are going to naturally be drawn to buying the most votes as efficiently as they can. Granted, it will be very INefficient, but it is the market that they are in that counts.

Certainly federal health care will be bloated and inefficient since it is a bureaucracy with no profit motive, BUT, what the lefties seem to be able to ignore even when it stares them in the face is that since the sick constituency is so small, the politicians and the bureaucracy itself will be drawn to spend less and less on the sick and more and more on the "essentially healthy", and of course on the bureaucracy itself. In this case that means wounded soldiers with horrible care and rats running around. Sadly, horrible VA conditions are a story as old as the VA itself, and horrible care for the SICK in any kind of government health care program is just as old a story.

However, nearly ALL government health care is wildly popular for the HEALTHY! They don't have high insurance bills, they THINK that they are "fully covered", and they THINK that "someone else is paying". What could be better! Government medicine is a lot like the post office ... it is a good system as long as you aren't mailing anything you care about. If you are, you better hope that there is a UPS or Fedex. Government systems just "re-define zero for a very high cost". It doesn't really take a VA system to have rats chewing on wounded veterans, the VA system just allows 100s of billions of dollars to be spent on the way to the peeling paint, rats and squalor. The "new zero" is just a lot higher priced.

Valhalla Is Heaven

The Vikings named their heaven "Valhalla", and the Valhalla hills NE of Iron River WI were snowmobile heaven for the last couple of days. The picture shows the Apex and Fusion sitting at the Valhalla Trail Lodge that happened to be closed on Monday, but the snow was nice anyway.

In something over 280mi of riding over two days we met less than 10 sleds on the trails. We had lunch Monday at the Bell Street Tavern on Madeline Island, where we enjoyed some REALLY good sweet potato fries that were no doubt no good for the waistline.

Trail conditions were generally excellent, with LOTS of snow. Tuesday we headed south to Drummond and had lunch at the Black Bear. We had thought about heading south to Hayward, but decided that we had enough curves, so got on the railroad bed trail to the east and went NE back to the Tri-County Corridor, the big high speed railroad bed trail that runs from Ashland to parts "somewhere west". All the way to Iron River, which is where we stayed, so far enough for our purposes. We decided we had to run into Ashland to have lattes at the Black Cat ... a place that seems to be "very slightly on the liberal side" based on all the posters on the wall. I don't much care about their politics since their coffee is good.

One of those trips where everything went right and all was right with both the snowmobiling world and the trailering / driving world up and back. MUCH nicer to have great snow conditions with a four hour drive rather than an 8 hour drive.

Name Calling

Maybe visible under the latest news section of CNN is a headline titled "Coulter Under Fire for Anti-Gay Slur". In a speech, she said: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions"

Naturally, the MSM likes any chance they can get to jump all over Ann, so they ignore the fact that her joke was referencing the case of Isaiah Washington going into rehab, and of course there is NO attempt to indicate that it is a joke ... as opposed to say, John Kerry saying: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” The media was QUICK to point out that "oh, he MEANT Bush" ... yes, he only meant to disparage the commander in chief, not the troops. Nice when the MSM leaps to your defense.

Here is a YouTube that compliments John as being pretty
When he was running in '04, he was widely recognized as a "metrosexual" by MANY media people--a male that is very much more concerned with his appearance than standard. He even remarked about the quality of "hair" that he and John Kerry brought to the race. Ann was making a joke ... and one that isn't even particularly direct. It seems like much like being a muti-millionaire with a giant new mansion and talking about "too much income disparity", Edwards would like to get credit for being pretty without even so much as any ribbing. Of course, the MSM figures that is OK too.

If we step back for a minute, Al Franken is running for the Senate from MN, and he wrote a BOOK with the TITLE "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot". Is that nice? Well, I guess it is OK, because Rush is certainly conservative, so you can call him ANYTHING. Republicans are commonly called "Fascists" or any form of that slur that can be thought of ... there is a book out now called "American Fascists" on the "religious right", and nobody in the media has any problem when that at all ... I've seen the author, he doesn't mean it as a joke. Calling people "racist" is also pretty much standard, and nobody is going to do any rehab, certainly as long as the person that they are calling names has an "R" somewhere near their name. Yes, calling people names isn't nice and it might be nice if Ann would refrain from it, BUT, why is it that ANN ought to refrain, but the left does it all the time with total impunity?

Michael Moore wins Academy Awards, sat next to Jimmy Carter at the last Democratic Presidential nominating convention. Let's quote a little bit from his "prayer to the comfortable" on page 234 of "Stupid White Men":

"Dear Lord (God/Yahweh/Buddha/Bob/Nobody) ... Rather dear Lord, we ask that You inflict every member of the House of Representatives with horrible, incurable cancers of the brain, penis, and hand (though not necessarily in that order). We ask, Our Loving Father, that every senator from the South be rendered addicted to drugs and find himself locked away for life. We beseech You to make the children of every senator in the Mountain Time Zone gay--REALLY gay. Put the children of the senators from the East in a wheelchair ..."

Is he joking? Probably, just like Franken, he can say whatever he wants, and if it is "inappropriate", it is a joke! Anyone that doesn't "get it" is pretty much an unsophisticated rube! The MSM likes Franken and Moore because they agree with what the MSM thinks. "Freedom of speech" is for people that agree with the MSM. If you don't agree with them, what you generally do is "hate speech", and they would like to criminalize it as soon as possible.

Cold Cash Congressman

Here we see how CNN presents the House Democrat leadership attempting to move the Congressman that was caught with $90K of "cold cash" bribe money in his FREEZER into a committee chairmanship.

The sheep can read this and go no further. It is ONLY the GOP that is doing this "baffling" thing. You actually have to read the article to understand AT ALL, and even then it would take a full read to really even have much for suspicion that potentially it isn't all that "baffling" why most any person other than a complete partisan would NOT object.

Were the shoe on the other foot, how would the writing be done? Let's sample a couple and see if they ring true"

"GOP to Elevate Cold Cash Congressman"

"Dems Question GOP Ethics: Where is the reform?"

"Cold Cash Congressman to Key Committee?"

"GOP Gives Tainted Congressman Key Committee"

"Dems Demand GOP Ethics Accountability"

"Dems Decry GOP Culture of Corruption"

One could go on and on, and we will, as soon as there is an "R" next to something even 1/10 this corrupt and overt.

St Gore the Green

Gore presents yet another case where the very idea of hypocrisy is simply not applicable to Democrats. He lives in a 20+ room mansion that uses 10x the power of the average US family home, and has multiple homes to boot. Of course he is rarely in any of them, but rather traveling around the globe in private jets and running around in SUV motorcades. His "carbon footprint" is the size of a village of average Americans, yet he feels strongly that "the rest of us ought to do something".

If a Republican charges Bill Clinton with infidelity, then any Republican that had an affair in the last 30 years has to be outed as a hypocrite, and we have to point out that Thomas Jefferson may have had an affair with a slave 200 years ago. When Al Gore makes a movie on using less fossil fuel yet burns it in the ranks of the top .001% of Americans himself, there isn't a word spoken.

Here is one link, I'm sure it is "biased", it HAS to be, since the MSM won't touch this story. You KNOW it is true without even thinking about it ... he flys in private jets that burn petrol like a well fire, yet considers himself an environmentalist. Being left means that consistency is not an issue, so hypocrisy is impossible.

Six Frigates

I finished up the subject book by Ian W. Toll this snowy weekend. The book was one of the thoughtful gifts for my 50th B-day last fall from a fishing buddy. I hesitate to figure out exactly how I prioritize my book reading.

The book makes me realize that I need to find more time in my reading diet for history, especially well-written and interesting history as this book was. It opens in 1805 with Nelson at Trafalgar defeating the combined navies of Spain and France, and then backs up to the early 1790s to the origin of the US Navy. The interplay of the Federalists (modern Republicans) and Republicans (modern Democrats) during the whole book is very interesting. A great quote from Hamilton's Federalist #11 is given; "A nation despicable by it's weakness forfeits even the privilege of being neutral". The Republicans then, and the Democrats now seem to believe that weakness is the way to be neutral. The events of of the turn of the 19th century showed the folly of that view and the correctness of Hamilton's, but many people never tire of the belief that fortune really ought favor the weak and wishful, no matter how often the position is proved wrong.

In 1794 the six frigates are authorized. The book includes lots of interesting technical detail on their construction, including the live oak wood that seems to make a huge difference in their durability. In 1799 the Constellation goes to sea and wins the first decisive naval battle for the US against a French frigate that has been helping French Privateers as they take over 300 US merchant ships a year. In that battle a gunner panics and runs, and the officer in charge kills him immediately. It was a different time; the way to insure that sailors do not run is to make the penalty for cowardice death, and nobody has an issue with that standard.

The conquest of the Barbary Pirates is covered in some detail, especially the exploits of Stephen Decatur, a navy officer so handsome that young women regularly fell into a swoon on sight of him. Unfortunately, not one of those problems that I have regularly had to deal with. Of special note during the Mediterranean campaigns, and really through the latter half of the book, is the issue of dueling and "honor". The ideas of character and honor were much more in evidence personally, in battle, and in the dealings of nations in that period. Would it have been possible to retain the focus on character and honor without dueling? At least an interesting question.

A number of naval battles in the period around the War of 1812 are covered in levels of detail including maneuvering, gunnery, boarding, and types and effects of injuries. The Chesapeake's "bad luck ship" history is well covered, and in contrast the, the glory of "Old Ironsides", the Constitution, as it becomes the first US ship to defeat a British Frigate, and the historic significance of that action.

All in all an excellent book that brings to life a critical period in the development of the country, and especially the US Navy.