Agenda 21 - Attack On Sovereignty

In case you have not heard about it before I thought I would mention something now. One of the scariest things from the United Nations (and something that we may eventually succumb to given the pro-globalist leanings of our President) is call Agenda 21.

The reason it came to mind for me now is that I recently saw an ad promoting this horrific thing. The text of the advertisement:

For millions of years this lake thrived, but now it is dying.
Poisoned by humans who put themselves above nature.
It's time to stop the killing.
It's time to heal the planet
It's time to remove your footprint.
Agenda 21 is coming soon.

That's right...follow that advertisement's logic (as it is presented by the text, rightly or wrongly) which says that Humans should not be above the planet and humans have a footprint, but it is time to remove footprints. In other words, remove humans for the sake of the planet.

I know what the Church of Global Warming will say to the breakdown of the ad's logic. "We want humans to remove their carbon footprint." That, however, is not much better. "Remove", not "reduce" (which I also find objectionable), is the word being used. It is foolish to think that every word in the ad was not chosen deliberately. "Remove" the carbon footprint.

No more cars, planes, trains or ships; no more cell phones, television, movies or electricity and probably not even the oil known as "heating oil". No more commercial farming which means if you can't farm it yourself you don't eat it. Well, unless you have the currency of trade in a society that takes major steps backwards.

"Remove".

This is all in the name of the false god that the Church of Global Warming members worship: Ma Earth hot flashes. This is all driven on broken science assumptions and unsettled science. Somehow the congregation believes it is right to send the world back to the Stone Age because through some sort of miracle they can predict temperatures down to the tenth of a degree hundreds of years into the future of weather when they still cannot even predict earthquakes or even next month's temperatures within 1 degree.

Scary. Well, scary to people who love freedom. Warm and fuzzy to the people who hate freedom, technology and civilization.

Hypocrisy Of Energy Nazis

There has been a mad rush into "green energies" including the subsidizing of companies that were insoluble just because they said they were going to produce "green energy". There has been no measured approach and no amount of reason in the matter.

As energy prices soar over the coming few years keep in mind how quickly Obama moves against so-called "dirty" sources of energy.

The hypocrisy comes from the surrogates who hail a slow and measured approach.

"The proposed plan supports the Administration’s all-of-the-above approach to explore the full potential our nation’s domestic energy resources and to develop innovative technology and techniques that will lead to safe and responsible production of resources, including oil shale and tar sands, which industry recognizes are years from being commercially viable, but require RD&D today," Interior spokesman Blake Androff said. (Emphasis added)

Electric cars are years upon years away from being commercially viable, too. That is why the Church of Global Warming members had to get the Feds to heavily subsidize and in some places create extra incentives like qualifying for the HOV lanes.

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) praised the plan, saying the administration exercised the right amount of caution on oil shale development, which has not yet been brought to commercial scale and brings concerns about the amount of water used in the practice.

Caution...except when it comes to CoGW approved things. Then make it law, subsidize it and rush into it. The hypocrisy from the Church is appalling.

And yet not surprising.

Safety Standards Cause Unsafe Cars

Ah, the Nanny State. The problem with the Nanny State and all of those who push the expansion of it is that people fail to understand unintended consequences. While solving one problem you create others. They also don't care about freedom at all. They feel it is better that government runs your life and makes all of your decisions because that takes out risk and disparity. Eventually we would look like the humans in Wall-E and never be capable of doing anything on our own. Thanks but no thanks.

Today's version of the Nanny State screwing up our lives come in the name of car safety. You see, in the quest of making the dangerous act of driving risk free and freedom free the Nanny State lovers actually have caused our "safe" cars to become less safe.

The government enacts laws – or issues regulatory fatwas – requiring that new cars comply with various “safety” standards. Ironically, the result of these standards – in terms of vehicle design and otherwise – may just be cars that are less safe to actually drive.

For example, you may have noticed that the beltline (door height) of the typical new car is higher up than was typical in the past. This makes it feel as though you’re sitting lower in the car, as you’re surrounded by a bathtub of steel. (No more resting your arm on the top of the door as you drive with the window rolled down.) Beltlines are higher to meet increasingly stringent side impact standards. But for every action, there is a reaction.

...

You can’t see as much – and what you do see isn’t seen as clearly.

Ugh. Better side impact air bags because you will need them more since you can't see out your windows as a result. Stupid Nanny State people. Give me the choice of better air bags or visibility when I buy my car.

Another factor impinging negatively on visibility is the growing thickness of the car’s A, B and C pillars (roof crush standards – as well as making room for side-impact air bags) in addition to taller/thicker seat headrests (whiplash). In several new (2013) cars I’ve driven recently, it is very hard to see cross traffic coming at you from either side - making it much more dangerous to enter a busy intersection. Blind spots are larger, too – requiring more situational awareness of drivers – who are not infrequently more aware of their sail fawns than what’s going on around them as they drive.

The number of times I lose pedestrians or bicyclists in the blind spots from the posts is unbelievable. Is that not enough? How about this one.

The government has tacitly admitted there’s a problem – caused by itself – by demanding that all new cars be equipped with closed-circuit TV systems (back-up cameras) for the simple reason that it’s increasingly difficult to see what’s behind you when you’re backing up a new (government-approved) “safety” vehicle. But that Band-Aid causes its own slew of problems, including limited peripheral view and a distorted view relative to what a functioning human eye connected to an operating human brain would otherwise perceive. It is much harder (if not impossible) to see a kid on a bike coming down the sidewalk into the path of the backing-up car – because the camera has a limited field of vision. It can’t “see” the kid until the kid is within its narrow field of vision. By which time, it is already too late. Drivers who rely on the camera rather than their own two eyes may end up having a very tragic morning some day.

I admit those cameras are awesome...except for the lack of peripheral vision which now requires you to keep spinning your head forwards to the camera and backwards and sideways to see what the camera is missing. Too many changing points of focus to be efficient or safe. Doesn't matter to the Nanny State people. The Nanny State people want all of these standards and are too obtuse to look at the impacts. What is worse is that at least these are trading safety for safety (which, again, should be the choice of the consumer and not idiots who tell beaureaucrats what standards they want as consumers).

It is even worse when safety is being traded-off for fuel efficiency. There is not any rational justification for that.

Most new cars no longer carry a full-size spare tire. Not as a result of “safety” mandates – but because of pressure to comply with fuel efficiency mandates. A full-size spare is pretty heavy. A mini-spare is half or less the weight. So, what’s the problem? Driving around on three normal-sized tires and one skinny minny often results in a very evil-handling (and braking) car. Most new cars come with pretty aggressive wheel/tire packages. Seventeen and eighteen inches being pretty much the norm – along with at least 60-something series tires. You hit a roofing nail and one goes down. You put on the mini – which might be literally half or less the width of the normal tire and with a completely different (temporary use only – it says so right there on the sidewall) tread pattern/design. You have to be extra careful – and hope it’s not necessary to brake suddenly or swerve. Because if you do, the car will probably react weirdly. If you’re not ready for it, you might end up in the ditch.

But, your car got one-tenth of an MPG better gas mileage.

Pressure from member of the Church of Global Warming have caused a safety issue. I would rather have the choice of an unsafe car (for me) or a safer car (for me). Instead we are getting limited choices, less safe cars in exchange of solving the mythological Global Warming threat and less safe cars for outside the car in exchange for safety features that will be used more because of less safe cars.

Confused? Me too. Suffice it to say that the Nanny State people are making things worse the more they talk.

The Science Is Settled, Right?

On the one hand I find this this verdict ridiculous and dangerous.

On the other hand I am reminded of the arrogance and certainty that members of the Church of Global Warming hold when parroting their leader, Al Gore's, pap. Rising sea levels, rising temps, etc. If those people are so certain about the weather in 100 years (remember, there's no need for discussion) then perhaps they should be held accountable for deaths caused by failed predictions. Didn't advise correctly on the path of the tornado, manslaughter conviction for you.

Fuel Cell cars worse then gasoline? Yep.

Church of Global Warming will tell you that this is good. Is it? They wine about Carbon Dioxide, but not about the number one greenhouse gas: Water Vapor.

Not according to Junk Science:

So, greenhouse is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial evolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at that altitude it is found in the atmosphere. In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect. The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

If you don't believe someone who is "obviously a sock puppet of the Evil Bush administration and the oil companies" then what about Wikipedia?

Gaseous water represents a small but environmentally significant constituent of the atmosphere. Most of it is contained in the troposphere. Besides accounting for most of Earth's natural greenhouse effect, which warms the planet, gaseous water also condenses to form clouds, which may act to warm or cool, depending on the circumstances. In general terms, atmospheric water strongly influences, and is strongly influenced by weather, and weather is modified by climate.

Okay... If you don't believe Wiki, who is "obviously a sock puppet of the Evil Bush administration and the oil companies" then what about NASA:

Scientists know that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide have risen sharply in recent years, but a study released today in Paris reports a surprising and dramatic increase in the most important greenhouse gas - water vapor - during the last half-century.

Well Crap, I guess everyone is in the "pocket of the oil companies and the Bush administration"

Well, not Honda. They are putting out a vehicle that puts out water vapor, and damn the man!

Antarctic Iceberg breaks, possibly not Global Warming?

News from this morning, An Antarctic iceberg broke in half, thanks to a storm some 8000+ Miles away.

Douglas MacAyeal (University of Chicago) said a coupe of things that don't seam like the quite match the rhetoric of the Church of Global Warming:

"One of the things we're debating in the world right now is whether global warming might increase the storminess in the oceans,"

Woha woha woha, hold up. "we're debating" ??? But I thought there wasn't a debate... That Global Warming is agreed upon by all scientists besides some Right Wing, Neo-Con, puppets of the Bush Corporate Agenda, scientific fringe? How interesting that he would word it that way.

"The question we then pose is: Could global storminess have an influence on the Antarctic ice sheet that had never been thought of?"

The answer I pose is YES. You guys can't even predict weather 10mn out in some cases. I don't trust the regional forecast out past 2 days... yet we should blindly trust you in predicting a global climate events through all the wether systems on the planet for hundreds of years in the future?

They did some calculations and saw the swell must have come from more than 8,000 miles or 13,500 km away.
"Our jaws dropped," MacAyeal said. "We looked in the Pacific Ocean and there, 13,500 kilometers away, six days earlier, was the winter season's first really big, nasty storm that developed and lasted for about a day and a half in the Gulf of Alaska."

Yes... the idea that something other then my Chevy Tahoe has something to do with the Earth's climate may be just as shocking.

California sues 6 auto makers over Global Warming

California is suing 6 auto makers (including: Ford, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota, Honda and Nissan. What, no BMW or VW?), charging that:

greenhouse gases from their vehicles have cost the state millions of dollars

Wait... they have got to be kidding... maybe I haven't read far enough. Lets see what MSNBC is reporting here...

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California was the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by their vehicles' emissions.
Lockyer, a Democrat, said the complaint states that under federal and state common law the automakers have created a “public nuisance” by producing “millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide.”

Woha, no, their not kidding. They actually believe this crap! Lets see... how is MSNBC reporting it:

Carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases have been linked to global warming.

Bull! How can they say this?? Linked to global warming?? According to the EPA, Carbon Dioxide isn't even a pollutant! I've asked questions on this before... questions, in fact, to other members of The Church of Global Warming while at All Gore's fantasy movie.

I've shown graphs like this:



And still, dispite the fact that my Chevy Tahoe wasn't around with the dianasaurs... my Chevy Tahoe is causing it now? All Gore mentioned temps weren’t going up and down when he showed the graph going back 1000 years, but the graph he showed going back 600 thousand years wend up and down as well. New York Times has jumped around on the global warming topic:

Sept 18, 1924: "MacMillian reports signs of New Ice Age"

March 27 1933: "America in longest warm spell since 1776; Temperature line records a 25 year rise"

May 21, 1975: "Scientists ponder why world's climage is changing; A major cooling widley considered to be inevitable"

Time magazine has also been on this:

Sept 10, 1923: "The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recient years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age"

Jan 2, 1939: "Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

June 24, 1974: Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studing may be the harbinger of another ice age."

April 9, 2001; "[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact hat humans are at least partly responsible."

So, the three questions I've posed:

1. If the earth's temp has been going up and down and up and down, how is it our fault this time when it wasn't our fault in the Precambrian, Silurian, Premian, and Cretaceous periods?
2. If the earth has been warmer then it is now, for most of the earth's life, why do people think our current temps are normal (when it looks as if current temps are lower then the average/norm)
3. Is it possible, that perhaps, the last 100-150 years of temperature records are no enough to base any opinion? after all, time and NYTimes have gone back and fourth allmost as often as the temperatures have in earth's history.
   I don't doubt that the earth MAY be getting warmer, after all, from what I can tell, we're at a low now. But unless you can answer these questions, then there is no reason to believe that humans are causing global warming. I tried asking these questions at the viewing of All Gore's Fantasy movie, but after people stopped booing someone challenging them, the only answers I got involved Big Oil, and Hurricane Katrina.

To these questions, the normal responses are something like this guy here:

1. To my 1st Question: The Earth has natural temperature cycles and no scientist will claim differently. The way in which the earth can do that is through numerous and complex systems that help it to regulate temperature. Man is having an impact on those systems because of our activity - that is what the science shows. When enough of those systems get thrown out of whack it will have disastrous consequences.

2. The answer to my 2nd question: Think about a bathtub - if you draw a really hot bath the water is very hot when you first get in. But once you've been in there for a while you get used to it. Humans have no frame of reference for the past. Furthermore, the analogy of a frog in a beaker of boiling water in Gore's movie is a good one too. If you are in a system and it gets hotter gradually you don't notice.

3. The answer to my third quesiton: This is where all of the misinformation starts coming in. It is in fact true that we have only been physically recording temperatures for a short period of time. But it is also true that scientists have been able to determine temperatures for a much greater period of history based on things like ice core samples. If you watch the movie you'll see some of that data and you are welcome to explore it yourself. I have also seen a few programs on the Discovery channel on that subject.
---
"Those who dare to fail miserably can achieve greatly." John F. Kennedy
Raven – August 7, 2006 – 7:14pm

I can't make this up, folks. This guy babbles completly around 3 very good questions that shake the very foundation of the Church's belief. (When I say "The Church" i'm refering to the Church of Global Warming). I need to take a minute, these people form the Church of Global Warming anger me so much, I need to let out some stress... I know the perfect way. I'll go out and drive my Trans Am. More to this... when I get back.

********** Update: 10:30pm **********

Ahhh, there is nothing like the feeling of an American V8 engine running through a 6-speed transmission. Freek'in Orgasmic.
Anywhoo, back to the crazyness. So far, NO LIBERAL ARGUEMENT has been able to answer the questions I’ve asked. No one from the Church is able to tell my why the earth's temperature seams to now be lower then the norm (in the span of the Earth's history).
And this thing in California. What we have here, friends, is a horrible disgrace... an attack on industry, funded by the California nutball government. By suing these auto manufactures, they are FORCED (much like they auto industry is forced to do so many other things) to spend money to defend themselves. BIG money. The numbers are not out yet, but I bet you my left Chrome exhaust tip that the money spent on lawyers alone will be more then I can make in 20 years.
All for what? For some Treehuggers to try to stick it to the man? For some UofM student to feel better about their Hybrid?
No, I'll tell you what this is.
The number one reason this lawsuit is going on is for the Church to push the Global Warming issue into the spotlight and to put it through, in one final giant push, as Proof that this crap is happening, and that Humans Americans are causing it. And the American public is so caught up in this hysteria.
Now, watch me spin it like it was Vinyl.
When anyone tries to prove that humans are causing Global Warming, and I mean realy prove (none of this Katic Couric garbage), they are going to ask questions like I asked. Questions that can't be answered with the kind of answers the Church wants to hear. And when the dust settles, this rabbit hunt that the Democrats and their Church are playing, will turn in to a pot of gold. A pot of gold with a big huge sign that says "The Earth has warmed without Chevy Tahoes, and it will warm with Chevy Tahoes."
But you could easily burry this type of news in the "opinion" section of the StarFib and call it "the speak of Sock Puppets of the Administration, backed by the greed of Corporate America."
Man, I can read these guys like Dr. Seuss can lay down the rhymes.

Global Warming not man made

Did you know that it is possible global warming is not at all man-caused?

Bill Gray, who has studied tropical meteorology for more than 40 years..."I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations,” Gray said. “I’m sure that’s it.”

Did you catch that? Studying this for 40 years. Of course, the organziation that is leading the political charge of legislating the Global Warming Theology (which says there is not any other possibility to be considered, man is the nearly sole cause of dramatic and castrophic global warming/cooling) immediately retorted, dismissing the study of a 40-year expert.

Roger Pielke Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said in an interview later Monday that climate scientists involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that most of the warming is due to human activity.

Of course, the Global Warming Priests have to pretend they take consideration of other viewpoints.

“Bill Gray is a widely respected senior scientist who has a view that is out of step with a lot of his colleagues’,” Pielke said. But challenging widely held views is “good for science because it forces people to make their case and advances understanding.”

“We should always listen to the minority,” said Pielke, who spoke from his office in Boulder. “But it’s prudent to take actions that both minimize human effect on the climate and also make ourselves much more resilient.”

Yet they never do refute the more substantial opposition. They simply pretend the critiques do not exist.

Why does the Church of Global Warming perpetuate this hoax? Money and power...that is the ONLY reason.

Grey, who is a professor at Colorado State University, said human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants.

Before continuing on with this article I want to point to a different weather related story.

By 9:45 p.m. Saturday, it had already been a long day at the National Weather Service office in Chanhassen. More than 2,000 people had visited for an open house earlier in the day, and a balmy late-summer afternoon had given way to an evening of thunder, lighting and rain. Minutes before, forecasters had issued a severe thunderstorm warning, layered on top of a tornado watch with a "particularly dangerous" designation.

At 9:49 p.m., forecasters peered into their radar screens, tracking a line of squalls approaching the metro area, looking for the "hook" that might indicate a tornado forming in the lower clouds. Nothing.

Minutes later, another sweep. And there it was: the fully-formed curl of a tornado, probably already in the act of destroying or damaging many homes and killing a 10-year-old girl.

Hmm, notice the inability to predict the weather in a 10-minute window? Do not mistake this as an attack against the NWS...they are doing all they can. The point is that weather is, well, unpredictable. And the further out you go the less accurate the predictions can be.

Back to the first story.

At the breakfast, Gray said Earth was warmer in some medieval periods than it is today. Current weather models are good at predicting weather as far as 10 days in advance, but predicting up to 100 years into the future is “a great act of faith, and I don’t believe any of it,” he said.

10 days? I have yet to see a weekend forecast this summer that was right for my area.

Unpredictable.

But, just in case Gray is wrong...

But even if humans cause global warming, there’s not much people can do, Gray said. China and India will continue to pump out greenhouse gases, and alternative energy sources are expensive.

“Why do it if it’s not going to make a difference anyway?” he said. “Whether I’m right or wrong, we can’t do anything about it anyway.”

I agree.

Globe causing Global Warming

It seems the culprit to global warming may be...well...the Globe!

Gas escaping from the ocean floor may provide some answers to understanding historical global warming cycles and provide information on current climate changes, according to a team of scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The findings are reported in the July 20 on-line version of the scientific journal, Global Biogeochemical Cycles.

Really!?

But it is not "methane" that is the REAL danger. It is carbon monoxide, right?

Atmospheric methane is at least 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is the most abundant organic compound in the atmosphere, according to the study's authors, all from UC Santa Barbara.

Hmm, so it is not really the cow farts either, huh? Too bad, cuz then the Left could have blamed global warming on McDonalds and Burger King.

The conclusion of the report?

The authors explain that these results show that an important piece of the global climate puzzle may be explained by understanding bubble-plume processes during blowout events. The next important step is to measure the frequency and magnitude of these events. The UCSB seep group is working toward this goal through the development of a long-term, seep observatory in active seep areas.

This is going to throw yet another monkey wrench into the blame-SUV-blame-humankind crowd of the Global Warming theology.

The article is an interesting read so go read it.

********** UPDATE **********
From the "right-wing mn blog where they're using one misinterpreted paper as a basis for not buying global warming"...I bid a welcome to the readers of Pharyngula.

Please feel free to read the archives...I'm using much more than just one article to justify my position that man is not causing universal warming or (in the sliver that the Theologians of Global Warming wish to maintain the focus) global warming.

I assume most of you are new to this blog so I will state up front my rules of "engagement". I play by the same rules as the person I am responding to. If you are respectful so will I be.