The UN says there can be no Peace or Security unless we Advance their Global Warming Agenda

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 3rd, 2011

Week in Review

Yet further evidence that we need to defund the UN (see UN ‘expert’: climate change could lead to war: Attempting to begin the United Nations climate change conference by Joel Gehrke posted 11/28/2011 on The Washington Examiner).

Attempting to begin the United Nations climate change conference with a stirring call to action, one UN official blasted economic markets principles for asphyxiating “time-honored values of humanity” and suggested that failure to act on global warming fears could damage international human rights and destabilize “peace and security.”

Describing the climate change conference as a “make or break moment for humanity,” UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity Virginia Dandan said in a statement that failure to produce anti-greenhouse gas emissions policies “would impact on the three pillars of the UN – namely, peace and security, development and human rights, and pin the world down to ground zero.”

Dandan claimed a morally superior position to economic critics of global warming policy. “There is great need for a radical mindset change in order to bring back to the negotiating table the time-honoured values of humanity that have been forgotten after decades of market and profit-driven orientation,” she said.

Her logic might assume that some economic benefit would result from lowering greenhouse gas emissions, however, as Dandan called for conference attendees “to face the challenges posed by climate change such as . . . the continuing and widening poverty gap, and the series of food, energy, economic and financial global crises.”

If this doesn’t show the true mission of the UN I don’t know what will.  The things she is wringing her hands over – the continuing and widening poverty gap, and the series of food, energy, economic and financial global crises – aren’t happening in free market economies.  They’re happening only in nations the UN is trying to fix with a world government solution.  Not a free market capitalism solution.

The U.S. is doing so well that those living in poverty and ‘struggling’ to put food on their tables also lead the world in obesity.  That doesn’t happen in third world countries where they mock and eschew capitalism.  People starve to death in those countries.  Unless they get food aid from the United States.

Capitalism works.  Socialism doesn’t.  We know this because it’s always the capitalist countries feeding the socialist countries.  North Korea, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union didn’t ship food to the U.S.  The U.S. shipped food to North Korea, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union.  And yet the UN wants to act like a world government.  To emulate the Soviet Union.  To manage the world.  When they have nothing to show but failures.  While America’s poor suffer from obesity.  Because capitalism makes so much food available and inexpensive that the poorest of people eat too much.

You want to prevent war from breaking out?  Feed the world.  By encouraging the system that has successfully fed the world more than any other.  Capitalism.  And forget all of this man-made global warming nonsense.  For the emails of Climategate are all there to read.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

More Evidence Debunks the Great Pseudoscience Charlatans from the Church of Man-Made Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 3rd, 2011

Week in Review

More damning evidence has surfaced showing once again that man-made global warming is a man-made political science (see Scientists Behaving Badly by Jim Lacey posted 11/28/201 on National Review).

Global-warming skeptics spend much of their time knocking down the fatuous warmist claim that the science is settled. According to the warmists, this singular piece of settled science is attested to by hundreds or thousands of highly credentialed scientists. In truth, virtually the entire warmist edifice is built around a small, tightly knit coterie of persons (one hesitates to refer to folks with so little respect for the scientific method as scientists) willing to falsify data and manipulate findings; or, to put it bluntly, to lie in order to push a political agenda not supported by empirical evidence. This is what made the original release of the Climategate e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia so valuable. They clearly identified the politicized core of climate watchers who were driving the entire warmist agenda. Following in their footsteps are all the other scientists who built their own research on top of the fraudulent data produced by the warmist core.

Last week over 5,000 new e-mails, already dubbed Climategate 2, were released. Anyone still desiring to contest the assertion that only a few persons controlled the entire warmist agenda will be brought up short by this note from one warmist protesting that his opinions were not getting the hearing they deserved: “It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.” Over the years this core group, led by Phil Jones at East Anglia and Michael Mann at Penn State, became so close that even those inclined toward more honest appraisals of the state of climate science were hesitant to rock the boat. As one warm-monger states: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

If you have trouble reading the above it might be because of all the smoke.  Smoking guns tend to do that.  Smoke.

Man-made global warming is a political movement.  A religion.  Not science.  The two main profits who have written the holy scriptures of Man-Made Global Warming are Phil Jones and Michael Mann.  And all of the climate pseudoscience that followed was based on their dogma.  Not actual scientific inquiry and peer review.  Like the work of Isaac Newton.  Albert Einstein.  And Niels Bohr.  Who where were true men of science.  And we remember them as such.  But we won’t remember Jones and Mann as men of science.  But rather as charlatans.  And leaders of their cult of Global Warming.

Here’s just a smattering of some quotes Lacey pulled from these climate pseudo scientists’ emails.

“It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.”

“I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.”

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.”

“The figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].”

“I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!”

”I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.”

“Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions — bad politics — to one about the value of a stable climate — much better politics. . . . the most valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as possible.”

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.” To which one warmist replied: “Phil, thanks for your thoughts — guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open.”

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get — and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

Do these sound like the exchange of scientists?  Or more like people trying pull the wool over our eyes?  Of course this is a rhetorical answer because we all know the answer.  Wool.

At one point, Jones admits that the “basic problem is that all of the models are wrong.” Of course, there is a simple reason for this. When the models do not show what the warmists want them to show, they simply apply “some tuning.” One scientist was worried enough about this “tuning” to write that he “doubt[ed] the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.” In this case, “tuning” means changing the model until it tells you what you want it to. When it became impossible to torture the models any further without making their uselessness apparent to all, the warmists resorted to changing the data.

The most efficient method of corrupting the models was to use data only from time periods when there was warming and discard others, as Jones admits to doing. This method helped one scientist reduce the cooling in the northern hemisphere between 1940 and 1970, so that he did not have to make up an excuse blaming it on sulphates, which could not be proven. Another complains that no matter how much he fiddles with the data, it is “very difficult to make the Medieval Warming Period go away.” Solving this problem in the modern era was much easier: The warmists merely changed the temperature readings for much of the 20th century and threw away the original data.

Yet our children are being taught that free market capitalism is melting the polar ice caps and killing polar bears.  These kids grow up and go to college.  And vote.  Which helps to push an environmental agenda that strangles free market capitalism.  By enacting layers of regulations.  And fees.  Perhaps the greatest being the carbon trading scheme.  Forcing businesses to buy shares of something no one owns.  Where all the proceeds go not surprisingly to government coffers.  To try an offset huge budget deficits.  And as it turns out the greater pushers of this carbon trading scheme are those countries with some of the biggest budget deficits.

Talk about the coincidence of all coincidences.  Global warming legislation transfers huge sums of wealth from the private sector to the public sector.  That same public sector that funds the climate pseudo-scientists.  If one didn’t know any better one would say it was all about the money.  And the political power.  Ever since Thatcher and Reagan debunked Big Government liberalism.

Everyone should read this piece by Jim Lacey.  Learn it.  Save it.  And share it.  He concludes with:

My favorite quote of all those uncovered was from the climate criminal who asked his colleagues what would happen to them if it was discovered that climate change was “mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation,” as much of the evidence shows. He answers his own question: “They’ll kill us probably.”

So there is another reason to perpetuate this fraud.  Because if the fraud is found out they will be exposed as being the frauds that they are.  They’ll lose whatever scientific credentials they have.  As well as their scientific careers.  And be forever remembered as the great charlatans of the pseudoscience of the Church of Man-Made Global Warming.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Cell Phone Lithium Ion Battery Overheats and Catches Fire on an Airplane

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 3rd, 2011

Week in Review

It looks like the Chevy Volt isn’t the only thing with a lithium ion battery catching fire (see iPhone 4 Explodes Midflight on Australian Airline by Lauren Effron posted 11/28/2011 on Good Morning America/Yahoo! News).

While on Australian flight Regional Express ZL319 Friday, a passenger’s iPhone 4 (not the iPhone 4S, which is Apple’s latest model) suddenly started “emitting a significant amount of dense smoke, accompanied by a red glow,” according to a Regional Express statement.

The plane, which was flying from Lismore to Sydney, was in the midst of landing when the incident occured. “In accordance with company standard safety procedures, the flight attendant carried out recovery actions immediately, and the red glow was extinguished successfully,” according to Regional Express’ statement…

Exploding Apple products are rare, but explosions have happened in the past, mostly related to the devices’ lithium ion batteries overheating.

The European Union launched an investigation in 2009 after multiple instances of iPhones and iPod Touches exploding or catching fire midflight were reported in the U.K., Holland, France and Sweden.

Apple also  recalled its first-generation of iPod nanos sold between September 2005 and December 2006 because the battery would overheat and “pose a safety risk,” according to the company’s website.

These fires are rather rare.  And they usually happen when the device is being used.  So the smoking and bursting into flames is readily detectable.  Not so with a car parked in a garage.  And these electric cars have far bigger batteries than our cell phones.  Which means there are a whole lot more chemicals to overheat and burst into flames.

A recent Chevy Volt fire has been blamed on the car battery cooling system.  Probably just a minor defect and nothing to really worry about.  At least not as much as wondering whether or not if you have enough of a charge to make it back home.  But it should be noted that cell phones don’t have cooling systems.  Apparently because they’re not as much a fire hazard as the lithium ion batteries in these electric cars.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

Barney Frank caused or allowed the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 3rd, 2011

Week in Review

The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression happened under Barney Frank’s watch.  As did one of the worst housing bubbles.  And what exactly were Barney Frank’s responsibilities during these crises (see Barney Frank’s retirement: What it means for House Financial Services panel by Felicia Sonmez posted 11/28/2011 on The Washington Post)?

The news that Rep. Barney Frank will retire at the end of his term in 2012 sets off an internal scramble among Democrats to succeed the longtime Massachusetts lawmaker as the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.

Since 2003, Frank has served as the top Democrat on the powerful 61-member panel, the second-largest of the House’s 20 standing committees. (Armed Services is the largest, with 62 members.) The committee has broad oversight over the banking, housing, insurance and securities sectors as well as over federal monetary policy and international finance.

Oh.  He was responsible for the Congressional oversight for the banking, housing (as in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), insurance and securities sectors.  Big responsibility.  And he did a piss-poor job.  As demonstrated by the reckless mortgage lending of the banking industry facilitated by Fannie and Freddie that caused the housing bubble that led to the subprime mortgage crisis.  Wow.  Rarely can we trace so much destruction back to one man.  And his punishment for ruining the American economy and so many people’s retirement?  Not a thing.  In fact, the guy who was so bad at financial oversight co-wrote the Dodd-Frank financial regulation legislation for better oversight.  Unbelievable.

Someone can climb over your fence with a ladder, put it up to the deck of your above the ground pool, ignore the ‘do not dive’ sign and dive into the shallow end of the pool.  And if this trespasser beaks his neck guess who gets in trouble?  The pool owner.  Because he didn’t secure that ‘attractive nuisance’ enough to prevent that accident from happening.  But Barney gets off scot-free.  How fair is this?  Not very.  But that’s life.  In the U.S. House of Representatives.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Barney Frank can’t win Reelection because of Redistricting so he Retires

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 3rd, 2011

Week in Review

Barney Frank shared something with Nancy Pelosi.  They had congressional districts that were so full of liberals that neither ever had to campaign for reelection.   Which says a lot considering barely 20% of the populace is liberal.  So you know they had some favorable district lines.  But, alas, for poor Barney the slam dunk is over.  The new district lines adds so many conservatives that it almost is representative of the population.  Which is approximately 40% conservative, 20% liberal and about 40% moderate and independents.  And without a stacked deck, there is no way Barney Frank can win an election (see Barney Frank, Top Liberal, Won’t Seek Re-election by ABBY GOODNOUGH posted 11/28/2011 on The New York Times).

Earlier in the day, Mr. Frank announced at a news conference that he had decided to retire at the end of next year after his Massachusetts district was recently redrawn and it became clear that he would have to fight harder than he wanted for re-election.

Even before this redistricting things were already looking down for Frank.  The architect of the subprime mortgage crisis (he and Chris Dodd were responsible for the Congressional oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) had to fight last election.  For one of the first times in his life.  And he didn’t like it.  This time around would have been worse.  And he knew it.  He’d lose.  So he decided not to run.  For it’s one thing not having majority power.  Which is no fun.  But it’s a whole other thing to have to fight and scratch your way to the minority power.  Go through all of that for what?  Just to have someone tell you can’t do whatever the hell you want?  No sir.  This congressman will just take his toys and go home.

Now, Mr. Frank said, the notion that wrangling between Democrats and Republicans is “a competition between people of good will with different views on public policy” has vanished. For that, he blames Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and current Republican presidential candidate with whom he has a tense history.

“Newt’s the single biggest factor in bringing about this change,” Mr. Frank said. “He got to Congress in ’78 and said, ‘We the Republicans are not going to be able to take over unless we demonize the Democrats.’ ”

You see, this is why no one likes Barney Frank.  He’s such an arrogant liar.  Demonize Democrats?  Who was that taking Newt Gingrich out of context, saying that he wanted to take seniors’ Medicare away so they could whither on the vine and die?  That was the Democrats.  Demonizing Newt Gingrich.  And the Republicans.

Bipartisan is a one-way street for Democrats.  When they’re in power there’s no need for bipartisan cooperation.  Because they’ll rule as they please despite any Republican opposition.  Because they won.  And elections have consequences.  But once they fall from majority power how they cry that Republicans aren’t playing nice.  By not letting the Democrats still set the agenda.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,