Only a Liberal…

I thought electing Obama would change our enemies’ opinion of us. That’s what we were told. Evidently, Venezuelan Dictator/President Hugo Chavez didn’t get the memo. “Chavez said he “still” smelled sulfur after President Obama made a keynote speech at the Copenhagen climate conference Friday.” (Fox News)

Chavez followed that up with this gem:

“The Nobel Prize of War just finished saying here that he is here to act. Well, show it sir.”

I guess they never hated Bush. They hate America, even when the golden boy, Barack Obama, is running things.

I simply can’t take it anymore. I cannot stand one more Energy.gov/tink commercial. The government is using Disney as propaganda for indoctrinating our children with green-ness. Here’s a list of some of the most ridiculous things I have heard or seen lately from the mainstream environmentalist movement:

• Incandescent light bulbs will not be allowed after 2012… Thanks George W., you jackass.
• Using soft toilet paper hurts the environment
• Flying too much will cause humans to go extinct in 2055 (New documentary called The Age of Stupid, whose premier featured Gillian Anderson, Moby, Heather Graham, perhaps others)
• Emails that say “Please consider the environment before printing this”
• Using a metal water bottle instead of plastic to prevent landfills from getting bigger

Never mind that the “new” lightbulbs are more harmful to the environment. Never mind that toilet paper is such an insignificant source of waste in the world, and that it is essential to the general health of a society. Never mind that every single person who made the documentary and attended its premiere got there on a jet. Never mind that worrying about the effect of printing an email will have on the environment is like worrying whether your next fart will start a tornado. Never mind that you have to use chemicals to efficiently clean and reuse that new water bottle. All that matters is that YOU CARE. You agree that the environment is a sacred thing. We can’t survive without the environment, right? So anything we do to hurt it, however insignificant, is a crime. You don’t actually have to care about or effectively protect the environment. You just have to go through the motions, and that will make you a good person.

The vanity of eco-insanity is breathtaking. There have been hoaxes and scandals in the past, but never have I seen such a widespread psychosis as the Green movement. Otherwise intelligent people actually believe they can do something as insignificant as not printing an email, and they feel better about themselves. Self-worth has never been so cheap. It used to be you had to produce something, now you can just avoid doing something that some socialist told you would save the environment. No, I’m mistaken… it’s worse than that. You can just say you oppose something, and never actually practice what you preach, and media outlets will praise your activism. You don’t even have to change your behavior… you just have to say that everyone but you should change theirs. What a fantastic deal!

New sources of pollution

Otherwise intelligent Americans have been convinced that buying a Hybrid or electric car will help save the environment and also screw those evil Middle-Easterners and oil companies. Never mind that switching fuels is not all positive. Switching to electricity simply switches pollution from oil-based to coal-based. Half of America’s electricity comes from burning coal. And lithium fuel cells come primarily from the countries of South American dictators. You know how you can tell environmentalists don’t give a shit about the environment? How do we stop using oil and coal tomorrow? Nuclear power. They oppose it vehemently. Because of a meltdown they say, and the resulting radioactive fallout. Never mind that modern nuke plants use an enrichment level where that doomsday scenario is a thing of the past… they still oppose it. Why? Because they don’t oppose pollution. They oppose capitalism.

Does your neighbor who preaches Greeniness oppose capitalism? No probably not. The followers of the Green movement are just ignorant saps. The leaders are the anti-capitalists. They prey on general ignorance to form movements.

Earth plus plastic

I highly recommend watching George Carlin talk about environmentalism… while he is quite liberal on many topics, environmentalism is not one of them.

Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a threat? That somehow we’re gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles…hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages…And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet…the planet…the planet isn’t going anywhere.

Read the whole transcript here. My favorite quote is about plastic…

The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic.

Environmentalists would have you believe that plastic bottles sitting in a landfill not degrading is a threat to life on this planet. Let me get this straight… plastic just sits still, does not degrade, and takes up space. Will someone explain to me the difference between a plastic bottle and a rock? The planet is covered with rocks, yet no one would suggest they are a threat to the environment.

If you watch Fox, you’ve been hearing the pundits keep saying that the Earth has been cooling for 10 years. While no one outright denied it as far as I saw, that information didn’t carry the weight necessary to spread.

Well now, a leading global warming believer, member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, has admitted the Earth has been cooling for a decade and may continue cooling for another decade.

Calgary Herald - “When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it’s usually newsworthy.

So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?

Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC’s last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN’s World Climate Conference–an annual gathering of the so-called “scientific consensus” on man-made climate change –Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering “one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.”

Latif did follow this up by saying he thinks warming will resume in 2020, but who knows why he assumes this. He didn’t predict the current cooling, yet acknowledges it, so how can we even be sure about his prediction of warming in 2020? What good is his warming prediction if he didn’t predict the cooling that has already happened?

Professor Latif still wholeheartedly believes in man-made global warming. His climate models told him so. His climate models told him human carbon emissions are warming the Earth, and yet the evidence shows the Earth is cooling, and Latif admits it.

This is all a moot point, as I pointed out in the past. Climate models are based on the data found in the Vostok ice core samples. Most non-political nerds know them from the graph Al Gore shows in his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” He shows a correlation between CO2 and Earth’s temperature, and claims the CO2 causes temperature increases, when in fact his own data shows the opposite. I lay out the explanation in an article on another site.

I also highly recommend my article talking about Michael Crichton. He explains how a scientific consensus is an oxymoron better than I could.

This bullet list will equip you with the knowledge to paint that environmentalist nutjob colleague of yours into a corner. This whole global warming myth is out of control. Gore recently likened “global warming deniers” to Nazis. I will show below that CO2 doesn’t cause temp increases; temp increases cause CO2. Even if you accept that CO2 causes heat, it doesn’t come close to the heat caused by the sun. Even if you believe its more important than the sun, human greenhouse gas emissions don’t even come close to natural emissions. Even if you don’t believe that, CO2 is not the main greenhouse gas: water vapor is, and its vastly more important to the greenhouse effect than CO2. If you lower CO2 emissions, it still doesn’t help because of natural water vapor emissions. Even if you think reducing U.S. greenhouse emissions is a good thing, it won’t work, because we can’t force India and China to do it. And they are infinitely less concerned with the environment than we are. And the only way to solve that last problem is to remove the sovereignty of those countries, i.e., take them over. This whole thing is crazy… read on to equip yourself.

• Al Gore shows a correlation between CO2 and earth’s temperature. He claims the CO2 changes cause the temperature changes. His own data shows the EXACT OPPOSITE. His graph shows the CO2 changes occur 800-1300 years after the temperature changes. Heat causes CO2, not vice versa.
• Solar activity is much more closely correlated to atmospheric temperatures than CO2 (see image below).
• 0.28%. This analysis shows that human activity accounts for 0.28% of earth’s greenhouse effect. Spending trillions of dollars to change that number is INSANE.
• Water vapor accounts for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, CO2 only 3%. That’s ALL water vapor and ALL CO2. 97% of CO2 emissions in the world are natural, so humans are only responsible for 3%. So that’s 3% of 3% when you’re talking about man-made CO2.

Rebuttals to what I just said

I have looked for rebuttals to the facts I just cited. I can’t find any on the water vapor argument, but there are a few on the 800 year lag. The most adamant rebuttal states “historical warm-up periods begin via some variable event that starts a warming cycle. This time, the initialization event has been a human induced spike in carbon dioxide concentrations.”

Pay attention now, the global warming alarmists point out a correlation asserting that CO2 causes warming, but when that very correlation is used to show the exact opposite, they claim warming can only be caused by CO2. So by that logic, CO2 caused the warming which caused the CO2. The correlation is REAL, but it shows CO2 follows warming. This is an inescapable fact, but rather than address, they simply ignore it and operate on the original false premise. Its breathtaking.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

Al Gore’s standard speaking contract bans people with press badges from his public speaking events.

That’s right, the former Columbia journalism professor bans journalists from listening in. The so-called “consensus” science prophet seems only interested in perceived so-called consensus that advances what he wants to be advanced.

This is the same press that generally supports the theory of substantial man-made global warming. Why would Gore not allow them in to report on his inconvenient truth? So Gore dislikes the media, but the media love Gore. A commenter at Hotair.com astutely referred to this as battered-wife syndrome.

As you read the passage below from Al Gore’s blog remember this; Al Gore makes an insane amount of money from his work with global warming, and not one penny of it is legitimate. It’s all nonsense… every last bit of it. You’ve seen “We can solve it” commercials… that’s Gore. He and those commercials say the phrase “climate crisis” as though its a real thing. We certainly have a climate, but there is no crisis. None… but if Al Gore and his supporters say the phrase climate crisis over and over and over enough times they think the world will buy it, and a large percentage has.

A new study suggests the Mayan civilization might have collapsed due to environmental disasters:

“‘These models suggest that as ecosystems were destroyed by mismanagement or were transformed by global climatic shifts, the depletion of agricultural and wild foods eventually contributed to the failure of the Maya sociopolitical system,’ writes environmental archaeologist Kitty Emery of the Florida Museum of Natural History in the current Human Ecology journal.”

As we move towards solving the climate crisis, we need to remember the consequences to civilizations that refused to take environmental concerns seriously.

If you haven’t read already read it, take a look at Jared Diamond’s book, Collapse.

I need you all to focus now on what he just said. Read it again, carefully. I will make two arguments: one rejecting his ridiculous premise and one accepting it.

Mayan Civilization as an identifiable entity ceased to exist a little over 1000 years ago. I have no idea what Gore is implying the Mayans were doing to destroy their civilization, but they certainly didn’t have internal combustion engines. He just vaguely says the Mayan Civilization would have survived if they had just paid attention to climate concerns. Therefore, we Americans should “pay attention” to him.

There is no debate on whether the Mayan Civilization disappeared. There is also no debate that Mayan cities continued to thrive after the collapse. Rome didn’t cease to exist when the Roman empire fell, and neither did “Mayans” or the places they lived. Gore portrays this history as though Mayans went extinct due to their lack of concern for the climate. This is preposterous, and the worst part is it doesn’t take a climatologist to point that out. So Mayan civilization disappeared; plenty of other civilizations survived. Humans are still here.

Lets accept Gore’s premise. What is his solution? How could the Mayans have averted their civilizations collapse? Mr. Gore, what steps could they have taken to avoid their fate? He provides none, because he has none. There were no cars or light bulbs back then. What did the Mayans do that they could have avoided doing to save themselves? Nothing.

Not to mention if there was such a precipitous climate-related problem for the Mayans, why do people still occupy the Mayan regions? They are now known as eastern Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, and western Honduras. Nothing wrong with the region or the climate.
Mr. Gore, your premise is absurd, and you have become absurd. Anyone reading this needs to do their part to stop their friends DEAD in their tracks when they speak of Gore or the climate crisis as though they are legitimate. If you accept the premise, the myth lives on. This nonsense must cease.

The author of Jurassic Park passed away last Tuesday. He is most famous for writing Jurassic Park, Twister, Sphere, and even the show E.R., but he has also contributed greatly to the war against the myth of man-made global warming. State of Fear is a 2004 techno-thriller novel by Michael Crichton concerning eco-terrorists who attempt mass murder to support their views. I’d like to show you some passages from a speech he gave in 2003 that illustrate the absurdity of Al Gore’s quest. The wonderful, and appalling, part about this whole “climate crisis” is you don’t have to be a climatologist to debunk this stuff. Just know that the title is satirical…

ALIENS CAUSE
GLOBAL WARMING

California Institute of Technology (1/17/03)

(link to entire speech)
In 1960,a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two-week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation: N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses - just so we’re clear - are merely expressions of prejudice.

The fact that the Drake equation was not greeted with screams of outrage — similar to the screams of outrage that greet each Creationist new claim, for example — meant that now there was a crack in the door, a loosening of the definition of what constituted legitimate scientific procedure. And soon enough, pernicious garbage began to squeeze through the cracks…

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period…

I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

So the next time you see a “We can solve it” commercial, change the channel. The earth doesn’t have a fever anymore; it actually has a cold. The earth has cooled since 1998. Besides, the temperature on earth is correlated more closely to sunspot activity than carbon dioxide (see my post).
Before anyone who believes in this climate crisis nonsense comments on this post, please re-read the passage on consensus. I do not care how many climatologists you quote, or papers you send me proving man-made global warming is real. I can send you just as many that say its not. The fact that they use the word consensus is the proof that its not science.
CRISIS AVERTED.

Here’s another very well written speech where he talks about how he wanted to write a realistic disaster book, one that was totally credible, and that’s how he came to his conclusions. He was unable to find a credible disaster storyline, even from the consensus of climate “crisis.”

**Click HERE to signup and get your free special report on why you can’t vote for Obama.

In his never-ending effort to appeal to environmentalist liberals, Obama actually said he would bankrupt the coal industry. Don’t pay attention to the fact that 50% of our electricity is from coal. Obama wants to bankrupt the industry that provides half the electricity to our homes, our schools, our hospitals. The guy will say anything to get elected. He thinks Americans should pay substantially more for electricity because of our greenhouse gas emissions. He’s gonna put thousands of coal company workers out of work, he’s going to raise prices for all Americans, of course mostly affecting poor people. That’s change you can believe in.

Obama did not pitch a shutout in the competition for spouting liberal, and sometimes communist, nonsense. My rough score in that department was Obama 9, McCain 3.

O: “If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust”
IF?! Would you consider our invasion of Europe “ineffective” intervention in the Holocaust? How did this guy get nominated?
O: “Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan.”
August 2007, Obama said, “There are terrorists holed up in [Pakistan's] mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans,” he said. “They are plotting to strike again… If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
ACTUALLY SENATOR, YOU DID. If the actionable intelligence simply confirms bin Laden’s presence in the mountains, you have two options: bomb every square inch of the mountains, or invade Pakistan. So you either lied, or you threatened to bomb Pakistan.

O: “Prosperity isn’t going to trickle down”
Barack, you war on big business ignores the fact that big business is where jobs come from. I realize you want the government to employ everyone, but if you liberals actually succeeded in putting Exxon out of business, 106,000 people would lose their livelihood.
O: “Tax cuts for 95% of Americans”
Americans in the top 5% of adjusted gross income pay over 60% of all taxes. Barack Obama claims that’s not enough. Did you know that 33% of everyone who files taxes don’t pay any taxes? So Barack can only lower taxes for 67% of Americans WHO FILE taxes. He pulls number out of his ass.
O: “Need bailout so people can stay in their houses”
He wants the bailout so people can stay in “their” houses. The reason we need the bailout is because these people can’t afford the house. If they can’t afford the house, why should they get to stay? Is he saying every American has the right to own a home? Preposterous! And the houses aren’t “theirs” anymore. The second they stop paying for it makes them squatters.

Mc: “Fighting against climate change”
McCain being the RINO liberal he is. We have much bigger problems, John. But I’ve covered this topic extensively in my past posts on the global warming crisis FARCE. Click the global warming category in the right column.

O: “Oil companies have 68 million acres of land; use them or lose them”
Why Barack Obama thinks the land oil companies own is any of his friggin business is beyond my comprehension. They’re paying all the bills and taxes for their land, so why is it anyone’s business what they use it for? Obama is essentially threatening to take land from private entities arbitrarily. Totalitarian, communist claptrap.

O: “Americans buying American cars instead of foreign cars”
Hey Barry, let’s just stop importing anything. No more foreign televisions, or clothes. Good luck with that approach. Not to mention that many parts in American cars are foreign parts. The auto industry is global, not American versus non-American.
Mc: “Reset mortgages to new value with $300 billion bill”
The government deciding what the price of houses should actually be is so anti-American, I can’t believe John McCain actually said it out loud. Homebuyer agreed to pay the mortgage amount, seller accepted. End of discussion. The homebuyer could have said no, homebuyer said yes; SCREW THAT HOMEOWNER. We start bailing out people who can’t afford what they buy, everyone will see no reason to ever live below their means.
Mc: “Traveled the world and seen the devastation of greenhouse gases”
You can’t “see” the devastation. Even Al Gore doesn’t claim there’s damage right now except maybe the Arctic, but that there will be damage real, real soon. McCain’s pandering here, and its why conservatives have never been excited about him.

O: “3% of world oil, 25% of oil use”
Correct, according to Nationmaster.com, the U.S. represents 25.2% of the world’s oil consumption. But comparing it to the 3% number is irrelevant to arguing that we should cut back our use. Logic would dictate if we use 25% of the world’s fuel, we should produce 25% of the world’s wealth. Turns out 25.2% oil consumption by the U.S. results in 25.5% of the world’s GDP. As usual, liberals only use statistics that look good for them. Our oil use is quite fair.

O: “Healthcare is a right”
This is communism. Americans have the right to pursue happiness, not the right to have happiness. The founders were careful with their wording to clarify no one is entitled to happiness, but that no one should be singled out for prevention of the pursuit. Do we have the right to have a full head of hair? Do we have the right to be beautiful? I suppose any family with 2 adults has the right to have 2 cars, or should they have to make due with 1, to be fair to those who can’t afford 2?

I overheard someone talking about healthcare, saying that its absolutely unacceptable that medical care would be for profit. The majority of liberals would agree with this, so I ask you, why on god’s green earth would anyone ever go to medical school? Why bother spending your 20s studying 24/7 to make the same amount as an accountant who stopped studying at age 22?

It used to be someone could bring on a scientist to tell us how things are. We could rely on the scientist to tell us the truth so that we wouldn’t have to research it ourselves to be sure.

Those days are over, thanks to government incentives for catastrophic forecasts of man-made global warming. No matter where you stand on the issue, you can’t deny that there are a substantial number of scientists lying or omitting facts on this issue simply because there are so many on both sides contradicting each other. Someone is lying. Whether they’re bare-face lying, or lying about their specific expertise, the opinion of a scientist has become near worthless if politics are at all involved.

As a result, regular Joes and Joannes are going to demand everything be explained in layman’s terms. It has already begun, but it will have to become commonplace eventually.  People that previously wouldn’t have cared are now questioning that humans have a substantial effect on the climate. Ya, it was hot last week, but last winter was really cold. Explain that to me. Ignorance in that field is decreasing rapidly, which is a good thing for society: bad for those with a stake in the theory of catastrophic human climate destruction.

The gradual realization that changing our ways will cost more than a couple of Iraq wars has caused normal people to start asking questions. Will spending all this money do anything to stave off this so-called impending doom? Is there any impending doom? Might this all just be a few sun burps?