Here is the best argument against global warming:

. . . .

Oh, right. There isn’t one.

There is no good argument against global warming. In all the brouhaha about tiny errors recently found in the massive IPCC report, the posturing by global climate deniers, including some elected officials, leaked emails, and media reports, here is one fact that seems to have been overlooked:

First, it is not an argument against global warming. It is against man caused (anthropogenic, man induced, whatever you want to term it) global warming, or, as you folks call it, climate change, since you, in such a self-described scientific manner, link everything into it. Hot, cold, wet, dry, snow, tornadoes, hurricanes or lack thereof, frogs dying, species being found, allergies, etc and so on. Second, it is not incumbent upon us “deniers” to prove our theory, based on 4 billion years of history. You have to prove yours.

Third, those “tiny” errors are not actually tiny. Many of them are primary points within the UN IPCC, used to “prove” their whole position.

Those who deny that humans are causing unprecedented climate change have never, ever produced an alternative scientific argument that comes close to explaining the evidence we see around the world that the climate is changing.

I’ll leave that to the professionals at this moment, but, I did notice something, Pete. Do you mind if I call you Pete? Nowhere in you article do you provide a scientific argument that explains how the current warming period is caused “most likely,” to us, in the IPCC vernacular, by Mankind. Sucks to be you. Oh, hey, can you explain the “no statistical warming over the last 15 years,” or that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, as told by Phil Jones? How about all the “missing” data? Or that temperature upticks precede CO2? Or…..well, we all know the reality. Can we move Peter from stage 1 of the 5 stages of grief?

Here is the way scientists think science works: Ideas and theories are proposed to explain the scientific principles we understand, the evidence we see all around us, and the mathematical models we use to test theories. Alternative theories compete.

Uh huh

Gore, the self-anointed climate change alarmist-in-chief, told supporters on a March 15 conference call that severe weather in certain regions of the country could be attributed to carbon in the atmosphere – including the recent rash of rainy weather.

There’s your “scientific” theory, Pete. If everything can be blamed on global warming, it is no longer science, it is tautology.

Scientists are used to debating facts with each other, with the best evidence and theory winning. Well, this is a bar fight, where the facts are irrelevant, and apparently, the rules and tools of science are too. But who wins bar fights? As the Simpsons cartoon so brilliantly showed, bullies. Not always the guy who is right.

Al Gore is not a scientist, Pete. Nor is Barack Obama, nor are the Democrats (and Lindsay Graham) who are pushing this. Nor are a good chunk of those who wrote the IPCC. Hmmph. Strange, huh?

Anyhow, check out the comments. Great stuff.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The latest election results in Iraq point to a heated and possibly lengthy power struggle between the Shiite coalition led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and the rival secular slate led by Ayad Allawi.

That is not a surprise, but it is still worrying. There is much unfinished business awaiting the new Parliament and prime minister, including an equitable oil law and a fair resolution of Kurdish and Sunni Arab claims to Kirkuk. And there are less than six months before all American combat troops are scheduled to withdraw. Iraqis and Americans both need a swift and legitimate transition to a new government in Baghdad.

In the horse-trading to choose a prime minister, Iraq’s leaders must now look beyond their sectarian and ethnic bases and show that they have the skill and the vision to govern all of Iraq.

Hmm. I wonder if the Fish Wrap is concerned with things like this, which the Washington Post just noticed, all these weeks later

After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate’s health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.

Will we see an editorial, the official position of the NY Times, telling Democrats they must look beyond their progressive and interest group bases and show that they have the skill and vision to govern?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Shortly before midnight on Sunday, Democrats released a 2,309 page health care bill that will start the process of reconciliation — but don’t let that fool you, it’s not the actual reconciliation bill with all the changes you’ve been reading about. Instead, as Rep. Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member on the Budget Committee, explained to me last week, this is just the “shell” bill — the vehicle that Democrats need to get moving on health care. Once the bill gets approved (likely Monday), Democrats will send this phantom bill over to the Rules Committee, where it will be stripped, and then they’ll insert in all of the actual changes that they’ve negotiated.

Why all of the theatrics?

Well, under the reconciliation rules in last year’s budget, any reconciliation bill would have to have been submitted to the Budget Committee by October 15, 2009. It just so happens that earlier versions of health care legislation cleared the Ways and Means and Education and Labor Committees last year. So Democrats just dusted that legislation off, and are using that as the vehicle to begin the reconciliation process. That’s why, for instance, if you look through the 2,309 page bill that was released Sunday night, you’ll find a public option, which leadership has indicated would not actually be in the final bill. (Interestingly, the student loan bill is also tacked on at the end.)

Just a “simple up or down vote,” remember?

Constitutional democracy? We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitutional democracy.

Michelle Malkin has a taste of the table of contents, at least prior to the Democrats getting around to inserting in all the provisions not in the bill. The Democrats are expressly attempting to thwart the Will Of The People, as John Boehner points out

“Democrats may run Washington, but the American people are in charge of this country,” Boehner said. “The moment a majority forgets this, it is writing itself a ticket to minority status.”

Why would they do this? They don’t have the votes.

R.S. McCain, along with mentioning that the election of Scott Brown hurt the Dems ability to ram this through in a Constitutional way, writes

This whole Pelosi procedure is nothing but a thumb in the eye of the Constitution.

Gateway Pundit, through a commenter, points out the illegal alien and ACORN provisions.

Question: will any group, including the GOP, have the cajones to challenge the Constitutionality in court if passed?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Under the cover of a benign government information-gathering program, a Defense Department official set up a network of private contractors in Afghanistan and Pakistan to help track and kill suspected militants, according to military officials and businessmen in Afghanistan and the United States.

The official, Michael D. Furlong, hired contractors from private security companies that employed former C.I.A. and Special Forces operatives. The contractors, in turn, gathered intelligence on the whereabouts of suspected militants and the location of insurgent camps, and the information was then sent to military units and intelligence officials for possible lethal action in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said.

While it has been widely reported that the C.I.A. and the military are attacking operatives of Al Qaeda and others through unmanned, remote-controlled drone strikes, some American officials say they became troubled that Mr. Furlong seemed to be running an off-the-books spy operation. The officials say they are not sure who condoned and supervised his work.

Which officials? None are actually named. Besides, who, other than pusillanimous lefties, cares? It’s just fine with me that extremist Muslims, members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and any other group, are tracked and whacked. Better them than us.

It is generally considered illegal for the military to hire contractors to act as covert spies. Officials said Mr. Furlong’s secret network might have been improperly financed by diverting money from a program designed to merely gather information about the region.

It’s also generally illegal to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. It’s generally illegal for terrorists to fight without wearing a uniform of any country. It’s generally illegal to saw a humans head off while alive. You don’t see the NY Times and other liberals complaining about those. In fact, they tend to back the people who do those things.

But, hey, good news: the NY Times has just put every person in Afghanistan and Pakistan in even more danger. Kudos, Fish Wrap! Way to start the work week, giving aid and comfort to the enemy!

Unfortunately

Officials say Mr. Furlong’s operation seems to have been shut down, and he is now is the subject of a criminal investigation by the Defense Department for a number of possible offenses, including contract fraud.

At one time in our country’s past, Furlong would have been a hero for taking the fight to the enemy.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

President Barack Obama’s pollster said the healthcare bill will win over public support once it becomes law despite polls showing Americans against the plan.

The argument by Joel Benenson, Obama’s lead pollster, rests on a chunk of Americans who now oppose the bill supporting it after it’s passed. Benenson said that group — which is anywhere from a tenth to a third of Americans, according surveys by CNN and Ipsos — is skeptical of the bill because it doesn’t go far enough.

Uh huh

• “Here, drink this whole bottle of Jagermeister, you’ll love it once you’re done.”
• “Stick your tongue to the metal poll, you’ll love it.”
• “Elect Stalin/Hitler/Kim Jong Il! You’ll never look back!
• “I have syphilis. Let’s have sex.”
• “Eat the cat poop sandwich. You’ll thank me for it”

OK, the last one was extremely gross, but, that is where 44% of the people are, with 48% against eating poop.

Doug Ross: What’s their endgame? Even a simpleton or a Democrat (but I repeat myself), would admit that it has nothing to do with health care. It’s a political calculation: Democrats are willing to lose Congress in November if they can create a brand new unfunded entitlement that will cement the power of government over the citizen.

Another Black Conservative: I have to hand it to this administration though; they can say the craziest things with such a straight face. After they are shown the door in 2012, they should all look into theatrical jobs. Provided there are still some theatrical jobs left by then, if not, Obama can just create or save a few.

Dennis the Peasant: So, in effect, what we have here is the Herpes Argument: You may not have wanted it, but now that you actually have it, you might as well learn to love it…

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Just move on, lefties, just move on. I understand Prozac helps many of you adjust to rational, adult society, and reduces the amount of foam on your faces.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 9 (IPS/TerraViva) – The negative fallout from climate change is having a devastatingly lopsided impact on women compared to men, from higher death rates during natural disasters to heavier household and care burdens.

In the 1991 cyclone disasters that killed 140,000 in Bangladesh, 90 percent of victims were reportedly women; in the 2004 Asian Tsunami, an estimated 70 to 80 percent of overall deaths were women.

And following the 2005 Hurricane Katrina in the United States, African-American women, who were the poorest population in some of the affected States in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, faced the greatest obstacles to survival, according to the New York-based Women’s Environment and Development Organisation (WEDO).

The 2007 Human Development Report, issued by the U.N. Development Programme, points out that women are particularly affected by climate change because they are the largest percentage – accounting for about 70 percent – of the poor population.

Because massive tropical systems never occurred before Man started messing up the climate. And we see the “climate change causes earthquakes idiocy” again. Uh huh. Another explanation would be that, and I’m sure I will be called a misogynist or something, too many women become pregnant at a young age, receive no education, and basically become Welfare Queens.

Climate change is apparently also responsible for women’s health problems, a loss of basic civil rights, reduced education, sexism, and…

In neighbouring Uganda, the food crises associated with climate change have been linked to higher rates of early marriage for girls, as they are exchanged for dowry or bride price.

These “famine marriages” – as they are called – not only lead to girls dropping out of school, but also make them vulnerable to sexually transmitted infections and related reproductive complications.

Double “uh huh.” Because there were never marriages like that before. Face meet palm. How is it possible to take climate alarmists seriously when they keep trotting out silliness like this?

Hat tip Tom Nelson

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

President Obama unveiled plans Thursday to double U.S. exports over the next five years in hopes of spurring job growth, an ambitious goal that may rekindle the battle over free-trade policy.

The president acknowledged the formidable barriers to his goal: doubts in Congress over new free-trade agreements, misaligned currencies that make Chinese products cheaper on global markets, and continued weakness in global demand, all problems that could dwarf efforts to promote U.S. products and services abroad.

But, Obama said in a speech, “in a time when millions of Americans are out of work, boosting our exports is a short-term imperative.”

Pretty speech. Interesting idea. The only problem is, people have to be actually, you know, employed and producing products first. You can’t double exports on products not being produced.

Next up, we have the Senate’s $149 billion jobs bill (wait, didn’t we have one of those in February 2009?), which does virtually everything that doesn’t actually create jobs. It has plenty of tax breaks, but, not the kind that actually stimulate jobs production, as well as

• Extending unemployment benefits to Americans out of work for more than a year, providing for a total of up to 99 weeks in most states.
• Offering subsidies for unemployed workers in an effort to help pay for employer-sponsored health insurance.
• Adding an individual income tax deduction for sales and property taxes, and a business tax credit for research and development.
• Extending a variety of energy and alternative fuel tax credits.
• $1.5 billion to help farmers affected by heavy rains, floods and other weather-related disasters.

There are primarily, at the top end, three ways government can stimulate a decrease in unemployment

1. Put them on the government payroll (which is what we have primarily seen with Stimulus, and a good chunk of those jobs were temporary or “saved”
2. Providing long term tax incentives/breaks
3. Companies have confidence in what the government is doing

Even if the tax breaks were perfect, targeted, and long term, there are so many worries about what government will do in the future, companies are staying in a “wait and see” mode. Cap and tax, health system change, a potential for increased taxes, illegal immigration reform, you name it, companies are unsure what will happen. No one wants to hire someone they will not be able to potentially afford. Without confidence, unemployment will remain high.

Other tax breaks in the bill include a deduction for college tuition for couples making less than $160,000 a year, and one for teachers who use their own money to buy school supplies.

That helps the unemployed get a job how, exactly?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

With President Obama’s health care bill hanging in the balance, the White House is facing intensifying questions about whether Mr. Obama should take his planned trip to Indonesia and Australia next week.

One problem I have with this is, who, exactly, is questioning the trip? Oh, there it is. “Some lawmakers, mostly Republicans.” And not one is named. And apparently some of the White House reporters, who are wondering if this is really a family trip

The visit, which has been timed to coincide with spring break for the Obama daughters, Malia and Sasha, is something of a homecoming for Mr. Obama, who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia. The trip is unusual, experts say, in that there is no economic summit or other multinational gathering for the president to attend.

Instead, Mr. Obama plans to meet with the leaders of the two countries, and also intends to show his family a bit of his past. The White House says the trip will send a powerful message to Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, and to Australia, a major trading partner.

Would this be the same Indonesia which tore down Obama’s statue, and featured people throwing shoes at his picture? Maybe we should question the timing, not for the politics of health destruction, but, as what appears to be a family vacation slightly disguised as an official state visit.

Another thought occurs: it would probably be better if Obama used this trip strictly as a vacation, since he usually ends up either insulting or bowing to the world leaders he meets.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.

Dude!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post