Morning Brevities

Item Number One: The Obama Regime has unveiled a new propaganda tactic in the war to regulate every human activity via “Climate Change;” if you oppose efforts to combat Manbearpig than you want millions to die. They are claiming millions will die unless Government Power to Regulate Human Activity is expanded dramatically. It is perhaps worth mentioning, in this context, that up to 300,000,000 people have died of malaria and other tropical diseases since the Global Environmental Community outlawed DDT. The Environmentalist Community considers outlawing DDT and killing 15 to 50 times as many people as Hitler to be one of their greatest triumphs. As with the contemporary hysteria over Global Warming, the push to outlaw DDT was based on junk science and emotional appeals, but unlike Al Gore, Rachel Carson wasn’t smart enough to set herself up to make billions off the scam.

The MSM, BTW, is still strenuously avoiding discussion of the emails between climate scienticians that prove the whole Manbearpig thing is a great big hoax. There’s a pretty good summation of Climategate here.

BTW, Obama’s Eugenics-Loving “Science Czar” John Holdren, is also about waist deep in Climategate, as he appears to have been encouraging the climate scienticians to hide their raw data from skeptics.

Item Number Two: Al Gore sicced his security goons on two Manbearpig heretics who dared to try and ask him questions at a book signing.

Item Number Three: And in case you had any doubts that the real intent of the Manbearpig Cult wasn’t to let unsuccessful countries loot successful countries, read this.

Charles Krauthammer describes the Senate Climate Change Massive Regulation of Every Human Activity Bill as a “Dead Parrot.” I had planned to use this for today’s stinger anyway, but thanks Chuck for providing me a segue.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One response to “Morning Brevities

  1. “Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.

    It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

    A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

    Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

    But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

    The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

    All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

    It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

    Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s