Eco-Stalin Army Acquires Weapons Of Mass Hysteria

In another attempt to finally become relevant, the United Nations has once again unleashed its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Communism (IPCC) on an unquestioning public. Get ready for all the Gorebots to ratchet up the Chicken Little dance again.

The IPCC is the main weapon for the Eco-Stalins. Its members somehow manage to keep straight faces while claiming that the scientific method, speculative projections and unquestioned claims of consensus can coexist logically. The main mission of the IPCC is to run a kazillion computer models about what might happen then choose the most extreme outcomes to focus on. They then distill all the data and put it in a report called The Summary Of Stuff You Don't Need To Take A Closer Look At (a.k.a. "The Summary for Policy Makers").

What follows each issuance of a report is this: The MSM jumps all over it, swoons like a teenage girl who has just been told she gets to spend the night with Justin Timberlake and tells the world that it will be ending soon if Mother UN isn't allowed to become a supranational nanny.

Emboldened by the fact that Nobel committee has no criteria whatsoever for awarding its prizes and has given it one, the IPCC just issued a report that is meant to induce War of the Worlds type hysteria.

Here are the "key findings" in the report. I'm not planning on waging the battle against Global Speculation all at once today. Plenty of my rantings on the subject can be found here, here and here. I'll go over just a few of my favorites. Any italics are mine.

Global warming is "unequivocal." Temperatures have risen 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. Whoop-dee-la-dee-do. Yes, even right wing nuts like myself can acknowledge that the temperature has gone up. Just as it has in the past. It's where we proceed from that premise that is the cause for division.

Extreme weather conditions will be more common. This from the same people who promised us a plague of hurricanes immediately following Katrina. What ensued was one of the quietest hurricane seasons on record. If you need me, I'll be hanging out at the corner of Skeptical and Underwhelmed.

Even if greenhouse gases are stabilized, the Earth will keep warming and sea levels rising. More pollution could bring "abrupt and irreversible" changes. Or "Fixing it doesn't really fix it but if we don't fix it might be worse." Well, let's get right on that, then.

Human activity is largely responsible for warming. Global emissions of greenhouse gases grew 70 percent from 1970 to 2004. Yet 1934 is the hottest year on record. What kind of cars were they driving then? Here's the real dilemma: you can't accomplish much of what the Eco-Stalins want to accomplish without finding some way to cease all of that meddlesome "human activity."

A wide array of tools exist, or will soon be available, to adapt to climate change and reduce its potential effects. One is to put a price on carbon emissions. Ah, we've waded through the computer projected hysterical fluff and finally arrived at the heart of the mission. We start charging the developed countries for carbon emissions. It's working so well in Europe that the utility companies are becoming wealthier but the dreaded human activity continues unabated. Carbon emissions are up in most of Europe since signing on to Kyoto and people still seem to be driving, using lights and heat in their homes and going online to read about us bastards in the U.S. who won't take this crap seriously. New motto for the IPCC (paraphrasing John Candy in "Splash"): When something doesn't work for me, I stick with it. Hey kids, guess whose carbon emissions did drop last year? Anyone? That's right, the non-Kyoto heathens in the good old U.S. of A.

By 2050, stabilizing emissions would slow the average annual global economic growth by less than 0.12 percent. The longer action is delayed, the more it will cost. Tricky. Let's look at the impact on average global economic growth instead of the projected (since the Climate Commies are such fans of the speculation-as-gospel approach) impact on U.S. economic growth. I'm sure that the percentage growth reduction in poor countries balances that out quite nicely. Looks like the IPCC has brought David Blaine and Criss Angel on board.

There may be some very real consequences to climate change. That most of them are speculative but treated as fact is what should be of greatest concern. Can anyone say United Nations power grab?

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, is from India, which is a major carbon emitter. He's willing to lead a panel that advocates panic-filled solutions from which his country is exempt. The two largest carbon emitters are the U.S. and China. Recommendations to date have involved attempts to coerce the U.S. to legally bind itself to a potential economic disaster. China? Well, lets just ask them nicely to try. You know how responsive they are to what the world wants them to do.

Beware of anything that hints of international control over the U.S. economy. Beware of anyone who calls a prediction a fact.

Lastly, communism may continually fail in practice but in theory it continues to inspire ideologues who resent the United States. Since it can't stand on its merits it has to be repackaged. Peel back the layers covering the Global Warming hype. You can wrap a turd in scented paper but it's still a turd.

You have to wonder why the default position is to let the UN and the Kyoto-philes get their grubby little hands on our economy. We're resented for the wealth that a successful free market economy has created but the efficacy of a free market approach to mitigating climate change seems to be dismissed out of hand. Instead, bureaucratic approaches that have done little more than drive up energy prices in Europe without producing the desired effects are touted as the serious solution.

Pretty paper, but that turd still stinks.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell and Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

The Kruiser Climate Manifesto-Part I

Sitting here in LA, breathing all the smoky air, I promised myself this morning that I'd avoid writing about the Climate Commies today. It's difficult, as global warming is my favorite battleground these days and it's come up ad nauseam during the news coverage of the fires this week. As soon as I decided this I started reading another Halloween scare report from the United Nations. Few things this side of Harry Reid annoy me more than the UN dispensing reports about how we're all going to die next Thursday if Al Gore isn't crowned Intergalactic Ruler at once. They get me so worked up I write really long sentences like that.

My first response, as always, is that we could start helping the environment by getting rid of the UN and putting a lovely park in its place.

I've gotten into a few discussions on climate change this week and watched more than a few during the wildfire coverage and noticed that some of the same crap keeps coming up from the Left. What I'm going to do here, and it might take a post in two or three parts, is stake out my territory in this debate and simply refer people to it later when they challenge me with wild-eyed fervor. My hope is that pausing and reading something will take everything down a notch and foster some reasonable debate. I know I'm crazy, but we'll let my therapist worry about that.

I feel so strongly about this that I am going to use bullet points. I don't trot out the BPs unless I'm feeling very formal. I probably should drink some tea and do something special with my pinkies. More on that later. Here are the first of the points I would like to make:

• Nobody denies that climate changes. Whenever I express skepticism about the Climate Commie Party line on climate change the first question I'm invariably asked is, "So you don't believe in Global Warming?" And it's always asked in a jump-down-your-throat, "nanny-nanny boo-boo" kind of way, as if they can't wait to bury me with quotes from Al Gore. It's been a whole 24 hours since someone last asked me that. I heard Alan Colmes ask it while interviewing a scientist from the CATO Institute last night. The one thing I've never heard, however, is someone saying "I don't believe in Global Warming" before being asked the question. What I don't believe in is hysteria. Or speculation (computer models) regarded as absolute fact. What is still up for debate is the level of human contribution to the greenhouse gas problem. It's up for debate unless you're Al Gore or one of his followers. These people take a more Stalin-esque approach to debate and simply tell everyone that there will be none. That's what I don't believe in.
  
• Hysteria based on speculation is ridiculous. What usually gets reported are think-tank and computer model projections about the fate of the planet that are worse-case scenarios. Why? Because the Climate Commies feel that's the best way to get everyone's attention. Don't believe me? Here's a quote from St. Al Gore in Grist magazine: "Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." (Italics mine) Let me get this straight: it's OK to lie if they end up listening and on your side. Is this an environmental debate or a "How-To" primer for frat boys to get laid? You want to get my attention? Present all of the facts and get a spokesperson who isn't unhinged. People who are more insane than I am make me nervous.
• International communism isn't going to save the planet. You almost have to admire the capacity for denial on the Left. No matter how many times they see socialism or communism fail and capitalism work they just close their eyes, plug their ears and hum until the free-market bogeyman goes away. Their solution to mitigate climate concerns isn't to let free enterprise work more of its magic but to enforce a set of international protocols that wouldn't do more than screw up the US economy. Then they get into this weird "carbon credit" trading thing that sounds more like the Catholic church in the days of Martin Luther than 21st Century business. The companies that invested in economically ruinous eco-friendly technologies could sell their credits to the evil polluters and feel better. Then after lying to their stockholders they could buy some plenary indulgences from the Cardinal and-oh wait-we're back to the 1500s again. At least we know they won't be burning any witches. The smoke would be bad for the environment.
  
• Somebody needs to talk about the cow farts. Why? Because they are the biggest contributors of methane gas on the planet. And because it would be fun to see "cow fart" on the front page of the New York Times.
  

Enough for today. You've all been very patient. The nurse is here and telling me that my "outside time" is done for the day.

Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell

The Eco-Stalins Spread Hysteria Like Wildfire

Southern California is weird and not just because I live in it. You see, we have long, dry summers but, for some reason, stuff still grows here. I find that odd because I grew up in the Sonoran Desert where nothing but air conditioning bills grew during the long, dry periods. In California, it never rains but trees and weeds abound.

When these long, dry summers are over we're treated to sustained high winds that are, strangely enough, named after St. Ann. But in Spanish. Which doesn't have much to do with the wildfires. Climate change may or may not have more to do with the fires here than St. Ann but the Eco-Stalins in the media are reporting it as fact.

While most of us saw tragedy unfolding as we watched news about the wildfires, some in the media saw an opportunity to pimp global warming hysteria. Hotter Planet=More Fires. Seems like a sensible equation, right? That's the route NBC went with it's reporting. They jumped right over the fact that some of these blazes were the result of arson and one was started by some guys welding around some dry brush. Global warming/global welding, they're kind of the same, aren't they?

Anderson Cooper, the weather girl at CNN, was a bit more shameless. He hosted a new special called "Planet In Peril" and practically wet himself in his excitement to use the fires as promo.

“At the top of the next hour, as I said, the big picture. These fires are really a piece of it. Fire, drought, global warming, climate change, deforestation, it is all connected, tonight, 9:00 p.m. Eastern…‘Planet in Peril’ starts in just 30 minutes.”

Thankfully, all one had to do was listen to the responsible opposing viewpoints that both networks presented...oh, wait...there weren't any.

What the pieces dealt with were more predictions and speculation being reported as fact.

What we know for sure is this. California has had problems with wildfires for a very long time. Even before Al Gore. The real equation is: Sun+High Winds+Dry Vegetation=Oops!

After everything burns we get treated to mudslides because there is nothing holding the hills together. In days past this wasn’t as big a problem. Why? No global warming, right? Wrong. It’s because people didn’t used to live in these places.

You see, the very combination that creates the wildfire environment, i.e. lots of sun and little rain, also makes everyone want to move to Southern California. The areas affected by the current disaster have around 20 million people living in them. If this portion of California broke off it would be the third most populous state in America. A far more logical conclusion would be that a rapidly expanding population would constantly increase the chance of accidental fires. Many of these fires were caused by downed power lines. Guess what? There aren't any descriptions of endless miles of power lines in the histories left by the Spanish. They sort of showed up recently.

Another problem is that Californians absolutely love to show off status by building homes in places that they shouldn't. You never hear of a low-income family's home sliding down a hill during a rainstorm here. "Hey look, honey: it's a dry, wind swept cliff with all kinds of dehydrated brush surrounding it but look at that ocean view!"

It's just like the increase in hurricane damage in coastal regions. The hurricanes didn't used to have that much to damage. Now more people can afford to build houses by the beach. The hurricanes touch down in the same places and the fires burn through the same areas. The only thing that's measurably changed is what gets in their way now.

This isn't a lesson so much about Climate Change as it is about arrogance. Modern, secular society likes to think it can scientifically control everything. We have no sense of awe (or God) any more and keep giving the finger to nature. Nature, it would seem, has an arrogant streak of her own and likes to send out not-so-subtle reminders about where the real power is.

Almost sounds like I was describing the Clinton marriage at the end there, doesn't it?

The Nobel Prize For Stupidity Goes To...

Score another publicity victory for the Eco-Stalins: Al Gore and his UN bitches have won the Nobel Peace Prize. The award comes as no surprise, it was one of the worst kept secrets since Pamela Anderson's cleavage. That sound you hear along with all the fanfare is Alfred Nobel groaning and spinning in his grave. Despite all the advance warning, it's still hard to see what the rantings of this hysterical ninny and his frothing army of ideologues have to do with promoting peace in the world.

Next up: the Nobel Prize for Chemistry goes to George Clooney and that hot babe he got in the motorcycle wreck with because they certainly looked like they had a lot of it going on.

I do agree that the planet is in danger but it's from Al Gore, who now looks as if he could eat the Western hemisphere in one sitting. His international "redistribution of communism" campaign continues almost unabated. He makes a long political commercial full of distorted facts and calls it a movie so...let's give him an Academy Award! He flies around, burning fuel and maniacally shouting down anyone who dares disagree with him so...let's give him a Nobel Peace Prize! Hey, it's 360 feet around the bases. If Al Gore can travel that far without burning any fossil fuel why don't we give him a World Series ring? Come on, naysayers, it's October. Get in the spirit of Gorefest already!

And the Nobel Prize for Achievement in Medicine goes to: the Hooters Girls, because they sure do make me feel good.

Naturally, I remain skeptical of Gore because anyone who does is paid millions by Big Oil. Still waiting for that check though.

Watch your wallets, kids, this Gorecrap isn't going to end any time soon. His propaganda machine so effectively silences dissent that it's got a bunch of old Russians weeping with nostalgia for the KGB. Even Gore's co-winners, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have harbored a skeptic or two. Ever heard of them? Of course you haven't. Why not? Because Gore starts screaming "Consensus!" like a victim of Tourette Syndrome whenever the panel releases a report to make sure you don't. Al Gore is the lead lunatic and the IPCC is his chorus of idiots. If you try to engage them in substantive debate they just get angry because you're stealing some of their dog and pony show.

We posthumously award this year's Nobel Prize for Physics to: Jane Taylor, the composer of "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star," because she got us all thinking about the universe.

No one is saying that climate doesn't change. The debate, when one can actually be found, is about the level of human contribution to climate change, specifically greenhouse gases. There is plenty of reasonable evidence out there that it may not be all our fault. If you say that, however, the Climate Commies react as if you just said you wanted to spend the rest of your days killing puppies. It's hysteria, pure and simple. And the Nobel committee has just help perpetuate it.

The Nobel Prize for Literature is given to: anyone who has ever sung the alphabet in the proper order.

Here's the part that's hard to reconcile if you decide to use even a portion of your brain. We've seen terrorists blow things up and kill people. A lot. However, the idea that the Atlantic Ocean will swallow New York City is based on the most extreme of many computer models that were run to predict the future. The Climate Commies want you to believe that terrorism is nothing more than a scare tactic that the Bush administration likes to use but their computer predictions are real and imminent.

If your horoscope says you're going to find love and financial reward, will your bank give you a home loan based on that and your future spouse's income?

Too bad they don't award a Nobel for irony. They could give that to Gore as soon as he gets on the plane to fly back here.

Cooking Data With The Climate Commies

I'm hurt. Newsweek called me a "naysayer" in its cover story this week. As if Harry Potter were on staff, the magazine morphed global warming skeptics into "naysayers" and "deniers." All funded, of course, by BIG OIL (Just curious, if BIG is so bad then why are we still listening to Al Gore, who is large enough to have his own gravitational pull that attracts orbiting idiots?). FYI, I'm still waiting for the check from Exxon that allegedly funds all of this denial of mine.

Hot (pun intended) on the heels of the Newsweek hysterical wailing came the news that a revision of NASA data revealed that 1934 was the hottest year on record. This screwed a lot of things up for the Climate Commies because 1934 isn't part of their global warming Prime Time, which is supposed to be the last ten years. One would think that this might, just might, lend some credibility to skepticism but I know it won't.

You see kids, climate hysteria isn't really about saving the earth. It's mostly a 21st Century makeover for communism, which, as all liberals will tell you, is better for the children. What the Climate Commies are most adept at is preaching federal (sometimes international) governmental control and silencing dissent. Wait, they're big on the destruction of personal property too. As soon as some eco-terrorists blow up a person along with a Hummer the entire movement will officially be Joe Stalin dressed in hemp.

So, this revised data isn't actually going to slow the C.C.s down, they'll just make up new, non-CO2 emitting fuel for the fire. If 1998 were merely the hottest year since 1997 it would be more than enough to propel Al Gore and the Consensus Mongers around the world to tell everyone that the best way to save humanity is to get rid of the humans. Logic has never been an integral component of the global warming hysteria. Until Gore stops all the convoluted carbon footprint rationalizations and begins traveling everywhere on foot to spread the message it never will be.

Naturally, this story has been all over the blogs. I've seen several Climate Commies rush to point out that the data only applies to U.S. temperatures. Each post is done with sort of a "HA!" attitude, as if everything was once again settled and we could tuck ourselves in under the blanket of consensus.

However, we here in the United States are supposed to be the biggest CO2 whores this side of Beijing. If Man and his evil modern gadgets were really firing up the weather so much shouldn't we be frying eggs on the sidewalks of Minneapolis in February by now? Surely the birthplace of Big Oil and its insatiable consumers would be heating up like Bill Clinton's pants at a cheerleader competition. Instead, one has to go all the way back to the Great Depression when few Americans could afford food, let alone cars, to find the toasty atmospheric goodness. If only Al Gore's forebears had known how dangerous all of those unemployed people were to the planet! They could have fashioned an international treaty for the economic sanctioning of people who were just standing around.

At this very moment, the Climate Commies are trying to find a link between the checkbooks of Big Oil and accurate mathematics. Believe me, they'll come up with some new way of finding truth in computer predictions while screaming that historical data is nothing but a bunch of well funded denial.

About the only thing I'm denying right now is that Newsweek employs intelligent, objective journalists.

Carbon Footprint Steps In Something Smelly

I thought I should follow up my post from last week about the trip Sen. Barbara Boxer (Nutjob-CA) took to Greenland with some of her climate commie colleagues. The ABC News website reported today on the trip under the headline: "Senators Go To Global Warming's Front Lines." Notice the clever battleground wording there. It's not that the Democrats don't believe in war, it's just that they think we should wage one on the weather. They want to fight the battle by crippling what they believe to be the enemy's biggest ally: the U.S. Economy.

It's very difficult to have a rational discussion on this subject with the fans of Al Gore because their position is rooted in hysteria. Read any mainstream articles about global warming and you're bombarded with extreme words like, catastrophic, devastating and penguin. They truly believe that this is the most pressing issue of our time. And Al Gore, with reams of logically tortured facts and the most extreme computer models he can find, continues to whip them into a frenzy. They're so out of whack that they think that the weather is a more imminent threat to our lives than terrorism. The threat posed by suicide bombers isn't all the blowing up of stuff, it's the fact that you can't recycle C-4.

In reality, the biggest impact global warming has had thus far has been on the First Amendment. Vigorous debate, usually a hallmark of the scientific process, is treated like leprosy by the climate commies. Al Gore has said on numerous occasions that "The debate is over." Then he runs around shouting "consensus" like a nine year-old who has just learned a big word. The real scientific world is one of endless questioning and an almost allergic reaction to "consensus."

The most inconvenient of all truths out there for Gore is that a lot of credible scientists keep studying the problem just like they're supposed to. They keep finding things that don't fit well with what Big Al & The Consensus Mongers are saying. Despite the fact that Gore has told them to shut up, the scientists keep acting, well, scientific.

What caught my eye about the ABC News article was the second half of it. An opposing viewpoint was explored and I haven't seen a lot of that until recently. They even provided a link to a blog that countered some of what the Senators on the trip are treating as fact. (The links to both articles are at the end of this post.) True, the article started off with quotes from the members of the delegation who presented hysteria as fact. Several quotes were balanced by only one more measured, reasonable quote. Still, this was more than you would have seen in the past.

Sen. Boxer said, "After this trip ... I know I have a responsibility to move now to lessen the impacts of severe global warming." That was actually the least hysterical of the quotes from that camp. Still, she believes that the water she stared at gives her a mandate to legislatively mess with your lives to fight the weather.

In contrast, look what Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) said: "Climate change and reducing carbon dioxide emissions will likely be a major subject of debate this fall in the Senate, so as we've done with other key issues, we're digging in to understand this issue in great detail so that we can play a meaningful role as it is debated," said Corker. "We don't want to react impulsively and enact something that we can't reverse in the future if there are unintended negative consequences or our understanding of this issue evolves."

In other words, let's be informed, let's debate and let's not do anything rash.

That approach terrifies the climate commies. Why? Because the only thing they fear more than suntanned penguins and polar bears in bikinis is losing control of their propaganda machine.

Because it's really all they've got at the moment.

Links:
ABC News article: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3429160

Alternative viewpoint: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175b568a-802a-23ad-4c69-9bdd978fb3cd

Since I'm always mocking computer projections I decided to do one of my own. Here's Lindsay Lohan now:


And here's a computer projection of what she'll look like when she's 30:

Barbara Boxer Shorts

Oh my, I read today that Sen. Barbara Boxer (Lunatic-CA) is going to lead a delegation to Greenland to look at melting glaciers. This is what passes for leadership in America now: a bunch of senators use our money to fly to the top of the world so they can stand around and say. "Yup, that's water all right." I'll admit, the thought of them engaged in this kind of legislative nose-picking comforts me a bit. After all, they can't do much to screw things up here at home while staring at a glacier in Greenland.

Occasionally, however, one yearns for one's leaders to act as if they're, well, leading. I'm a Californian, so I long ago modified my expectations of Sen. Boxer. She's not good for much other than running around in circles and hysterically proclaiming "Retreating glaciers: BAD, retreating army: GOOD!" I've grown even more weary of the climate commies ever since Al Gore told congress that "The planet has a fever," a few months ago. The rhetoric is so hysterically inane now that I fully expect Sen. Boxer to see a melting glacier (she's not visiting any of the ones that are advancing), emotionally embrace a camera and say, "Look, it's crying."

American leadership seems to have broken into two camps: those who worry about terrorists and those who worry about weather. Unfortunately, the poll-tested, sound byte world we live in has left us with a dysfunctional group of politicians who worry more about the next TV appearance than the fate of the free world. Both sides have been dropping the ball when dealing with weighty issues. Can't really engage our intellects to battle the problems of the world when Chris Matthews' make-up people are waiting, can we?

As for deciding which issues are weighty, I think I like my risk assessment capabilities. I see a globally active group of zealots who have stated that they would like to kill us all and I see a dripping glacier. It doesn't take me long to figure out which one scares me more.

I'll be all for the Kyoto Treaty when it includes a drastic reduction in al Qaeda emissions.

Brain Droppings

Weird week in politics. Elizabeth Edwards finally noticed that Hillary Clinton is acting like a man. Clinton staffers kept warning her that she should sit down when she goes to the Ladies' Room or she'd eventually get caught.

Al Gore's melting planet hysteria is reaching a level of lunacy that, quite frankly, makes me worry for the guy's health. Gore is now claiming that we're losing the fight and we have ten years before a polar bear floats by your house and eats the chihuahua. He really needs to calm down. Maybe his kid can give him some Vicodin to help take the edge off. The Republicans need not worry about Al running for president as he's much too busy running from reality.

What the Republicans do need to worry about is the fact that they don't have a viable candidate yet. Polling revealed that "None Of The Above" seems to still be leading the G.O.P. pack. Sure, N.O.T.A. has an unblemished past but his platform is emptier than the Democrats' "We Hate George W. Bush" stance on every issue. Then again, "None Of The Above" may just be super secret Republican code for "Fred Thompson."

Barack Obama told labor unions that he would walk the picket lines with them if he was elected. Obama has been promising a new approach to politics since he declared his candidacy. The first time the unions snap their fingers and wave their checkbooks he starts jumping through hoops that aren't even there yet. You think the Republicans are bad with Big Business? When Big Labor starts flexing around the Democrats it looks like the Westminster Kennel Club show.

Still waiting for John Edwards to spread some of that "economic diversity" to my bank account.