Does He Ever?

Ed Koch, my favorite Democrat from New York, asks a good question at Real Clear Politics today. It's one every person sane enough to think and burn carbon at the same time should ask:

"Does Al Gore Know What He's Talking About?"

That question never does get asked by millions of Climate Commies because their lips are affixed to Gore's ever expanding derriere. Should they ever disengage those lips and engage the ability to think critically they may very well ask it.

The man has a history of playing fast and loose with facts dating back to his days as inventor of the Internet. He's a b.s. blurter, that Al. He's been that way ever since he got done building the Ark for Noah. 

There are two paths you can take when pondering the alleged climate crisis. You can believe

in the Gore-as-deity Consensus Myth or you can read. There's plenty of documentation about Prince Albert's truth troubles out there but it's hard to find when you're blinded by the glow of his halo. 

Does Al Gore know what he's talking about? That depends, is "hypocrisy" the subject? Thus far, that's the only thing he's proven himself to be an expert on. 

Why I Want To Be A Better Catholic...

It's stuff like this that makes me keep coming back for more:

The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom.

There are over a billion of us, Greenpeace, don't make us recycle you.

Introducing The "ANM" Envirodork Medal Of Dishonor!

Inspired by Prince Albert the Hysterical and all he does for global hypocrisy, I'm proud to announce the creation of "The 'America Needs Me' Envirodork Medal Of Dishonor". The award will be given out as frequently as needed to any Eco-Stalin who distinguishes him or herself by offering solutions or opinions on global warming that exceed the lunatic standards established by Gore. 

As I can't pay attention to every Climate Commie on the allegedly imperiled planet, I'm asking everyone to feel free to nominate potential recipients. The more we expose, the merrier. We can then offer quarterly and annual awards for the biggest Envirodorks. 

Let us move on to the inaugural recipient. The very first Envirodork Medal of Dishonor goes to:

Professor Barry Walters of Australia.

Writing in the Medical Journal of Australia (the Double Christmas Issue, at that!), Walters proposes taxing couples with more than two children to pay for trees to offset all that damn breathing the little kiddies do. 

Walters writes, "Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a 'baby levy' in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the 'polluter pays' principle."

In the twisted mind of an Eco-Stalin having a baby is akin to industrial pollution.

My guess is that the greater threat of pollution comes from all of the b.s. that climate hysteria mongers keep spewing into the air. 

Another case could be made that Walters' mother did pollute by taking a pee in the Australian gene pool when she gave birth to little Barry. Unless it's planted in his mouth I don't see how a taxpayer funded tree is really going to offset the damage Mum Walters caused the intellectual environment. 

A tip of the hat and a hearty cow fart to Professor Walters for being our first Envirodork. Now rest up and see if you can come up with something even more stupid so you can be our first repeat winner. We're all pulling for you!

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

Your Electric Bill On Steroids

Remember Enron, that corporate symbol of all things evil? It's late chairman, Kenneth Lay, and his cronies were bilking the public and their employees at every turn. The company became the favorite whipping boy of the left when wailing about corporate greed. In the end, all could agree that the execs at Enron were a particularly ignominious collection of scumbags.

So...guess what the scumbags had decided would "do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative..." and were feverishly pursuing when the hammer came down on them? Nuclear power plants? Chinese coal? Guatemalan petting zoos? Nope.

Carbon trading.

That darling scheme of the Eco-Stalins and the central component of the Lieberman-Warner "Climate Security Act" was also a favorite of the greediest corporate creeps in recent American history. Coincidence? It is if you have a Tolkien-esque imagination.

In fact, Ken Lay had private meetings at the White House during Clinton-Gore years to lobby for the signing and ratification of the Kyoto Protocols because he knew it would enable him to become king of the carbon "cap and trade" thieves. Yes, I said "Clinton-Gore years".

Still think everybody is in this for the good of the planet? Only if "planet" is code for "energy execs' wallets".

Last week, I mentioned Arclightzero's well researched post that digs into the money trail behind all of these allegedly altruistic Climate Commies. He then followed it up with this post, which dug even deeper. Another article from the Competitive Enterprise Institute explains how the cap and trade scheme would actually hit poorer families the hardest. Where's the outcry from Fluffy Edwards' well-lit mansion?

The "Climate Security Act" now looks like it's going to make it past the full Senate committee. It secures nothing (how about some border security while you nitwits are working?). It's economically damaging and does little more than make those who voted for it feel good about more federal helping.

John Warner hasn't had to stand for election since 2002 and is retiring so he doesn't seem to be very beholden to anyone other than the voices in his head ("Help your legacy, save the planet..."). In the "More Coincidence?" category, Sempra Energy was the fourth largest contributor to Lieberman's last race. What's one of Sempra's big lobbying points these last few years? Federal carbon cap and...never mind, you get it now.

If bills like the Lieberman-Warner "Climate Folly Money Grab" become law the energy companies will have their hands so far up in your business you'll feel as if you're in the middle of a permanent colonoscopy. It's also the first step in ceding economic sovereignty to the United Nations, which is a great idea if you aren't American.

Happy Holidays, kids. Instead of dealing with real security like troop funding or border control, this is what your elected officials are working on during their abbreviated session. Can I interest anyone in a little political stupidity "cap and trade" scheme? I've got a Henry Waxman, a Barbara Boxer and a Dianne Feinstein I would be willing to trade for just one person with common sense. What's that, you can't do it without heavy government subsidies?

Never mind.

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

Senate To Debate Lieberman-Warner Climate Commie Bill

Heads up kids, the Eco-Stalins are on the march again. My views on this have been mentioned time and again in this blog, most recently here and here. 

Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Carbon Bogeyman) and John Warner (R-Glad He's Leaving) have sponsored a horrible "cap and trade" scheme that they want to make into law. In keeping with climate hysteria protocol, it's known as the "Climate Security Act".  (Oooh, forget the borders, let's make sure the climate is secure. I'm sleeping better already. Maybe I'm just high on cow fart methane.) The bill has made it to the full committee for whatever kind of debate can really be had on this topic that's based more on emotion than reality (sorry, all you religiously devoted IPCC fans). 

The list of people and groups lining up to point out how much this bill blows is increasing faster than Barry Bonds' hat size. Here's what "cap and trade" schemes that are in place have accomplished thus far: windfall profits for energy companies (if your electric company exceeds the cap and gets fined the only place they know to find money is your pocket-there's no real down side to compliance) and no real effect on carbon emissions. 

The bill does manage to-surprise!- bloat the bureaucracy by creating a federal Carbon Market Efficiency Board. Why don't these guys ever come up with something useful, like a federal NFL Cheerleader Date For Every American Bachelor Board? I might start liking the government then. 

More to follow on this in the coming days. I have to go cook some food for my kid while we can still afford the energy. Then I have to see what I can do to get my carbon footprint big enough to step on some of these people.

Green$ Aren't Always Good For You

Gosh, it's been such a busy week that I've hardly had time to contemplate the fact that we're in the midst of a climate crisis. Such are the perils of living in this little corner of the universe we like to call Reality. 

But it's important for those of us in the business of climate panic reversal to be vigilant and keep getting the message out to those who still think all the hoopla is about recycling and better air. 

OK, it's about recycling, all right. Recycling communism, that is. Your green friends like Prince Albert the Nonsensical want a centralized power to take over the U.S. economy. If that fails, they'll settle for hyper-regulatory measures that choke the economy quickly too. 

Arclightzero kicked the week off with this post about just how much money Gore stands to get his fat fingers on if  politicians finally capitulate to his wailing. Sorry, Greenpeaceniks, Saint Albert isn't in it for sake of the planet. 

More news about what really lies in store for us if Washington sells us out to any Kyoto-like deal showed up this week. 

China is about to surpass the U.S. as the world's largest carbon emitter. Despite the fact that everything but Angelina Jolie's kids were made there it's still considered a developing country. Sure, there's lots of manufacturing and a big army but the farmers still use oxen. Another shining example of communism working for the common man. Should China remain communist, it will probably be "developing" well past Al Gore's projected planetary doomsday. Don't expect a run on HDTVs in rural China any time soon. 

What's the main difference between the two "carbon superpowers"? Simple, climate treaties make U.S. standards mandatory while that poor little developing whelp China gets to have voluntary goals. It's only fair to give the poor guys some time to catch up, right? 

Would that it were all so feel-good but, as with everything Green, it's not.

Reuters reports today that a "senior climate official" in China doesn't think that his exploding economy can foot the bill to become more carbon efficient. China can't even begin exploring options without "funding assurances," according to the official. 

Welcome to the nitty-gritty. If the world is going to take care of this carbon bogeyman, somebody has to pay for it. 

Any volunteers? Iceland? Mozambique? Portugal? Didn't think so. 

Another Reuters article earlier in the week reported that "Brazil wants rich nations at the Bali conference to pay for poor countries to adapt to climate change." 

The Chinese official wrapped things up by saying "Developed countries should abide by the demands of the (U.N.) treaty and offer favorable terms, or give for free, the environmentally friendly technology that developing countries desperately need." (italics mine)

Hint: "rich nations" and "developed countries" are code for "mostly the United States". 

This is what all the Gorecrap is about: centralizing power at the UN and a redistribution of wealth on a global scale. Al Gore is trying to accomplish what generations of Cold War Soviet premiers couldn't: the spread of communism to all nations. 

And people think I call the greenies Climate Commies just to be snarky. If Karl Marx had an afterlife to go to he'd be beaming with pride at the accomplishments of his little green disciples. 

It bears repeating that the last successful financial venture the UN engaged in was an illegal and immoral one with Saddam Hussein. 

You might want to think twice about letting them spend the United States economy into the ground. 

At least we'll be able to import oxen for our farm work after we help China become developed. 

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

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!)

Politburo Thursday: What the Kosmonauts are blogging in between bong hits.

(This is going to be a semi-regular-maybe daily-feature on this blog for now. Here is the first one of these I posted. It gives a little intro to the idea. SDK)

Proving once again that the Extraterrestrial Left (the "ELs") believes that freedom of speech applies only to the hysterically seditious, the Daily Che Guevara is whining about Don Imus being back on the air. Not only that, they also have their metrosexual man-panties in a wad over the fact that James Carville made an appearance on his show. Sure, they hate Republicans over there but they act like scorned lovers whenever a Democrat doesn't pee where they tell him to. Here's their little snippet about Jimmy C:

"Loyalty to friends is good. But Carville sure keeps finding his loyalty to his friends and his loyalty to what should be basic principles in conflict."

Principles. Carville. Somebody forgot to take her Compazine today!

The gals are also chirping about Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein not heeling when ordered to. Neither made a mess on the rug but they did vote to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General. Expect an outcry over there soon to bring Cesar Milan in and train these bitches right.

There's even a cute little poll about the California Dems attempt to censure Feinstein. No need, kiddies. She's from San Francisco, I believe they have laws allowing for the execution of any resident who supports the President of the United States in any way.

A piece yesterday (bad A.D.H.D. here-sometimes I miss things) questioned why conservatives "deny global warming." I'm sure there may be some who do, but most only question the causes behind it. This isn't even a subtle distinction yet it's still impossible for the average Kosmonaut to grasp. Why? Because that would require admitting that conservatives can think, which is a no-no for the lefty brain trust and free speech lovers over there. The very essence of Kos-hood can best be described as a bunch of people sitting in a room and taking turns saying, "No, you're the smartest," with a round of giggles following each affirmation. It's the biggest virtual group hug on the planet.

Here's one (sadly) typical comment on the issue:

"Since their knowledge of science and technology is barely at the ox-cart level..."

On the far left, "science" means "an unquestioning devotion to Al Gore." What you have over there are people who abhor religion but are indistinguishable from any religious fundamentalist ("fundies" to the clever Mensa kids at TDK) once Al Gore begins droning on and on. As I (and other ox-carters) have written before, the lefties have even taken a page from the 16th century Roman Catholic Church (and they call themselves progressives!). Their "carbon credit" scheme is a repackaging of the sale of plenary indulgences. Do something wrong, purchase an imaginary do-over and-hey!-it's all better now. What kind of progressive "science" are they going to give us next-greater fuel efficiency by burning witches?

Oh-oh, my ox-cart wheels seem to have become mired in some b.s. Can I buy a "dung credit" and pretend it's not here?

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.

Anti-American Idol

"People of Venezuela and Sean Penn, your votes have been counted and the new Anti-American Idol is: Hugo Chavez! That's right folks, in one of the closest contests in recent memory, Chavez beat out sentimental favorites Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Keith Olbermann to become the U.S.-basher of record."

While the press was busy writing a million stories predicting that President Bush won't be able to tie his shoes now that Karl Rove is leaving something infinitely more disturbing and newsworthy was happening in South America. Lunatic dictator (and new Sean Penn-Pal) Hugo Chavez decided that it's time to change the Venezuelan constitution so he can be elected until whatever god you believe in can remove him from this earth. (The CIA missed a golden opportunity when Chavez was speaking at the UN last year at the same time all of that tainted spinach was floating around. One little salad could've done the trick. Alas, it was chicken nugget day at the UN cafeteria. I believe that's served with tater-tots and a heaping bowl of useless sanctions.)

Hugo Chavez has been very irritated with the U.S. ever since we went into Iraq. Many think that this is because he's staking out some moral high ground because he is opposed to war. Personally, I think that Hugo is fuming because the dictator spotlight was taken off of Saddam Hussein and redirected to his own pudgy mug. True, he would deny that he's actually a dictator but here's one overwhelming piece of evidence: he's been embraced by Sean Penn, Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover. They've all visited Chavez, gotten the same sanitized "Hollywood Tour" that Castro gives in Cuba and marveled at the gestapo glory that's all about the place. Maria Conchita-Alonso, an actress who is actually from Venezuela, thinks Chavez is a "totalitarian." But what would she know, she only has friends and family there.

Wealthy liberals absolutely adore communist dictators. One I know (who shall remain nameless-pretend I'm a reporter with "an unnamed source") once said to me, "I just love what Castro has done with Cuba!" None of the Cuban immigrants I know has echoed that sentiment thus far. Why is it that Lefties can believe whatever a dictator tells them but ignore the little things, like thousands of people risking their lives to float on makeshift rafts to get to Miami? We won't even jump into our pools if the chlorine levels are off, these people are flinging themselves at the mercy of the ocean and the weather to get away from Castro's glory. Just guessing here, but I don't think people kill themselves to get away from paradise. "Oh my god! The health care and education are simply too magnificent, I've got to get out of here!"

What's really scary for those of us who don't have to live under benevolent Chavez regime is that this guy now controls a HUGE chunk of our oil imports. We import twice as much oil from Venezuela as we do from Iraq. Where's that "war for oil" now?

Chavez is also filling the hollowness that Hollywood has felt since Castro became ill. I could almost hear the weeping in Malibu when it looked like Fidel was going to die. He is still too ill for any real good propaganda photo-ops. Just when it looked like Hollywood was about to enter its darkest, dictator-free hours, along came Hugo like a breath of fresh, fascist air to give the Loony Left someone new to spoon with in their political beds.

Just wondering, aren't huge oil exporters disproportionately contributing to greenhouse gas emissions? I guess there is a big carbon-footprint reduction factor if you're a communist dictator.

It's a love story only Hollywood could write.

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: