06 Feb.
2010
The eco/enviro-Marxists (AKA ‘watermelons’ = enviro-green on the outside, communist red on the inside) have suffered a great defeat in their attempts to deceive and scare-monger the world into “changing its ways” by claiming that “global warming” is anthropogenic, the result of human activity that causes the release of carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other “greenhouse gases”, etc. Since they’re Marxist malcontents at heart, their prescription for a solution is always the same: bigger, badder government to control economic activity, which means more regulations and taxes.
The hoax/scam of anthropogenic global warming has raked in billions of dollars in taxes, grants, carbon credit/trade utter nonsense, etc. so when the climategate scandal hit, you knew these freaks would dig in and downplay its significance, but I don’t think they’re gonna get away with it. Not this time. Anyway, I’ve linked and pasted a good article about this below.
The great global warming collapse
“As the science scandals keep coming, the air has gone out of the climate-change movement”
In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.
These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia’s nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country’s plight, Nepal’s top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.
But the claim was rubbish, and the world’s top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.
“The global warming movement as we have known it is dead,” the brilliant analyst Walter Russell Mead says in his blog on The American Interest. It was done in by a combination of bad science and bad politics.
The impetus for the Copenhagen conference was that the science makes it imperative for us to act. But even if that were true – and even if we knew what to do – a global deal was never in the cards. As Mr. Mead writes, “The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.” Copenhagen was never going to produce a breakthrough. It was a dead end.
And now, the science scandals just keep on coming. First there was the vast cache of e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia, home of a crucial research unit responsible for collecting temperature data. Although not fatal to the science, they revealed a snakepit of scheming to keep contradictory research from being published, make imperfect data look better, and withhold information from unfriendly third parties. If science is supposed to be open and transparent, these guys acted as if they had a lot to hide.
Despite widespread efforts to play down the Climategate e-mails, they were very damaging. An investigation by the British newspaper The Guardian – among the most aggressive advocates for action on climate change – has found that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed, and that documents relating to them could not be produced.
Meantime, the IPCC – the body widely regarded, until now, as the ultimate authority on climate science – is looking worse and worse. After it was forced to retract its claim about melting glaciers, Mr. Pachauri dismissed the error as a one-off. But other IPCC claims have turned out to be just as groundless.
For example, it warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming because they are extremely susceptible to even modest decreases in rainfall. The sole source for that claim, reports The Sunday Times of London, was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. One scientist contacted by the Times, a specialist in tropical forest ecology, called the article “a mess.”
Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri’s own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits.
Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they’re bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain’s Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri’s resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC.
None of this is to say that global warming isn’t real, or that human activity doesn’t play a role, or that the IPCC is entirely wrong, or that measures to curb greenhouse-gas emissions aren’t valid. But the strategy pursued by activists (including scientists who have crossed the line into advocacy) has turned out to be fatally flawed.
By exaggerating the certainties, papering over the gaps, demonizing the skeptics and peddling tales of imminent catastrophe, they’ve discredited the entire climate-change movement. The political damage will be severe. As Mr. Mead succinctly puts it: “Skeptics up, Obama down, cap-and-trade dead.” That also goes for Canada, whose climate policies are inevitably tied to those of the United States.
“I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper skepticism,” says John Beddington, the chief scientific adviser to the British government. He is a staunch believer in man-made climate change, but he also points out the complexity of climate science. “Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.” In his view, it’s time to stop circling the wagons and throw open the doors. How much the public will keep caring is another matter.
05 Aug.
2009
Spoof-poster-Obamas-face-painted-The-Joker-branded-dangerous-mean-spirited.html
The neo-Marxist Left and other assorted, perpetually malcontent douchebags of the American Left, are upset that somebody dared to depict this miserable failure of a president (THAT’S RIGHT, I SAID IT! HE’S A MISERABLE FAILURE!) as The Joker, the Batman villain from the recent movie The Dark Knight. All I have to say is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Eh, on second thought, I DO have more to say… It’s soooo damn close to reality… I mean for one thing, this man doesn’t have very many normal friends; most seem to be societal malcontents, especially the two communist-terrorists, Billy “the bombthrower” Ayers and his wife Bernadine whose terror group was responsible for BOMBING the Pentagon, the Capitol, etc. I’ve been saying and thinking it for a long time: he’s got the same chip on his shoulders as all the radicals that he hung out with, it’s just that he hid it very well and with a lapdog media on his side, he was able to roll right into the WhiteHouse… These friends of his are and always were a roadmap towards understanding who he is and what’s lurking inside that head of his, something we’re learning more and more as his horrifying presidency unfolds!
Now, how upset do you think the little darlings were when their comrades of Vanity Fair did the same fucking thing to the previous president? Scroll down to the second picture. I bet they had a real good laugh at that Bush picture, but I also bet that NOW the joke isn’t funny anymore, right? You can hear them now: This is an OUTRAGE, mean-spirited, dangerous, you rabid right-wingers need to stop that shit! No, we’re not gonna stop that shit; what we’re gonna do is come out in droves and vote as if our very lives depended on it in the 2010 elections to save the fucking country from this nightmare! Yesss, nightmare! There is a very good chance republicans can win back the House of Representatives from the freaks, so there is light at the end of the tunnel, but it’s ~15 months away… 
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/07/bush-as-joker.html
Which president do you think deserves this depiction more, Barack or Bush ? Decide.
21 May.
2009
This is a great political critique by Karl Rove I had to share. The American Left and democrats turned Karl Rove into a great demon of our time, so it’s nice to see him mixing it up these days and fighting back. At any rate, he nails Bolshevik Barack-Iraq NOT-THAT-HUSSEIN/NOT-THAT-OSAMA Obama-YoMama-Alabama-Havana pretty good with this so here it is:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286200693341141.html
Barack Obama inherited a set of national-security policies that he rejected during the campaign but now embraces as president. This is a stunning and welcome about-face.
For example, President Obama kept George W. Bush’s military tribunals for terror detainees after calling them an “enormous failure” and a “legal black hole.” His campaign claimed last summer that “court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists.” Upon entering office, he found out they aren’t.
He insisted in an interview with NBC in 2007 that Congress mandate “consequences” for “a failure to meet various benchmarks and milestones” on aid to Iraq. Earlier this month he fought off legislatively mandated benchmarks in the $97 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama agreed on April 23 to American Civil Liberties Union demands to release investigative photos of detainee abuse. Now’s he reversed himself. Pentagon officials apparently convinced him that releasing the photos would increase the risk to U.S. troops and civilian personnel.
Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama excoriated Mr. Bush’s counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed. Earlier this year, facing increasing violence in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama rejected warnings of a “quagmire” and ordered more troops to that country. He isn’t calling it a “surge” but that’s what it is. He is applying in Afghanistan the counterinsurgency strategy Mr. Bush used in Iraq.
As a candidate, Mr. Obama promised to end the Iraq war by withdrawing all troops by March 2009. As president, he set a slower pace of drawdown. He has also said he will leave as many as 50,000 Americans troops there.
These reversals are both praiseworthy and evidence that, when it comes to national security, being briefed on terror threats as president is a lot different than placating MoveOn.org and Code Pink activists as a candidate. The realities of governing trump the realities of campaigning.
We are also seeing Mr. Obama reverse himself on the domestic front, but this time in a manner that will do more harm than good.
Mr. Obama campaigned on “responsible fiscal policies,” arguing in a speech on the Senate floor in 2006 that the “rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy.” In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he pledged to “go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work.” Even now, he says he’ll “cut the deficit . . . by half by the end of his first term in office” and is “rooting out waste and abuse” in the budget.
However, Mr. Obama’s fiscally conservative words are betrayed by his liberal actions. He offers an orgy of spending and a bacchanal of debt. His budget plans a 25% increase in the federal government’s share of the GDP, a doubling of the national debt in five years, and a near tripling of it in 10 years.
On health care, Mr. Obama’s election ads decried “government-run health care” as “extreme,” saying it would lead to “higher costs.” Now he is promoting a plan that would result in a de facto government-run health-care system. Even the Washington Post questions it, saying, “It is difficult to imagine . . . benefits from a government-run system.”
Making adjustments in office is one thing. Constantly governing in direct opposition to what you said as a candidate is something else. Mr. Obama’s flip-flops on national security have been wise; on the domestic front, they have been harmful.
In both cases, though, we have learned something about Mr. Obama. What animated him during the campaign is what historian Forrest McDonald once called “the projection of appealing images.” All politicians want to project an appealing image. What Mr. McDonald warned against is focusing on this so much that an appealing image “becomes a self-sustaining end unto itself.” Such an approach can work in a campaign, as Mr. Obama discovered. But it can also complicate life once elected, as he is finding out.
Mr. Obama’s appealing campaign images turned out to have been fleeting. He ran hard to the left on national security to win the nomination, only to discover the campaign commitments he made were shallow and at odds with America’s security interests.
Mr. Obama ran hard to the center on economic issues to win the general election. He has since discovered his campaign commitments were obstacles to ramming through the most ideologically liberal economic agenda since the Great Society.
Mr. Obama either had very little grasp of what governing would involve or, if he did, he used words meant to mislead the public. Neither option is particularly encouraging. America now has a president quite different from the person who advertised himself for the job last year. Over time, those things can catch up to a politician.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
11 Apr.
2009
The poor, neo-Marxist, teleprompter-driven President (aka Prezident Ba-KillBabyWithA-Rock “NOT-THAT-HUSSEIN AND NOT-THAT-OSAMA” OBAMA-YOMAMA-ALABAMA) hasn’t been doing so well as of late… Awwwwww. In point of fact, he’s shaping up to being the disaster that I always expected him to be and the above forum pic I came across captures it somewhat sufficiently. Others are catching on to this fact, especially now that the honeymoon phase is over, but some of us knew it beforehand and hoped that he would never get anywhere near the WhiteHouse. Unfortunately, that’s not what happened, and the only hope would appear to lie in a very demoralized republican opposition party that, to a great extent, has lost its way… Meaning, there isn’t much hope at all.
Oh, I’m sorry, I know, I know, I’m supposed to be wishing my worst political adversary “a successful presidency” and not hoping for his failure according to the drive-by liberal media establishment (this coming from the same people that wanted/needed us to lose in Iraq so as to make Bush look as bad as possible), an adversary who just happens to be diametrically opposed to nearly everything that I believe in politically… That’s ALL, no big deal… “Give the guy a break you righteous right-wingers, after all, his father was a black man from Kenya who abandoned him and the white mother when he was 2 years old, so just put ALL your political differences aside, shut up, roll over, play dead, that is, get with the program and hope that he succeeds!!!! Say it! SAY IT! ‘I, a right-winger, want Obama to succeed!’ Say it again, ‘I want Barack Millhouse Nobama to succeed!’ THAT’S MORE LIKE IT!!!! VERY GOOD!” Rrrrrrriiiiight… Heh-heh.
The neo-Marxist Left is nothing if not comical in its sort of surreal demand for loyalty and the muzzling of dissent. Among the tactics to achieve the latter is the ever despicable playing of the race card in order to foster an environment of intimidation where pretty much everybody that isn’t black is essentially disqualified from ever criticizing this man, not unless they wanna have to deal with being instantly tarred and feathered as racist, cross-burning KKK members, etc. Of course, even if you are black (and, God forbid, a republican to boot), there are ways around that too: “Uncle Tom” or even “House Nigger.” So much for improving race relations…
At any rate, this man clearly does NOT belong in the WhiteHouse running our country… In fact, I know exactly where he belongs and I’ve known it for quite a while now… Where, you ask? It’s where he should’ve stayed all along: in a Chicago university classroom, of course, as a professor indoctrinating, radicalizing young adults into “stick-it-to-the-man” revolutionaries right alongside his detestable, communist-terrorist canal-pal, Billy “the bombthrower” Ayers… Hell, they could even have that racist, lunatic, the WRONG Jeremiah Wright as an occasional guest speaker to come in and rant about those “rich white people” ruining things and even secretly engineering viruses that specifically target the black race for extinction… I’m sure Barack would’ve been just as happy doing that but his later ambitions took him much further in life, and unfortunately, we’re all gonna pay a price for it… in the trillions (and by golly, not a penny more than necessary)…
Posted by NightWolve 
Category: 