From the People’s Cube:
From the People’s Cube:
… and just like moving to any state, that means assimilating.
Rabid leftist activist Rev. Audette Fullbright wrote demanding that Wyoming submit to her newcomer “educated” demands. State Representative Hans Hunt replied in the best manner possible.
Via the Blaze:
I hope you are taking care of yourself during this busy session. I know it is a challenging, compressed time.
I am writing to express my grave concern about House Bill 105. Ample evidence has shown that schools and guns do not mix, and in particular, guns in the hands of amateurs/non-professionals is extremely dangerous, especially in any highly-charged situation. to expose our children to greater risk in their schools by encouraging more guns on campuses is something that we cannot allow.
My husband and I moved to Wyoming not too long ago. We believed it was a good place to raise children. With the recent and reactive expansion of gun laws and the profoundly serious dangers of fracking, we find we are seriously reconsidering our decision, which is wrenching to all of us. However, the safety of our family must come first. We are waiting to see what the legislature does this session. I know of other new-to-Wyoming families in similar contemplation. Your choices matter. It would be sad to see an exodus of educated, childrearing age adults from Wyoming as a result of poor lawmaking.
Rev. Audette Fulbright
And the response from Hunt:
I’ll be blunt. If you don’t like the political atmosphere of Wyoming, then by all means, leave. We, who have been here a very long time (I am proudly 4th generation) are quite proud of our independent heritage. I don’t expect a “mass exodus” from our state just because we’re standing up for our rights. As to your comments on fracking, I would point out that you’re basing your statement on “dangers” that have not been scientifically founded or proved as of yet.
It offends me to no end when liberal out-of-staters such as yourself move into Wyoming, trying to get away from where they came from, and then pompously demand that Wyoming conform to their way of thinking. We are, and will continue to be, a state which stands a head above the rest in terms of economic security. Our ability to do that is, in large part, to our “live and let live” mentality when it comes to allowing economic development, and limiting government oversight. So, to conclude, if you’re so worried about what our legislature is working on, then go back home.
Representative Hans Hunt
House District 02
There has been a slow migration of the leftist “educated” elitists who demand that their ideology be accepted as the only choice. They leave some decrepit state that they’ve thoroughly corrupted and destroyed (like California), then move to a free state (like Colorado), and slowly, progressively destroy it. Then they move on to the next state, demanding that the leftist ideology that destroyed their last state be implemented in the new one.
Fulbright is a leftist political activist who’s demanding that Wyoming bow to her will and adopt her leftist ideology. She comes in with the smug attitude that she and her “educated” ideas be adopted. She posits that guns are bad and that defenseless schools are somehow a good thing – something that people from Wyoming have learned over generations is utter foolishness. Yet she insists that her “education” dominate their ideas.
Kudos to Representative Hunt for standing up for Wyoming – and I say that as a former resident.
For those unaware, Chris LeDoux, who’s considered the musical voice of Wyoming, wasn’t a native – he assimiliated.
The Casper Tribune, in the usual vein of media everywhere (they certainly aren’t the Greybull Standard), screws things up from almost the first sentence in their own story:
CHEYENNE — A Newcastle state lawmaker is refusing to apologize after telling a Cheyenne minister that her and her family should leave the state if she doesn’t like Wyoming politics.
Those aren’t Wyoming politics, those are Wyoming virtues. The Equality State doesn’t play favorites. It doesn’t disarm people to make them “safe” because that doesn’t work. Wyoming stood up for the citizen so much that it’s now one of only four states with constitutional carry. Wyoming residents remember things like the Johnson County War. They know that guns have utility, for good or evil. Disarming people makes no one safer.
They also know not to trust environmentalists who claim that no one else knows anything about science… especially when that science, as in the anti-fracking case, is backed by political entities opposed to certain industries.
People from Wyoming have seen what happened to Colorado – how the swarm of Californians who moved there with their “great ideas” have turned the once-great state into a pot-smoking basketcase that hates any freedoms other than getting high, led by representatives that want women to be raped rather than letting them defend themselves, and are driving businesses out of Colorado.
The left poisons an environment with its own failed, destructive ideology, then individual leftists move, fleeing the wastelands they leave behind to infect other free areas with their love of oppression of the individual and elevation of the state. They leave one “utopia” that’s an unliveable hole and go to create another.
One astute commenter paraphrased leftist Fulbright’s demands:
“I moved here, to a place with a different culture, both civil and political, but expect you to kowtow to MY different preferences and change YOUR culture to suit ME. I shouldn’t have to adapt to the way things have been here for generations, I should be able to impose my will, standards and beliefs upon you backwards hicks, because I’m smarter than you. I’m EDUCATED.”
Thank you Representative Hunt for standing up to this.
There’s been a bit of discussion, though not really very much, about Obama’s new CAFE standards that mandate average fleet fuel economy at 54.5 mpg by 2025. That’s not that far away. And as noted, the leftist watermelon environmentalists are very fond of making up mandates that simply cannot be met – such as requiring fuel companies to use a fuel that doesn’t exist. The objective it to get rid of cars they don’t like by making their production nearly impossible or illegal, citizen demand be damned. But the most interesting car issue has been about a newer car idea from government.
In the last week or so, there’s been a kerfuffle in the car communit about the Tesla S sedan. To put this out there before we even get started, Tesla is effectively a government project. They got a loan to the tune of $465 million from you, the taxpayer. Tesla is a government sponsored “good idea”. Electric cars are expensive (the roadster runs about $109K), so the proletariat has to ride mass transit, and the Tesla is eco-friendly and expensive, so the limousine liberal set can pat themselves on the back for being “green”. The poor are shoved into government control, the rich are allowed to feel enlightened. South African billionaire Elon Musk spent almost a half-million dollars lobbying for his half-billion dollars in taxpayer handouts, all so he could design a car for those who tell you how to live to get them to and from their bureaucratic offices.
Back on Feb 8, the NYT, which has a harsh leftist bias to the point that they aid Al Qaeda by showing where US body armor is weak, and is all about fighting Manbearpig, decided to have one of their reporters test the claim that the $101,000 Tesla S sedan could be driven like a normal car.
WASHINGTON — Having established a fast-charging foothold in California for its electric cars, Tesla Motors has brought its formula east, opening two ultrafast charging stations in December that would, in theory, allow a speedy electric-car road trip between here and Boston.
But as I discovered on a recent test drive of the company’s high-performance Model S sedan, theory can be trumped by reality, especially when Northeast temperatures plunge.
It’s an interesting story of what happens when an enlightened “good idea” meets the real world:
Setting out on a sunny 30-degree day two weeks ago, my trip started well enough. A Tesla agent brought the car to me in suburban Washington with a full charge, and driving at normal highway speeds I reached the Delaware charging dock with the battery still having roughly half its energy remaining. I went off for lunch at the service plaza, checking occasionally on the car’s progress. After 49 minutes, the display read “charge complete,” and the estimated available driving distance was 242 miles.
Fat city; no attendant and no cost.
Except that $465,000,000 taken out of the taxpayer’s pocket. And the fact that the car runs on coal.
As I crossed into New Jersey some 15 miles later, I noticed that the estimated range was falling faster than miles were accumulating. At 68 miles since recharging, the range had dropped by 85 miles, and a little mental math told me that reaching Milford would be a stretch.
Simply put, the cold weather, along with other factors, reduced the battery life. He started calling Tesla and they told him to shut off the heater. And they told him do do “regenerative braking“, which will conserve energy, but won’t actually recharge batteries. You can’t burn energy to go forward and then stop and get all that energy back by stopping, because energy was expended in moving from one place to another. Tesla’s engineers apparently think that the laws of thermodynamics don’t apply to them just because they’re friends with Obama and he can tell Eric Holder not to prosecute.
The NYT reporter quoted Obama’s leftist watermelon environmentalist who wants $8/gallon gas Energy Secretary Steven Chu:
At the Washington Auto Show last month, Dr. Chu, who has since announced his plan to leave office in the next few weeks, discussed the Energy Department’s goal of making electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids as cheap and convenient as comparable gasoline-powered cars.
He continued: “We can’t say this everywhere in America yet, but driving by a gasoline station and smiling is something everyone should experience.”
Chu’s decided what you should experience, what’s good for you, and he will make you drive an electric car by killing the gas car. I could dissect the leftist tyrannical knows-what’s-best-for-you mindset of Steven Chu, but I’ll move on to a simple fact of why people won’t be smiling as they look at gas stations. From the NYT:
I drove a state-of-the-art electric vehicle past a lot of gas stations. I wasn’t smiling.
Instead, I spent nearly an hour at the Milford service plaza as the Tesla sucked electrons from the hitching post. When I continued my drive, the display read 185 miles, well beyond the distance I intended to cover before returning to the station the next morning for a recharge and returning to Manhattan.
To get 185 miles of range in a mostly fuel-inefficient (but powerful) Ford F250 that could pull a Tesla S on a trailer, I can pull into a gas station and get those 185 miles of range in about four minutes, unless it’s a very slow pump. Then I’ll be back on the road. To get that 185 miles of range in a Ford Focus, you need maybe two minutes, because that’s only about 6 gallons of gas. You also don’t need to turn off your heater when you’re driving, and don’t lose huge amounts of mileage in the cold.
And then, for the NYT reporter, things got worse. He stopped overnight and a charge of 90 miles dropped to about 25, short of what he needed for the last leg of the two-day trip.
…“Car is shutting down,” the computer informed me. I was able to coast down an exit ramp in Branford, Conn., before the car made good on its threat.
Tesla’s New York service manager, Adam Williams, found a towing service in Milford that sent a skilled and very patient driver, Rick Ibsen, to rescue me with a flatbed truck. Not so quick: the car’s electrically actuated parking brake would not release without battery power, and hooking the car’s 12-volt charging post behind the front grille to the tow truck’s portable charger would not release the brake. So he had to drag it onto the flatbed, a painstaking process that took 45 minutes. Fortunately, the cab of the tow truck was toasty.
At 2:40 p.m., we pulled into the Milford rest stop, five hours after I had left Groton on a trip that should have taken less than an hour. Mr. Ibsen carefully maneuvered the flatbed close to the charging kiosk, and 25 minutes later, with the battery sufficiently charged to release the parking brake and drive off the truck, the car was back on the ground. A Model S owner who had taken delivery the previous day watched with interest.
Tesla’s chief technology officer, J B Straubel, acknowledged that the two East Coast charging stations were at the mileage limit of the Model S’s real-world range. Making matters worse, cold weather inflicts about a 10 percent range penalty, he said, and running the heater draws yet more energy. He added that some range-related software problems still needed to be sorted out.
You can’t drive it like a normal car. It doesn’t work. You can’t use it for road trips, and the “super recharge” stations run on coal, and take an hour to charge. When the batteries get cold, you lose power, when you lose power, the car shuts down.
But we spent $465,000,000 on a “good idea”.
The South African billionaire needed $465,000,000 of your money to make a car that doesn’t work and build infrastructure for an idea that as far as cars go, was cutting edge in 1884 but abandoned back in the early 20th century. The South African billionaire then went on to rant about how the NYT was out to get him.
Virtually everyone says that I should have plugged in the car overnight in Connecticut, particularly given the cold temperature. But the test that Tesla offered was of the Supercharger, not of the Model S, which we already know is a much-praised car. This evaluation was intended to demonstrate its practicality as a “normal use,” no-compromise car, as Tesla markets it. Now that Tesla is striving to be a mass-market automaker, it cannot realistically expect all 20,000 buyers a year (the Model S sales goal) to be electric-car acolytes who will plug in at every Walmart stop.
Knowing then what I know now about the car, its sensitivity to cold and additional ways to maximize range, I certainly would have treated the test differently. But the conclusion might not have been any better for Tesla.
It wouldn’t have been. The thing is, it’s not a normal use car. It’s a niche car for people who want to out-smug Prius owners, and have $100K to do it with.
Some CNN Money reporters went on to repeat the distance of the drive from DC to Boston, but not the duration of the drive. They made the drive successfully, but as they note:
There were some differences with my ride and the one from the New York Times. The weather for mine was about 10 degrees warmer. And I did mine in one day; the reviewer from the Times split it into two.
The NYT reporter stopped overnight and his Tesla’s battery died in the cold. He didn’t plug it in because he wanted to drive it as a “normal use” car, which it clearly isn’t.
It was also Tesla that told me that an hour of charging (at a lower power level) at a public utility in Norwich, Conn., would give me adequate range to reach the Supercharger 61 miles away, even though the car’s range estimator read 32 miles – because, again, I was told that moderate-speed driving would “restore” the battery power lost overnight. That also proved overly optimistic, as I ran out of power about 14 miles shy of the Milford Supercharger and about five miles from the public charging station in East Haven that I was trying to reach.
If you spend some power to run the car and “prime the pump”, the car will magically keep running!
Those people are so foolish they don’t understand that power has to come from somewhere. It would be like calling Surefire and having them tell you that you can make your flashlight brighter by turning it on for a while, because the batteries don’t run down when used, they’re charged by being used. You’d be wondering if the guy is an idiot, or if he’s just an asshole on his last day.
It doesn’t work that way with flashlights, or cars. Doesn’t work that way with government spending or government cars, though some governments and their car companies think it does. They think wrong.
In addition to the $465,000,000 in taxpayer money for a car that can’t drive 200 miles over two days without spending hours of downtime being plugged into a coal mine, there’s also the fact that if you leave them parked, they might never start again:
One owner, Max Drucker, provided Wired.com with an email he sent to Telsa Motors CEO Elon Musk saying his battery was rendered “dead and unrecoverable” after he left the unplugged car in storage for six weeks.
“I had no idea I could be putting my car at risk,” Drucker told Wired.com by phone. “This was an accident. I didn’t know.”
Drucker, first identified by Green Car Reports, took delivery of Roadster No. 340 in May 2009, more than a year after placing a $50,000 deposit for the vehicle. He said he has driven the car 13,000 miles and followed Tesla’s service guidelines. He moved into a rental house while his home was being renovated and parked his Roadster in the garage, leaving it with a 25 percent state of charge. He didn’t touch it for six weeks and found it dead when he attempted to start it earlier this month.
“It wouldn’t do anything,” he said. “It wouldn’t even unlock. It took four guys two hours to get the car out of my garage and onto a flatbed truck. The car wouldn’t even roll.”
He sent the car to the Tesla store in Los Angeles. Three days later, Drucker said, Tesla told him the battery must be replaced at a cost of $32,000 plus tax and labor. He said Tesla told him the warranty will not cover the repair, and his car remains at the Tesla store.
Sounds like a government car.
The government spent $465,000,000 of your money giving it to a South African billionaire to develop a car that costs $100,000 that as a brand new car that runs on coal and can’t go from Boston to DC without special treatment and constantly talking to the manufacturer.
Top Gear reviewed the car and both liked it and found it horribly impractical because it takes forever to charge and it runs out of battery life. So naturally, Tesla sued them. And Top Gear won the suit.
“But as a device for moving you and your things around, it is about as much use as a bag of muddy spinach.”
- Jeremy Clarkson on the Tesla Roadster
The Tesla is a government-sanctioned program, forcibly funded by taxpayers (remember at April 15th that you’ve paid for these bags of muddy spinach), with that $465,000,000 given to a South African billionaire so he can have funds to sue anyone who questions the holiness of the car that will stop Manbearpig.
If it was his own car company, then it would be a simple indictment of electric cars as technological throwbacks due to their massive limitations, no matter if they do have good 0-60 times. But as is, it’s another reminder not only of Milton Friedman’s statement that no one spends money as carefully as the person to whom it belongs; but it’s also an indicator of what government mandates amount to when they meet the real world – fanciful ideas, but nothing that works.
For the fourth time this year, a murky haze has descended over north China, leaving residents of Beijing choking on toxic smog. China’s air hasn’t been this bad since 1954, according to the state-run People’s Daily newspaper.
In a remarkable record of dirty air, 24 out of January’s first 29 days this year had air classified as hazardous. And the skies have still not cleared.
The air is so bad that wealthy Chinese entrepreneur, Chen Guangbiao, is selling fresh air in soft drinks cans, similar to bottled drinking water. Each can is sold for 5RMB or about 80 cents.
From the NYT:
WASHINGTON — President Obama made addressing climate change the most prominent policy vow of his second Inaugural Address, setting in motion what Democrats say will be a deliberately paced but aggressive campaign built around the use of his executive powers to sidestep Congressional opposition.
“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” Mr. Obama said on Monday at the start of eight sentences on the subject, more than he devoted to any other specific area. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”
This is laughable.
Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.
The “overwhelming judgement of science” ignores the scientific method. Science is about hypothesis, observation, analysis of results, and conclusions based on what theory seems to fit with the hypothesis and data. Sometimes hypotheses are proven wrong. Other times, people like the East Anglia Climate Research Unit simply fabricate observation data to confirm their hypothesis, since they already know the conclusion they want. So the “overwhelming judgement of science” is a complete fabrication.
Now, as to the second part, that “none can avoid” the devastation of nature. This sounds like some primitive culture fearful of the sky gods.
The witch doctor “scientist” tells the ignorant tribesmen that they must bring him virgins and make him chief of the tribe so that he can prevent those raging fires and powerful storms. Only he has the power to stop these – and you must stop eating of the fruit that grows by the river – only the medicine man may eat those sweet fruits because they give him strength to fight the storms! For you, the pitiful tribesman, it would harm you – but for him, it gives him the power he needs! So bring him those fruits! And bring him those virgins that he needs to keep his strength as well. Only he has the power – he, with overwhelming judgement of the sky gods – can protect you! Only he can protect you from the monster that comes in on those storms – the monster – OF MANBEARPIG!
Every time the storms are worse, it’s because the tribe hasn’t given him the power to fight manbearpig. Every time the fires are worse, it’s because they kept one of their daughters away from him, and he could not absorb her virgin powers and so he did not have the strength to do battle with manbearpig. Every time they keep some of the sweet river fruit to themselves – that’s why the drought came – because they were greedy and kept it from the shaman. Every time the ignorant tribesmen don’t do exactly as the medicine man commands, that’s why manbearpig will attack them.
For all the leftist accusations of fearmongering, this is probably one of the worst examples. They tell you that you’re responsible for the planet dying – if you don’t give them enough power to fight it. Since there’s never enough power to fight the weather, they just need more. And just like the small-scale tyrant shaman in our story holding the tribe in terror, so to do these global cooling global warming climate change fearmongers today try to hold us in terror.
The rich and powerful can buy carbon indulgences (offsets) so they can continue to sin against nature by their own theology – and conveniently that money goes into Al Gore’s pocket. Any who question this are considered heretics, and lumped with the most vile of people.
One article in particular from Micha Tomkiewicz, who is himself a holocaust survivor, has earned the ire of climate denialists around the web because in addition to the comparison of the tactics of global warming denialists and holocaust deniers, he additionally creates a moral comparison. While not saying it’s as bad a holocaust denial, Tomkiewicz does suggest they might be denying the possibility of a future holocaust:
I make my “climate change denier” claim for one reason. It’s easy today to teach students to condemn the Holocaust, but it’s much more difficult to teach them how to try to prevent future genocides. There are different kinds of genocides and they don’t repeat themselves; they come to us in different ways. I am not suggesting that the Holocaust is just like climate change. But what I am suggesting is that even though it’s hard to see a genocide – any genocide – coming. The future is hard to predict, but we can see this one coming. This genocide is of our own making, and it will effect everyone, not just one group or country.
Not to walk back to another topic too much, but the Holocaust was done by armed tyrants against unarmed men. The Holodomor, the Armenian Genocide, and numerous other genocides have been perpetrated by armed groups in power through various means against unarmed, subjugated groups. Relatively easy to understand. It’s actually easy to prevent future genocides – if people have the tools to resist, they can fight back. (That’s why the JPFO exists – to make sure of “Never Again”.)
With climate change, we have scientists who have equated their fight against Manbearpig to fighting against the Holocaust. They have declared “consensus” and that “the science is settled”. They invoke the murder of millions to shame into submission those who would oppose them. Any who would question their global cooling global warming climate change conclusions are considered vile, genocidal scum like the Nazis, worthy only of derision, ridicule, and considered subhuman trash who need to be exterminated themselves before they kill the planet.
That’s not how science works.
Science is a process of creating theories based on repeated observations. Science is not demonizing those who question. Science itself is questioning.
Alinskyite politics, where all the angels are on one side and all the devils are on the other, are like what current global cooling global warming climate changers are about.
If one were to look at this from an anthropological point of view, this would be a transparent power play, and every bit as clear as the tyrannical shaman. If one looks at it from a modern political point of view, one sees that this is watermelon environmentalism. That is, it’s green on the outside, red on the inside; environmentalism surrounding collectivism/socialism/communism. For some reason, the solutions to global cooling global warming climate change have always been the same.
From Zombie at PJ Media:
I just finished reading a terrifying new book about climate change. I learned this:
• Climate change is happening faster than we realize and it will have catastrophic consequences for mankind.
• There’s very little we can do to stop it at this late stage, but we might be able to save ourselves if we immediately take these necessary and drastic steps:
- Increase our reliance on alternative energy sources and stop using so much oil and other carbon-based fuels;
- Adopt energy-efficient practices in all aspects of our lives, however inconvenient;
- Impose punitive taxes on inefficient or polluting activities to discourage them;
- Funnel large sums of money from developed nations like the U.S. to Third World nations;
- In general embrace all environmental causes.
You of course recognize these as the solutions most often recommended to ameliorate the looming crisis of Global Warming. But there’s a little glitch in my narrative. Because although the book I read was indeed about climate change, it wasn’t about Global Warming at all; it was instead about “The Coming of the New Ice Age,” and it isn’t exactly “new” — it was published in 1977.
It’s a rather interesting book:
Even the BBC agrees.
Interestingly, the “Impact Team” also gives space to the other faction of climatologists — whom they dub the “hot-earth men,” a primitive term for “Global Warmists.” The hot-earth men are the mortal enemies of the “cool-earth men,” i.e. the ice age predictors, who are obviously more correct and who are therefore given the soapbox throughout the book. What we see here in 1977 is an interesting historical pivot point: The crisis-mongers needed an ecological disaster to hype, and at that moment in history there were two factions battling for the microphone, each trumpeting the exact opposite scenario: the “hot-earth men” and the “cool-earth men.” The media weighed the two views, decided that the cool-earth men had more evidence, more team members and a better argument, and so ran with the “new ice age” story. When that didn’t pan out, they later dumped the cool-earth men and embraced their rivals.
And there’s the rub. We’ve been told all this stuff before. The solutions, as noted, are always the same – we as individuals have to give up our liberty to some governing body that will “save” us from ourselves; whether it be the weather shaman who demands the best food and our daughters, or whether it be the global cooling global warming climate change fearmongers today.
I’ll quote from the holocaust deniers=Manbearpig deniers guys again, attempting to explain it all away:
Climate change denialism shares all of these features. Denialists like Inhofe (Morano’s boss) allege a global warming “hoax”. This conspiracy theory suggests that thousands of scientists worldwide are all operating from the same playbook (the Protocols of the Al Gore), falsifying data for the purpose of creating regulations to restrict business, and secretly working to create one world government. Or that somehow peer-review and grant rewards only go to those who back the consensus, the classic “grantsmanship” conspiracy theory that is contradicted by the fact that scientists encourage and reward revolutionary results as long as they are well-grounded in data. It sounds ridiculous, but these are their arguments. How one could possibly manage to make thousands of people fabricate evidence for peer reviewed journals all to say the same thing and not be detected is beyond belief. And before the cranks show up and suggest the East Anglia emails are of any significance, let’s move on to number two:
The cherry picking of papers, often from journals that are overrun by cranks like Energy and Environment, and even the cherry-picking of individual data points or time periods is rampant. The theft of the East Anglia emails, which were then cherry-picked and quoted out of context to create the false appearance of deception on the part of scientists is another excellent example.
Second, like all big political movements with bigger objectives, these Manbearpig-worshipers may not realize what they’re doing. The Manbearpigger goes on to say that the East Anglia emails are meaningless because a bunch of other scientists who agree with Manbearpig agreed that they were meaningless. And anyone who questions them isn’t an expert, so they don’t realize how stupid they are and can’t make decisions (Dunning-Kruger).
Now, I may not know everything about climate science, but I subscribed to Science News for nearly a decade when they were in their weekly format. I cancelled when they went to bi-weekly and they added an editorial page. One of the first editorials they did was on the need for “advocacy science” to save us from Manbearpig. Suddenly, there was a political objective to science; there was a pressing political and emotional need that demanded that they find the “right conclusions” and make the “right policies”. That’s not science. That’s advocacy journalism at best, propaganda at worst – the gatekeeper to information makes the decision on what you need to know and what you don’t.
Just like I’m mocking global cooling global warming Manbearpig, so too is the Manbearpig worshiper mocking those who question his “settled” science, calling them cranks, quacks, and idiots who engage in cognative biases that make them think they know something, when only he, holy defender of the Codex of Science Truth Fact of Manbearpig can know the Righteous Word Of Manbearpig. Of course, I’m mocking him for his defense of rigid orthodoxy and Manbearpig zealotry. He’s going the Godwin’s law route because SHUT UP!
That’s a sprite. It’s a lightning phenomenon that wasn’t discovered until 1989.
I think that’s pretty cool, but it’s very sciency in a department I know little about. Just tossing it out there because it shows how little we as humankind still know, and how our understanding of the world is still yielding new discoveries.
But I know politicians, and I know people, and I know political swindlers who create crises to exploit. Human nature hasn’t changed.
To dissect the Manbearpig worshiper’s denial of any questioning his orthodoxy, there are many scientists taught by other scientists who are taught what has become politically unquestionable. Those who teach the teachers will dictate how the students learn. This is why they have lectures on subversion. Whether as overt as that or more subtle, it’s how people interact. Those who create bogus data, falsify it, or otherwise taint it with the conclusion they know they should reach aren’t necessarily doing so because their marching orders from Al Gore (who just sold his TV station to petro-barons in Qatar) – they’re doing so because that’s what they’ve been told to believe, whether or not it’s true. “Grantsmanship” also stem from the fact that the people handing out grants, the people involved in these circles, are mostly of the same mindset. They have the belief that they’re saving the world, and anyone who questions that is the devil. They don’t need marching orders – they’re individually capable of acting on their ideology, and the ideological guidance they’ve been given drives them. Thousands of people aren’t necessarily on some list of conspirators that parrot the party line, but they’re ideological clones – believing in the same thing. They are missionaries of Manbearpig, and no matter their sins, they are here to save you from yourself – and if you oppose them, you support the Holocaust.
Just to contrast, my ideological compass gears me towards the maximum amount of liberty for the maximum amount of people with the minimum of coercion. Individuals know what’s best for them in their own life. Those who make bad choices typically learn from experience and stop making those bad choices. Those who don’t live with the consequences of their actions – and that teaches them, too. With plenty of good examples, people can see what works and what doesn’t, and absent any enabling of bad choices, people will mostly make good ones for themselves. As individuals mature, they’ll see that protecting the freedom of others and helping to ensure the same choices they had are still around can lead to better lives for everyone, and they’ll raise their children up to make good decisions, or if they choose not to have children, they’ll still act as examples for others to follow or avoid, for good or ill.
Through that prism, I can see the same lists of demands from global cooling nuts in the 1970s as from global warming nuts in the 1990s as from “climate change” nuts today. They have the same ends, with their means only being separated by whether it’s hot or cold or just “different” outside.
Now, were I to do a apply the scientific method to this, I could do it this way:
Question: Is climate change valid?
Observation: Australia’s going through a hot summer, last summer where I live was hot. Maybe. But the backers for it aren’t acting very sciency.
Hypothesis: Climate change is a political tool.
Test the Hypothesis: We can observe trial & error in the news anyway, so I’ll run with that for now. We can see that those who defend climate change have changed their own positions from global cooling to global warming to now the non-substantive “change”. Further observation shows that those who support climate change have seemingly always demanded more control over the individual in order to fight climate change. Actions of climate change supporters mirror those of the political left. Data is all included in the above blog entry.
Analysis, Interpretation & Conclusion: Climate change mirrors politics on the left in a lot of ways. Whether it’s the left hijacking science or simply riding its coattails is unknown, but not necessarily important, either. The results of changes that climate change supporters wish to push are the same as Malthusians and those who believe in both people overpopulation and consumption overpopulation believe. No one is exempt from control by either the political or scientific entities if they were to get their way. Climate science itself might not be a political tool, and would be an interesting science to study, but it certainly is not settled in the least. There are those using it as a political cudgel to fabricate a crisis in order to push for demands they were making before they settled on the reason of “climate change”. Those who are on the receiving end of “climate change” are expected to change their living standards, while those who are dictating that “climate change” is a threat stand to benefit from it and gain power, like the primitive shaman. This hurts the majority of individuals while favoring a few.
For all the Manbearpig worshiper claims that “evil energy corporations are behind it” and other such accusations, the problem with that is that those same “evil energy corporations” have investments in so-called green energy. GE has made huge amounts of money by claiming to be green, while scamming the taxpayer – all by getting Manbearpig worshipers to tilt at windmills. Petrochemical dictators in the Middle East have been funding leftist environmentalist propaganda in the US in order to protect their own bottom lines.
So, to sum up – Manbearpig is a scam. It’s a power play. We’ve been told it’s going to be hot, it’s going to be cold, it’s going to be different and everything else. Global cooling/warming/climate change is a political tool right now to push an agenda. It is watermelon environmentalism, with collectivism at its core, with reduction of the individual at its core. The science really doesn’t matter, because the means to that power, whether it be cooling/warming/change don’t matter. It’s a politically fabricated crisis that can be always on the horizon, a crisis that has never materialized and doesn’t ever have to materialize, but a crisis that demands immediate action. It’s an ongoing constant threat that means those who are politically correct need more power from you the invididual, and they can always demand you do something “for the children”.
From the 10 10 Campaign, which wanted people to cut their carbon emissions by 10%. If you haven’t seen it, you should really watch it – it gives you some idea of how these people think:
It’s amazing how much the left loves the blood of children to try to force you to do things.
Manbearpig remains a fictional fear-mongering tool used as a means to an end – power. And despite being a giant fraud, Manbearpig is back for 2013.
If you think the Obama administration’s Enterprise Prevention Agenda has been wildly aggressive during the past four years, believe me, we really ain’t seen nothin’ yet. A new report released by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority Committee enumerates a slew of planned EPA regulations that have been delayed or punted on until after the election that will destroy millions of American jobs and cause energy prices to skyrocket even more.
Titled “A Look Ahead to EPA Regulations for 2013: Numerous Obama EPA Rules Placed on Hold Until After the Election Spell Doom For Jobs and Economic Growth”, it lists and describes new rules concocted over the past year ranging from additional restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, tougher water guidelines and tightening of the ozone standard. Taken together, they will further drive up pump prices, impose construction bans on local communities, and cripple oil, natural gas and coal production.
As the Washington Post notes, the report puts a spotlight back on the Obama EPA which has earned a “reputation for Abuse”, serving as a stark reminder that “President Obama has presided over a green team administration that works every day to “crucify” oil and gas companies and make sure that “…if you want to build a coal plant you got a big problem.”
Meanwhile, the EPA is “proving” their “science” through debunked cooked books, crooked mad science and human experimentation. It’s all watermelon environmentalism, though. They don’t really care about the environment, they care about social/ecological/environmental “justice”, rebalancing the scales against colonialist imperialist pig-dog oppressors of whatever oppressed minority they feel gives them enough justification to destroy the industrialized west and free markets, and ushering in a glorious land of “sustainable” communism.
Thirty years ago, that might’ve been parody, rather than an accurate description.
A few more highlights from the article:
As reported in the New York Times last year, President Obama admitted that the “regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty” of tightening the ozone standard would harm jobs and the economy … but he still pointed to the fact that it will be reconsidered in 2013. EPA itself estimated that this would cost $90 billion a year, while other studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs.
Under the Obama administration the EPA is but one of fourteen different federal agencies that are working to find ways to regulate hydraulic fracturing in order to limit and eventually stop the practice altogether. Others include the Department of Energy (DOE), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and even the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The BLM, under Secretary Salazar’s control, will be finalizing new regulations sometime after the election.
That’s Interior Secretary Ken “Boots” Salazar, noted above. Also, fracking is only considered bad because of propaganda against it, including anti-fracking propaganda films made by oil-rich Middle Eastern nations. And of course there’s also the accusations that fracking sets water on fire… which has been shown to be totally unconnected in some cases and hoaxes in a few others.
But then what’s the explanation for the most dramatic part of the movie: tap water so laden with gas that people can set it on fire?
It turns out that has little to do with fracking. In many parts of America, there is enough methane in the ground to leak into people’s well water. The best fire scene in the movie was shot in Colorado, where the filmmaker is in the kitchen of a man who lights his faucet. But Colorado investigators went to that man’s house, checked out his well, and found that fracking had nothing to do with his water catching fire. His well-digger had drilled into a naturally occurring methane pocket.
Then there’s the “greenhouse” gas emissions laws that are there to prevent Manbearpig, which is really about destroying agriculture as well as cities:
Known as the “cow tax”, there would be a cost-per-animal outcome. EPA itself estimates that in its best case scenario, there will be over 37,000 farms and ranches subject to greenhouse gas permits… at an average cost of $23,000 per permit annually… affecting over 90% of the livestock production in the United States.
And of course there are the sulfur particulate matter regulations:
Tier III Gas Regulations:
EPA is preparing to propose a rule-making called Tier III, which reduces the content of sulfur in gasoline from 30 ppm to 10 ppm. The cost of this rule could be up to $10 billion initially and $2.4 billion annually, and it could add up to 9 cents per gallon in manufacturing costs. These costs would inevitably be passed on to consumers at the pump. Many, including those on the far left, believe that political motives have caused President Obama to delay this rule until after the election.
And how’d they push for that?
There’s plenty more worth reading in the Forbes story. It’s also worth it to consider how the cumulative effect of those regulations is going to have an effect not just on your personal pocketbook, but how those increased costs are going to influence everyone else in the US, pushing costs ever higher and harming the economy further.
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. –
A Virginia-based public policy foundation claims that the EPA knowingly piped diesel exhaust into the lungs of dozens of people at UNC-Chapel Hill.
The American Tradition Institute Environmental Law Center is suing the Environmental Protection Agency for on-going experiments at the EPA’s Human Studies facility at UNC-Chapel Hill. The lawsuit alleges an EPA trial took diesel exhaust and piped it into the lungs of 41 people to see what would happen.
The institute says the EPA has exposed unhealthy patients to high levels of PM2.5, a toxic substance found in diesel exhaust, in experiments that began roughly six years ago.
PM 2.5 is “Particulate matter, 2.5 microns”. It’s what Lisa Jackson Lee, head of Obama’s EPA, declared harmful to humans and the province of the EPA to regulate, in order to amass more power and destroy more US industries through regulation. Note the story says that the suit goes all the way back to 2006, so who knows how long the EPA has been doing this kind of stuff.
From NBC 17′s site (in case it goes away):
EPA Human Testing has all kinds of backstory on it.
There are some tin foil red flags in the video, but there’s clearly something odd going on there.
With the Benghazi lies and Fast and Furious (and even Wide Receiver), it’s not much to put something like this past the EPA.
The Obama administration, out to “bankrupt the coal industry” and make energy prices “necessarily skyrocket” has set a new goal for Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards. An average of 54.5 MPG by 2025… if man is still alive.
WASHINGTON, DC – The Obama Administration today finalized groundbreaking standards that will increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025. When combined with previous standards set by this Administration, this move will nearly double the fuel efficiency of those vehicles compared to new vehicles currently on our roads. In total, the Administration’s national program to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions will save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas pump and reduce U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels.
“These fuel standards represent the single most important step we’ve ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” said President Obama. “This historic agreement builds on the progress we’ve already made to save families money at the pump and cut our oil consumption. By the middle of the next decade our cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon, almost double what they get today. It’ll strengthen our nation’s energy security, it’s good for middle class families and it will help create an economy built to last.”
This is a failure on so many levels it’s staggering. Politicians often hype future success, like the jobs that will be “saved or created” by nonsensical stimulus, or by saying they have a projected 10 bazillion in savings, so they’ll spend that money now, today. This is the same. The “savings” is mandatory.
They may as well say “we’ll make everyone thin by 2025… by starving you”. It’s the same effect. In the last few decades, cars have had some increases in fuel efficiency, but notably, there are older cars (like VW diesels) that get very good mileage, that aren’t around today. Most of this is due to safety equipment that’s become mandatory, that adds weight to cars, reduces fuel efficiency and adds price; or because environmentalists hate diesel. And there’s a limit to what the market can bear.
The administration called the new rules “historic,” and estimated that Americans would reduce their oil consumption by 12 billion barrels over the course of the program. “These fuel standards represent the single most important step we’ve ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” Mr. Obama said in a statement.
But the Romney campaign has criticized the new rules as “extreme” and said the standards would limit the choices when consumers shop for a new car. “The president tells voters that his regulations will save them thousands of dollars at the pump, but always forgets to mention that the savings will be wiped out by having to pay thousands of dollars more upfront for unproven technology that they may not even want,” said Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for the Romney campaign.
The transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, said the standards would save Americans $1.7 trillion in fuel costs, resulting in an average savings of more than $8,000 a vehicle by 2025.
The fuel savings, he said, would easily exceed the estimated $2,000 to $3,000 that the more efficient vehicles would cost consumers to buy.
“You put better technology in the car and the price is going to go up,” Mr. LaHood said in a conference call with reporters. “But it goes up a fraction of what you save on gas.”
The administration also said the rules would cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2025, eliminating six billion tons over the course of the program.
Proponents of the rules contend that they could also generate hundreds of thousands of jobs by increasing the demand for new technologies.
“Our nation will be more secure, our environment will be cleaner, and consumers will have more money in their pockets as a result of the new rule,” said Phyllis Cuttino, director of the Pew Clean Energy Program, an environmental organization based in Washington.
1. Historic is meaningless. The president takes pride in how historically historic he is. We saw this when national hero Neil Armstrong passed away a few days ago… and Obama posted pictures of himself, though it gave Iowahawk something to work with.
2. It is extreme. People who can’t afford new cars (i.e., poor working schlubs the Democrats claim to represent), don’t have the money to drop $30K on a new car, let alone $50K on the new car Obama declares they should drive. This kills the poor, and drives them to mass transit and control by the state. Give up your transportation, give up your freedom. Leftist types view this as “advancement”, when really it’s control – it’s advancement for their power base.
3. Ray LaHood is an idiot. The standards will cost Americans piles of money up front, and will cost the individual more money in the long run from accidents and lack of safety from driving in tiny commuter vehicles. Furthermore, people who want tiny commuter vehicles (not a bad idea when free of government influence), won’t save a damn thing. They’ll just have their choices reduced.
4. Ray LaHood is an idiot. The fuel savings will be offset by the increased cost and reduced safety; also, the reduced utility.
5. Ray LaHood is an idiot. See above.
6. Oh noes!
Manbearpig isn’t real. We already know this. Saving “global warming emissions” is feelgood nonsense. It’s also not internally consistent, even if you do pray to Gaia every night to save you from Manbearpig. Each new vehicle takes hundreds, if not thousands, of gallons of fuel to produce, and the equivalent “carbon emissions” from the manufacture of a new car destroy any potential carbon emission savings.
7. You can always create jobs by making more regulations. It’s just make-work that creates nothing. Every business in operation today (except for criminal enterprises) has to have entire compliance divisions to deal with tax law, the EPA, workmans comp, etc. It’s all a hindrance to doing actual business and furthering the interests of the individual by bringing products and services to market that would increase the quality of life of the purchasing individual. It’s layers of bureaucracy, whether it be in paperwork or technical compliance with idiot regulations.
8. The nation will not be more secure. We will, as individuals, be in more danger as vehicles shrink. As a nation, we have the greatest energy resources on the planet. The Bakken formation has barely been tapped, and our oil sands, oil shale, and offshore reserves are astronomical. Regulations that keep us from drilling and exploiting our own resources are what keeps us unsecure.
The objective here is the same as with mandating nonexistent fuels.
WASHINGTON — When the companies that supply motor fuel close the books on 2011, they will pay about $6.8 million in penalties to the Treasury because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel as required by law.
But there was none to be had. Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist.
In 2012, the oil companies expect to pay even higher penalties for failing to blend in the fuel, which is made from wood chips or the inedible parts of plants like corncobs. Refiners were required to blend 6.6 million gallons into gasoline and diesel in 2011 and face a quota of 8.65 million gallons this year.
“It belies logic,” Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association, said of the 2011 quota. And raising the quota for 2012 when there is no production makes even less sense, he said.
The objective is to make laws that destroy industry. The objective is to destroy industry through watermelon environmental regulations. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Eco-daleks. Control the people, destroy their way of life, dictate what’s best for them, ultimately destroy and liquidate those who resist.
Once in a while, I almost think it’s hyperbole… but fines for non-existent fuels, and a candidate who says his objective is to destroy industries… well, I’ll take them on their word.
From American Spectator:
We’re heard a lot about Bain Capital and how it throws people out of work in order to enrich investors, but how about the record of DOE Capital, which has compiled a fantastic record of defrauding investors while benefiting cronies and insiders?
DOE Capital is a Washington-based investment operation that looks for fledgling companies in the field of renewable energy and pours money into them in an attempt to get them get them up and running, building value and creating jobs. Although its purposes are noteworthy, its performance has been at best spotty, at worst catastrophic.
In 2008, for instance, DOE Capital invested in Range Fuels, a company that claimed to have solved the long-standing problem of extracting ethanol from cellulosic plant material. In his 2006 State of the Union Address, President George Bush, Jr. had charged America with being “addicted to oil” and promised cellulosic ethanol from “switchgrass” and other materials as the solution. Charging right ahead, Congress adopted the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which mandated the consumption of 100 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol in 2010, 250 million by 2011, and 500 million in 2022 at a time when no one had yet mastered the technology.
Months later, Range Fuels, a Colorado company, claimed to have the answer. In November 2007, Range broke ground on a plant in Soberton, Georgia, promising to generate 100 million gallons of ethanol a year out of pine-logging wastes. Before it even built the plant, Range Fuels won the 2008 North American Fuels Technology Innovation Award for Green Excellence. Full production was promised in 2009.
By 2010, Range hadn’t gotten anywhere, however, and so DOE Capital sunk $50 million into the project. The State of Georgia contributed another $6 million and the U.S. Department of Agriculture added an $80 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Biorefinery Assistance Program. Still, Range was unable to produce a single gallon of cellulosic ethanol. In January 2011 it finally opened the factory and produced one 200-gallon run of methanol, which can’t be used in cars, and then closed down. Dozens of people were put out of work and the job benefits promised to the region never materialized. By making that single run of methanol, however, Range was able to collect the last $26 million from DOE Capital, leaving the venture outfit holding the bag. DOE lost its entire investment – but Range tried to make up for it by donating to DOE’s favorite causes.
And then it gets worse from there. Read the whole thing.
From the Media Research Center:
This article is a countdown of the Media Research Center’s findings concerning the mainstream media’s advocacy of global warming, known here at the Patriot Perspective as ManBearPig. Sit back and enjoy and more importantly realize that there is a coordinated agenda to control your life one way or another.
25. Billions of Lives At Risk
“Will Billions Die from Global Warming?”
— ABC’s on-screen graphic from the January 31, 2007 Good Morning America.
24. Who Needs Tanks, When You’ve Got the EPA?
“And yet, Congresswoman Schneider, in 1989, fiscal 1989 as we say in America, the Environmental Protection Agency got $5.1 billion dollars and the Defense Department got $290 billion dollars. What’s that tell us about our priorities?”
— ABC anchor Peter Jennings on the September 12, 1989 Capital to Capital special “The Environment: Crisis In the Global Village.”
23. $6 a Gallon Gas Will Save the Earth!
“You’re also looking at a [global warming] solution here in Europe: smaller vehicles, more energy efficient, many which use diesel fuel which is more efficient. And the price of gas here is $6 a gallon to discourage guzzling. A lot of big ideas and innovations coming out of Europe.”
— ABC’s Chris Cuomo reporting from Paris for Earth Day, April 20, 2007 Good Morning America.
22. If We All Died Would the Earth Even ‘Miss Us?’
Co-host Matt Lauer: “The book is called The World Without Us, and it asks the question what would happen to planet Earth if human beings were to suddenly disappear….And really it’s all about trying to figure out how long it would take nature to reclaim what we’ve created.”
Co-host Meredith Vieira: “The mess.”
Lauer: “How long it would take nature to fix the mess we’ve made?…Would the Earth miss us at all? How long would it take for it to fix the problems we created?”
— NBC’s Today, September 4, 2007.
21. Someone Get the Statue of Liberty a Life Preserver Before She Floats Away!
Tom Brokaw: “About 10 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by ice, most of that in the polar regions. But if enough of that ice melts, the seas will rise dramatically and the results will be calamitous….If this worst-case scenario should occur, in the coming centuries New York could be abandoned, its famous landmarks lost to the sea.”
Dr. James Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies: “Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Miami — they would all be under water.”
— From Brokaw’s two-hour Discovery Channel special, Global Warming: What You Need to Know, excerpt shown on the July 15, 2006 NBC Nightly News.
20. Earth to George W. Bush: You Make Me Sick!
“No one can say exactly what it looks like when a planet takes ill, but it probably looks a lot like Earth….Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us….Something has gone grievously wrong. That something is global warming….It’s undeniable that the White House’s environmental record — from the abandonment of Kyoto to the President’s [George W. Bush] broken campaign pledge to control carbon output to the relaxation of emission standards — has been dismal.”
— Time’s Jeffrey Kluger in the magazine’s April 3, 2006 global warming cover story: “Be Worried. Be Very Worried.”
19. Big Oil Caused Hurricane Katrina
“The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming….Unfortunately, very few people in America know the real name of Hurricane Katrina because the coal and oil industries have spent millions of dollars to keep the public in doubt about the issue….As the pace of climate change accelerates, many researchers fear we have already entered a period of irreversible runaway climate change.”
— Former Washington Post and Boston Globe reporter Ross Gelbspan in an August 30, 2005 Boston Globe op-ed.
18. When You Fill Up Your Tank, You’re ‘Fighting Science’
“Exxonmobil – I think this is a real group of bad guys, considering that they have funded all the anti-global-warming propaganda out there in the world. And Bush is just not going to go against guys like that. They are bad, bad guys, because of what they are doing in fighting the science of global warming.”
— New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in an interview published in Rolling Stone, October 17, 2002.
17. Put Down That Hairspray Can or Else We’ll All Be Riding Camels to Work!
“If nothing is done to reverse ozone damage, scientists predict hundreds of millions of skin cancer cases in the U.S. alone, not to mention increased global warming that would turn much of the planet into a desert.”
— Reporter Mark Phillips on the January 16, 1990 CBS Evening News.
16. ‘Radical’ Republicans Could Kill Off Snail Darters, Owls, Even You!
“The noises coming from [Rep. Sonny] Bono and many of his fellow Republican signers of House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s ‘Contract with America’ signal a radical shift in Congress’s attitude toward environmental issues — a shift that may bode ill for the health of snail darters, spotted owls, and even the human species.”
— Time reporter Dick Thompson in a February 27, 1995 story headlined “Congressional Chain-Saw Massacre: If Speaker Newt Gingrich gets his way, the laws protecting air, water and wildlife may be endangered.”
15. GOP’s Full ‘Frontal Assault’ on the Environment
“Next week on ABC’s World News Tonight, a series of reports about our environment which will tell you precisely what the new [Republican] Congress has in mind: the most frontal assault on the environment in 25 years. Is this what the country wants?”
— Peter Jennings in an ABC promo during the July 9, 1995 This Week with David Brinkley.
14. Earth Would Be Okay It Weren’t for Us Pesky Humans
“Ultimately, no problem may be more threatening to the Earth’s environment than the proliferation of the human species.”
— Anastasia Toufexis, “Overpopulation: Too Many Mouths,” article in Time’s special “Planet of the Year” edition, January 2, 1989.
13. Ronald Reagan = Earth Day Buzzkill
“The missteps, poor efforts and setbacks brought on by the Reagan years have made this a more sober Earth Day. The task seems larger now.”
— Today co-host Bryant Gumbel, April 20, 1990.
12. Heed the Words of the ‘Prophet’ Al Gore
“You know, Bob, you’d still be holding your breath and kicking your feet if what had happened to Al Gore in Florida had happened to you. He rose above a great injustice….He became a prophet on an issue that is crucially important to the world.”
— Ex-Time reporter Margaret Carlson to Chicago Sun-Times columnist Bob Novak on Bloomberg TV’s Political Capital, October 13, 2007.
11. Climate Change a Greater Threat Than USSR’s Nukes
“Despite the danger that climate change poses, the resources currently devoted to studying this problem — and combating it — are inconsequential compared with the trillions spent during the Cold War. Twenty years from now, we may wonder how we could have miscalculated which threat represented the greater peril.”
— Time contributor Eugene Linden, September 4, 2000.
10. Ted Koppel to Global Warming Skeptics: The Earth is Round!
Karen Kerrigan, Small Business Survival Committee: “To say that the science is conclusive…is actually bunk.”
Host Ted Koppel: “I was just going to make the observation that there are still some people who believe in the Flat Earth Society, too, but that doesn’t mean they’re right.”
— Exchange on the December 9, 1997 Nightline.
9. Call in the Climate Cops!
“Put an international tax on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases….Find a way to put the brakes on the world’s spiraling population, which will otherwise double by the year 2050….Give the United Nations broad powers to create an environmental police force for the planet.”
— Time list of “What They Should Do But Won’t” at the United Nations “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, June 1, 1992.
8. Matt Lauer: Let’s Face It, There’s ‘Too Many of Us’
“Today, life on Earth is disappearing faster than the days when dinosaurs breathed their last, but for a very different reason….Us homo sapiens are turning out to be as destructive a force as any asteroid. Earth’s intricate web of ecosystems thrived for millions of years as natural paradises, until we came along, paved paradise, and put up a parking lot. Our assault on nature is killing off the very things we depend on for our own lives….The stark reality is that there are simply too many of us, and we consume way too much, especially here at home….It will take a massive global effort to make things right, but the solutions are not a secret: control population, recycle, reduce consumption, develop green technologies.”
— NBC’s Matt Lauer hosting Countdown to Doomsday, a two-hour June 14, 2006 Sci-Fi Channel special.
7. New York City: Iceberg Capital of the World
Bryant Gumbel: “At the risk of starting an argument, are you a believer in global warming?”
Mark McEwen: “Absolutely.”
Jane Clayson: “Of course.”
Julie Chen: “Yeah.”
Gumbel: “So am I….And you wonder what it’s gonna take. I mean, is it gonna take some kind of a real catastrophe? I mean, does an iceberg have to come floating down the Hudson before somebody stands up and goes, ‘Oh, yeah’?”
— Exchange during CBS Early Show’s co-op time at 7:25 am on April 18, 2001.
6. Meredith Vieira Freaks Out: ‘Are We All Gonna Die?’
“So I’m running in the park on Saturday, in shorts, thinking this [warm weather] is great, but are we all gonna die? You know? I can’t, I can’t figure this out.”
— Co-host Meredith Vieira talking about global warming on NBC’s Today, January 8, 2007.
5. One Day ‘You Could Tie Your Boat to the Washington Monument’
“There is an even greater threat that scientists can only speculate about. As global temperatures rise, they may cause the massive West Antarctic ice sheet to slip more rapidly. Then we’ll be facing a sea-level rise not of one to three feet in a century, but of 10 or 20 feet in a much shorter time. The Supreme Court would be flooded. You could tie your boat to the Washington Monument. Storm surges would make the Capitol unusable. For Today, Paul Ehrlich in Washington, DC, on the future shoreline of Chesapeake Bay.”
— Ecologist Paul Ehrlich reporting for the January 11, 1990 Today show.
4. PBS Hires the Guy from ‘Jaws’ to Scare You About Global Warming
Actor Roy Scheider: “Earth Day appealed to every one.”
Children singing: “Oil drops are falling on their heads/And that surely means that soon they will all be dead.”…
Scheider: “The environmental revolution has made us understand where we humans are taking the Earth. Towards a world poisoned by pollution. Towards an atmosphere disrupted by greenhouse warming and losing its protective layer of ozone. Towards rivers, oceans and beaches made unusable by sewage and toxic waste. Towards unmanageable piles of garbage filled with the squandered resources of the planet. Towards a population of 10 billion in 60 years, twice as many as today. With the prospect of feeding those billions from farmland eroded toward the breaking point. It will be a world in which wild things have no room to live. A world in which forests have disappeared. Only the environmental revolution can save the planet from this fate.”
— Actor Roy Scheider narrating ten-part PBS series Race to Save the Planet aired from October 7 to 11, 1990.
3. Too Bad Obama Cut NASA’s Budget
“Could global warming one day force us into space to live?”
— ABC’s Sam Champion teasing an upcoming segment on Good Morning America, February 8, 2008.
2. Ted Turner: We’re All Going to Be Eating Each Other!
“Not doing it [fighting global warming] will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years, and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down.”
— CNN founder Ted Turner on PBS’s Charlie Rose, April 1, 2008.
1. Save the Earth, Stop Breathing!
“It’s a morbid observation, but if everyone on earth just stopped breathing for an hour, the greenhouse effect would no longer be a problem.”
— Newsweek Senior Writer Jerry Adler, December 31, 1990 issue.
These are just the top 25 quotes that the Media Research Center decided to publish, there isn’t any real idea how many more questionable, loaded statements and questions have been made by the Mainstream Media. Never mind climate gate, never mind looking at the facts for one’s self. These folks want you to believe anything and everything they say on faith. My challenge to all of our readers is to check, double-check and even triple check any thing and everything you read, including our articles here at the Patriot Perspective. To properly end this here is a video from the radical environmentalist Earth First illustrating just how wacked out these “environmentalist” can be: