Tag Archives: Science

Using Polar Bears as a Back Door

Posted on by
Reply

An article at CNN reads:

“Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said late Monday the changes were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act would not be used as a “back door” to regulate the gases blamed for global warming. In May, the polar bear became the first species declared as threatened because of climate change. Warming temperatures are expected to melt the sea ice the bear depends on for survival.”

Yes, we wouldn’t want the sudden disappearance of polar bears making people notice that there’s no more ice at the north pole:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/08/11/bush.endangered.species.ap/index.html

There is also a lot of talk lately about a forged letter the Administration had done to link Saddam to 9/11:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93319762

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2008/08/suskind-to-release-cia-intervi.html

Also, the Health Dept. is drafting a rule to classify using any contraceptives as abortion:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=agclip2V0QNk&refer=home

And Christopher Hitchens finally got the last laugh on his arch-rival in debate, George Gallaway:

http://www.slate.com/id/2170981/

Lord Monckton Is In Ur Blog, Dising Ur Cred

Posted on by
4

Here’s an idea of how badly conservatives are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their attempts to get their propaganda passed off as legitimate science and legitimate “news.” Conservative circles became very excited about the American Physical Society apparently making an about face to their long-held stance supporting the science behind global warming. The story was pushed off by Drudge Report, Jonah Goldberg, and conservative blogs on — of all days — the same day Gore is giving a speech on the subject, using headlines like “Group Repping 50,000 Physicists Opens Global Warming Debate…” and “Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate”! The title of this “exploding” news story should actually read: “Washed-Up British Viscount Manages to Publish Crackpot Theory on Non-Peer-Reviewed Online Newsletter.”

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/19/the-rights-misguided-frenzy-over-the-american-physical-society/

The editor didn’t even bother to get a scientist. “Lord Monckton” has no degrees in the subject. He inherited his title from his dead father and was a former policy adviser to Margret Thatcher. The bogus news story has forced the association to put a disclaimer on both the header of the article and the front page of their website. The front page points out the newsletter is from the “APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS.” Hardly something that represents all 50,000 members. The writings themselves are not new and have long been debunked as a “sleight-of-hand.” Quoting from the Sunday Times and the Times, Monckton’s science is “self-taught and his paper qualifications nonexistent” and “he is trying to take on the global scientific establishment on the strength of a classics degree from Cambridge.” One of the models used by Monckton was made up by himself, but another one comes from JunkScience.com, a front end for Steve Milloy, a long time tobacco, drug, and oil industry lobbyist, which has published other ‘cuckoo science’ pieces over the years.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/19/american-physical-society-stomps-on-monckton-disinformation-thank-you-climate-progress-readers/

Cuckoo Science


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

http://www.aps.org/

If you recognize the name, that’s because Lord Monckton is the same guy that the Heartland Institute was using as their resident expert when they were trying to double dog dare Gore to get into a debate with him in that ludicrously-titled article “Gore Confronted by Own Scientists- ‘Confusion Between Hypothesis and Evidence’,” which was raked over the coals in one of the first posts I made on this blog. (Although only 5 short paragraphs long, I still somehow managed to elicit 5 pages worth of explainable errors with the article.) It kind of gives you an idea about how pathetically low conservative hacks are stooping that they aren’t even bothering to switch out the henchmen they use to fictionalize the news.

Here is a good article by a real scientist:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index.html

Global Warming or Climate Change?

Posted on by
1

I’ve heard it been said that “Global Warming” was changed to “Climate Change” because liberals wanted to prepare to keep up the Global Warming scare even after temperatures start getting colder. But the funny thing is, the reason the Bush Administration started using the term “Climate Change” was because Frank Luntz advised them to:

“Luntz advises use of the term “climate change” rather than “global warming,” which he says is more frightening.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/bushs-chief-climate-spinmaster-tells-harper-how-its-done

“In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled “The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America”, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: “The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science…Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

Another email from 2004 says: “From the heated debate on global warming to the hot air on forests; from the muddled talk on our nation’s waters to the convolution on air pollution, we are fighting a battle of fact against fiction on the environment – Republicans can’t stress enough that extremists are screaming “Doomsday!” when the environment is actually seeing a new and better day.'”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/apr/04/usnews.theobserver

So, even though Luntz knew the science was “closing” in on them in 2002, he continued to suggest that Republicans act as if the global warming position was “extremist” in 2004. Yet, he seems to have become an “exteremist” himself in 2006:

Luntz: “It’s now 2006. I think most people would conclude that there is global warming taking place and that the behavior of humans are (sic) affecting the climate.”

BBC: “But the administration has continued taking your advice. They’re still questioning the science.”

Luntz: “That’s up to the administration. I’m not the administration. What they want to do is their business. It has nothing to do with what I write. It has nothing to do with what I believe.”

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/frank_luntz_acc.php

“Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea to discredit the idea of global warming science to keep the issue from influencing voters in the 2000 and 2004 U.S. presidential elections. Luntz has since said that he is not responsible for what the administration has done since that time. Though he now believes humans have contributed to global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it.[5]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

Glenn Beck

Posted on by
1

What do you do with a hard-line conservative recovering from substance abuse after losing his mother and brother to suicide? Give him a liberal-bashing show on CNN Headline News of course.

Rush Limbaugh has long been considered too offensive for television. He couldn’t even keep his quibs about racial bias silent as a football commentator for ESPN and was let go in 2003 after suggesting that the media only gave positive performance reviews for the Philadelphia Eagles quarterback because he was black (something Rush still bitterly complains about constantly on his radio program). Yet Glenn Beck, who often describes himself as a recovering alcohol and drug addict, runs a show on CNN Headline News that is almost a carbon copy of the Rush Limbaugh radio program. Now, we all know that accepting Jesus or Muhammed or some higher power has long been considered one of the unwritten rules of substance recovery, and in Beck’s case, it was the power of Joseph Smith who helped him overcome his troubles, but only lately has mental instability become accepted as a qualification for news commentary.

By his own admission, Beck has not completely come to terms with his own emotional demons within himself, yet he has taken the attitude that he has figured the rest of the world out (the rest of the world being far less complex than his own mind). You see, the UN is like the Third Reich, environmentalism is the new eugenics, and Al Gore is Hitler. No doubt many manic depressives agree with these amazing and thought-provoking theories. And since those crazy left-wing hippies at CNN have slowly begun to realize that a great deal of the American population hold similar ideas to those who are mentally ill, they decided to give him his own news platform to propell these wonderful ideas throughout the American conciousness.

Here’s what Beck had to say on the subject during his radio show:

“Al Gore’s not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government… You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler’s plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore’s enemy, the U.N.’s enemy: global warming… Then you get the scientists — eugenics. You get the scientists — global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, ‘That’s not right.’ And you must silence all dissenting voices. That’s what Hitler did.”

Now you know he’s up to date, since it was only a couple of months ago that conservatives found out that climate scientists were fudging their data in order to get more grants. The new common knowledge that disproves global warming is that all the scientists are fudging their data because they want to globalize the world under the U.N. This of course, has long been predicted by conservative radio-show prophets who forsaw that the Anti-Christ would come and try to take over the world through the U.N. This proves that the Bible tells us that America must only commit itself to its own interests and not allow devil-worshipping institutions like the World Court take control away from our soverign rights.

Of course, there are a few minor problems with this comparison. One is Hitler was head of his government whereas Al Gore is not. Another is climate science is peer-reviewed by other scientists from around the world rather than political appointees of one nation. But in this case, nearly all the climate scientists are in on it. So it’s no wonder that the Bush Administration has been forced to continuously block reports from their own agency:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0927-10.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/03/tech/main510920.shtml

Obviously, since eugenics was once considered “science,” we can never rely on this undemocratic form of tyranny ever again. This would explain other “scientific” reports that the Bush Administration has so wisely blocked, like this one on health care that was blocked in 2006 for “being too political.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801420.html?hpid=topnews

Obviously, liberals are no more interested in scientific purity than conservatives. Take their irrational stand against sociobiology, the idea that IQ is determined by evolution. Richard Hernnstein’s book The Bell Shaped Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, funded by the conservative think-tank, The Heritage Foundation, in 1994, argued that classes were becoming more divided by intelligence rather than racial or social disadvantage. Conservatives touted the book as proof that Affirmative Action was unnecessary while liberals roundly criticized it. So if liberals could take such an anti-scientific stance against eugenics then, how do we know they won’t take an anti-scientific stance for eugenics in the future?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n3_v122/ai_16424249

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology