Clueless Emma

Global warming a concern for regional leaders | OregonLive.com

Global warming can’t be stopped. Climate change can’t be reversed.

via blog.oregonlive.com

So this is an admission that humans will have no impact on global warming and climate change, which indicates it is not caused by humans, but we'd better act now to make dire changes in our ways of life anyway? Umm...logic here?

Michelle Malkin » The weatherization boondoggle, redux

via michellemalkin.com

Helloooo! How many times have conservatives said this???? Wake up, y'all--same will occur with healthcare!!

LP: Global Warming Activist Freezes to Death

via www.libertypost.org

Seriously? Really?

The harmful effects of global warming are being felt "here and now and in your backyard," a groundbreaking US government report on climate change has warned.

The report's release comes just six months before countries from around the world meet in the Danish capital Copenhagen for a UN conference that aims to produce an ambitious, new climate pact aimed at rolling back global warming.

The report stresses the need for immediate action against global warming, saying: "Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today."

"We have the power to determine how bad this could be and to avoid the worst impacts of global warming," said David Doniger.

"It's like Charles Dickens' 'A Christmas Carol,' where the ghosts come and show Scrooge the way the future could unfold into either a happy future or a disastrous future.

"This shows us that the future is in our hands, just as it was in Scrooge's hands," said Doniger.

Wow.

Cow Fart Gas Tax??

In case you've been wondering, Congress is still mucking around in the barnyard. Fox News reports this morning that farmers could be taxed for cow flatulence which, of course, would increase the cost of beef for all Americans.

But don't worry, cuz science arrives with the rescue--even when it's quite obvious to even laymen who take the time to listen, that there is absolutely no great environmental threat emanating from bovine or any other man-controllable source.

B Hussein and Collectivism at its most insidious

GLENN: I hate fluorescent light bulbs, hate them with everything in me. Hate them, hate them, hate them. My kids, I'm not burying food. You know, Bill O'Reilly was like, oh, he's storing up food and burying food in the backyard. Nope, you know what I have buried in the backyard? Incandescent light bulbs. George W. Bush as a Christmas present to you and me, he banned incandescent light bulbs, 2012, 2013 you are not going to have the incandescent light bulb anymore. And I want to thank him from the bottom of my heart. I hate that ugly sterile light. They suck all the happiness and joy out of your life and also they're a pain in the ass to get rid of. If you break one, we showed this on TV the other day. If you break one, I mean, it is a 12‑step process to get rid of it. You just don't sweep it up because it has Mercury. Now, I've hated it because it's a pain in the neck, it doesn't solve global warming, they are ugly. You name it, they are being forced on us. I don't want them. But I had no idea that they were actually killing people. Did you know that? Green Hell today, our Inconvenient Book comes out, is it today in paperback? And there's a new chapter and it's a very good chapter. Kind of an update on everything. This was a best seller for I don't even know, 25 weeks or something like that on the New York Times best seller list and it's a great book, and it's out in paperback. But anyway, we wanted to do an inconvenient update for you on green energy and light bulbs. Who knew that they were actually killing people? Steve Milloy is with us. He's the author of Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Take Control of Your Life and What You Can Do Stop Them. Hello, Steve.

MILLOY: Hey, Glenn, thanks for having me.

GLENN: I had no idea that they were killing people. How are they killing people?

MILLOY: Well, apparently all these bulbs were made in China. We used to make the incandescents in Kentucky but can't co‑that anymore. So we make these compact fluorescents in China where there are basically no occupational standards, safety standards and it turns out that more than 90%, more than 90% of the Chinese workers making these bulbs have been poisoned with Mercury because you can't make these bulbs without Mercury.

GLENN: How do you mean ‑‑ 90% of the workers in China been poisoned with Mercury?

MILLOY: Right. 90% of the workers have been poisoned so badly that they have to be hospitalized.

GLENN: How are they being poisoned?

MILLOY: Well, they just work, you know, they work with Mercury. Mercury is a, you know, a toxic substance in high enough doses and these guys are, you know, putting the Mercury in the bulbs and apparently, you know, they don't do it in a very safe way. They must almost I guess handle the Mercury with their hands, I guess, and ‑‑

GLENN: Do you think it's possible that maybe they are waiting for us to sign the Kyoto treaty before they start handling Mercury properly?

MILLOY: I don't know. You know, China's got a long way to go in terms of environmental protection and occupational safety laws and, you know, right now we're saving the planet but killing the Chinese

GLENN: We're not saving the planet. I'd actually consider ‑‑ I wouldn't do it but I'd consider it. I mean, I can't take it. You know, I was in the Bush White House in the oval office and I think I may have been the only person that's ever done about, but he turned around for a second and, you know, you just don't want to say, so George, what's in the lamp? What kind of lights do you have? So as he turned around, I looked into the shade and it was one of those stupid curly light bulbs. I swear to you if the secret service weren't there, I would have taken a lamp, I would have! Thrown it at the fireplace, Mr. President. But the secret service was there. So I backed off.

MILLOY: You know, these bulbs are expensive, they don't work because they are made with cheap components, they are poisoning workers, they are actually ‑‑

GLENN: Yeah, but they're Chinese. Al Gore doesn't care about the Chinese. They don't count. They have more. We'll make more Chinese.

MILLOY: Yeah. I guess, you know, that's ‑‑ with the DDT ban, you know, we killed all the poor Africans, no one cares about them, they can't see them.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay, so I'm interested because you say, and what you can do to stop them, that's in the title of the book, and what you can do to stop them. All right, go ahead.

MILLOY: Well, I think that people first need to educate themselves. This is not about the environment. This is about the left social and political agenda. You need to grab your politicians, local, state, federal by the lapel, shake them until they understand it and people need to get active. While we come home at the end of the day, spend time with our families, have dinner, the greens are out there at those city council meetings, county council meetings, planning commission meetings announcing their agenda and the politicians only see them. You know, we start to make a change with the tea parties, you know, we talked about this before. We need to have green tea parties where people, you know, protest that, you know, the cap and tax that's coming down the road, you know, President Obama wants to put smart meters on our house to ration electricity to us, you know, in the hottest day of the year when you set your thermostat at 72, you know, President Obama through your local utilities is going to reset it to 82. Now, if you want that kind of stuff to happen, you know, don't ‑‑ keep doing what you're doing, but I think that ‑‑

GLENN: People say that that's ‑‑ people say all the time, Steve, that that is ridiculous, that that's never going to happen. I mean, what is it going to take besides it actually happening for people to understand this is what they're going to do? They are going to regulate the temperature in your house for the common good.

MILLOY: Glenn, I have wasted the last 13 years trying to educate people on the science behind the green movement. They haven't taken to that. So now I'm going, well, this is what they're going to do to your lifestyle and they're going to tell you where to live, how many children you can have, where you can work, what kind of car you can drive, how much energy you can use, what kind of food you can eat, how much water you can have, what kind of toilet paper you can use, I mean, they are regulating light bulbs in your house. If people don't understand, then I guess they are going to have to experience it.

GLENN: So Steve, I'm doing a piece tonight on GE and actually ACORN as well and I'm trying to track down all the more than of ACORN and I'm finding all these front organizations, and it's stunning the corruption that is going on and no one is looking for it, nobody wants to find it, nobody wants to see it because everybody is in on making money. When it comes to the green movement, tonight I'm also doing a segment that we started just producing this morning. I saw some of the pieces of it this morning that, you know, you have Jeffrey Immelt coming out and saying about healthcare and green that he's so excited because the future is all about a Fusion of industry and business with the government.

MILLOY: Right.

GLENN: And it's going to be great.

MILLOY: Right now ‑‑ well see, you know, and the thing is Jeffrey Immelt, he wants government laws to make people buy his windmills. He wants government laws that, you know, get healthcare off his back because he doesn't want to pay for healthcare for his workers. He would rather have the government do or the taxpayer.

GLENN: But also GE health ‑‑ I mean, GE is going to get so unbelievably wealthy from the federal dollars being spent on GE products.

MILLOY: It's the corpocracy. And this is another thing that people ‑‑ you know, I used to be against antitrust. I think that, you know, we need more antitrust now. We need to split up these big companies because they're cozying up with the government. It's terrible.

GLENN: Objection, Steve, thank you very much. I'll talk to you again. He's the author of Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Ruin Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them.

Glenn Beck

 

True Love Part II: Morals and Meaning

Dave Hunt

The atheistic understanding of love, the highest human virtue, is badly skewed. Sam Harris, in his book Letter to a Christian Nation, says that the fact that "love is more conducive to happiness than hate" is the key to "the moral order of our world."1 So morality depends upon what makes one happy? Any child whose parents have disciplined him at all knows that isn't true. The saddest thing is that not only Harris but the multitudes who have read and turned this book into a bestseller really imagine they have escaped from God with nonsense that would be laughed out of any elementary ethics class.

In another burst of absolutely dazzling profundity, Harris adds, "While feeling love for others is surely one of the greatest sources of our own happiness, it entails a very deep concern for the happiness and suffering of those we love."2 "Feeling love"? What does that mean? With deep feelings of love, a young man says to the young woman beside him in his car, "I love you with all my heart!" What he really means, although neither of them understands it, is "I love me, and I want you!"

If this is what his "selfish genes"3 (as Richard Dawkins would say) and the molecules in his brain are causing him to think, who can blame him? Clearly, the logic of atheism, evolution, and natural selection will inevitably bring us to the day when no one can be blamed for anything. Blame will have lost all meaning. The physical construction of our bodies will have to bear the responsibility. The universal excuse (and it will have to be accepted by every court of law) will no longer be "The devil made me do it" but "My selfish genes made me do it!" Who believes in the devil anyway? But surely we all believe that genes are selfish, don't we? No, we do not. We still have enough common sense to reject this amorality that now governs our ethics and morals.

B. Hussein--double speakin' fool on Earth Day

President Obama could have saved at least 9,116 gallons of fuel by giving his speech at the White House – but no wind turbines are manufactured here.

What, are they going to outlaw cows now? In-freakin-sanity

Congress is considering imposing an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions along with giving industry the ability to trade emission allowances to mitigate costs. Legislation could be considered by the House before the August congressional recess.

In addition to carbon dioxide, a product of burning fossil fuels, the EPA finding covers five other emissions that scientists believe are warming the earth when they concentrate in the atmosphere: Methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Well, there it is, all y'all pro-Obama policy tea party naysayers who claim we are going to see tax cuts--just wait. Next year at this time, we will see taxation beyond any we've seen thus far. So we gain what, $30 bucks a paycheck? After Oregon enacts all its 50 some new (most recently--more to come) taxes and we get hit with all these unneeded environmental taxes created to pay for unproven, narcissistic environmental regulations, and all the bail-out "stimulus" bills are due, it will be too late to say oops. Get yer heads out the clouds now.

Climate Denial Is Now Mental Illness

How odd that, [March 2], none of our media global warming groupies should have bothered to report what was billed to be "the largest ever demonstration for civil disobedience over climate change". There was talk of hundreds of thousands of protestors converging on Washington to hear Jim Hansen, the scientist who talks of coal-fired power stations as "factories of death", call yet again for all coal plants to be closed. Perhaps the lack of coverage was due to the fact that, before Hansen arrived to address a forlorn group of several hundred hippies, Washington was blanketed in nearly a foot of snow.

US climate sceptics such as those on the Watts Up With That website, for whom the predictions of the UK Met Office have become a regular source of amusement, recalled its forecast that 2007 would be "the warmest year on record globally", just before global temperatures dived by nearly a full degree Celsius, cancelling out the entire net warming of the past 100 years. Ever wilder wax the beleaguered warmists in their rhetoric. Our science minister Lord Drayson said last week he was "shocked" to find how many of the captains of industry he meets are "climate deniers"....

Meanwhile at the University of the West of England in Bristol this weekend, a conference of "eco-psychologists", led by a professor, are solemnly exploring the notion that "climate change denial" should be classified as a form of "mental disorder".

(Booker, London Daily Telegraph Online, 6:06PM, 07 Mar 2009).

Absolute Insanity

How naive I was as a child! I actually thought grown-ups would be smart enough to make wise decisions. Today there are a lot of grown ups who still think the ones running things are smart enough to make wise decisions. In fact, some think we're getting even smarter these days! Whatta bunch of kids...CE

Global Warming Skeptics Speak Out

Dr. Richard Lindzen, a well known atmospheric physicist and professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) recently spoke at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York...In the video, Lindzen says that endorsing global warming has made many scientists lives easier. One example is through funding of research.

President Klaus has been one of the few politicians in Europe speaking out against global warming alarmism. In this video, Klaus questions the motives of environmentalists.

Source: AccuWeather

More Scientists Rip Global Warming Hysteria

Amid reports that President Barack Obama's climate plan could cost industry close to $2 trillion, 59 additional scientists skeptical of the threat of manmade global warming have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report on climate change. They bring the total to more than 700 scientists from around the world who have spoken out against the hysteria created by Al Gore and other global warming alarmists, according to a statement issued by the office of Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The latest Minority Report includes 300 scientists and climate researchers who have been added to the list since the initial report’s release in December 2007. Many of the 59 additional scientists are affiliated with prestigious institutions including NASA, the U.S. Navy and Air Force, the Defense Department, Energy Department, Princeton University, Tulane University, the U.S. Naval Academy and the EPA. “Unfortunately, climate science has become political science,” said award-winning Princeton physicist Dr. Robert Austin, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. He told the minority staff on the Committee on March 2: “It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically questionable at best.” Dr. Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said the global temperature “has flattened and is actually going down. We are seeing a new shift toward cooler temperatures that will last for probably about three decades.” As Newsmax.com reported, Obama's climate plan could cost industry nearly three times the $646 billion over eight years that the White House initially estimated for the so-called "cap-and-trade" legislation. The plan seeks to reduce pollution by setting a limit on carbon emissions and allowing businesses and groups to buy allowances, although exact details have not been released. But Dr. Diane Douglas, a climatologist who has worked for the Department of Energy, declared: “The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that the U.S. and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms.” Among other comments from scientists included in the report: “I am appalled at the state of discord in the field of climate science . . . There is no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere.” — Award-winning atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, a former member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board who served on a committee of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice . . . The press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical.” — Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy. “The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit, not from man-made activities.” — Retired NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal. www.newsmax.com

Agenda of draconian taxation and climate control measures exposed by top Japanese scientists. Does MSM report it? NO!

The conclusions within the report dovetail with those of hundreds of Western scientists, who have been derided and even compared with holocaust deniers for challenging the so called "consensus" on global warming.

The total lack of exposure that this major report has received is another example of how skewed coverage of climate change is toward one set of hypotheses.

This serves the agenda to deliberately whip up mass hysteria on behalf of governments who are all too eager to introduce draconian taxation and control measures that won’t do anything to combat any form of warming, whether you believe it to be natural or man-made.

It must be Bush's fault, right?

Michelle Malkin asks what we're all thinking: will President Obama leave his 77-degree-heated Oval Office and visit the Kentucky ice storm disaster area?

Here it is, folks--forced limits on children in the Western World

"COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the [British] government’s green adviser has warned."

How will this new "standard" be enforced? Exile? Forced abortion (see China)? Forced sterilization (see NAZI Germany)? American funding of Planned Parenthood (see concentration of abortions in minority neighborhoods)?

I daresay the solution for any country worried about overpopulation (for financial stress, NOT the environment, which God created for our use) is to END (ILLEGAL) IMMIGRATION!

February Funnies 2009

Just when you thought the fog of climate confusion was beginning to clear...

...Here are three indisputable scientific facts about climate that are sufficient on their own to throttle any claims of manmade global warming. First, we know from studies of Antarctic ice that, over the last 650,000 years or so, warmer temperatures have preceded increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by hundreds, if not thousands of years. The ice studies indicate that the carbon-dioxide-causes-global warming theory is precisely backwards.

Second, during the 20th century, there is simply no correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and global temperature. Not only did most of the century’s temperature rise occur before most of the century’s manmade greenhouse gas emissions, but during 1940-1975 global temperatures actually declined while atmospheric carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emission levels steadily increased.

Finally, the ultimate test of a scientific theory is whether it has predictive value. We used Newton’s laws of physics, for example, to land men on the moon. Unfortunately, there are no climate models that predict trends and changes in global climate with any degree of accuracy. Think about the recent failures with hurricane season predictions or even the risk of relying on what your local weatherman predicts for tomorrow’s weather - and you’ll start to get an idea of how far away science is from predicting global climate 10, 50 and 100 years from now.

Although none of this is rocket science or a state secret, our government is nevertheless on the verge of saddling our society with draconian energy-use and rationing laws that will harm our economy and reduce our standard of living.

...The global warming mob wants to tell you where to live, what to drive, how many children you can have, what you can eat - all in the name of reducing your carbon footprint. Energy efficiency can be a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing when it’s forced down your throat, costs you more money than it saves and robs you of your freedoms and dignity.

Action to reduce the dreaded “global” warming, of course, needs to be coordinated on a global basis, hence the need, climate alarmists intimate, for global government. “We are one” was a theme of Barack Obama’s inauguration festivities - disturbingly similar to the Communist Chinese theme for the 2008 Beijing Olympics, “One World, One Dream.” While such rhetoric may sound inspiring, the reality is that it is little more than a euphemism for central planning and, ultimately, “the road to serfdom” as economist Friedrich Hayek might say.

America’s strength lies not in its one-ness, but in its diversity of beliefs and efforts. And it will take all our strength in the coming years to combat global warming alarmism and to keep America from falling into the totalitarian green abyss.

from Climate Confusion by Steven Milloy at frontpagemag.com

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and is the author of the forthcoming book, “Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Ruin Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them.”

Michelle Malkin on Carol Browner

Yet another Clintonite has been wheeled out of the political morgue to serve in the Obama administration. Carol Browner, a neon green radical who headed the Environmental Protection Agency from 1993-2000, is widely rumored to be the president-elect’s choice for “energy czar.” But an ethical cloud still hangs over Browner’s EPA legacy. It doesn’t take a team of Ivy League-degreed lawyers to figure out that this is one more headache the Hope and Change crew doesn’t need.

In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, let me dust off the cobwebs and help out all the smarty-pants vetters on the Obama team with a little background on Browner’s stained past:

On her last day in office, nearly eight years ago, Browner oversaw the destruction of agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve its records. This from a public official who bragged about her tenure: “One of the things I’m the proudest of at EPA is the work we’ve done to expand the public’s right to know.”

Asked to explain her track-covering actions, the savvy career lawyer Browner played dumb. Figuratively batting her eyelashes, she claimed she had no clue about a court injunction signed by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth on the same day she commanded an underling to wipe her hard drives clean. Golly gee willikers, how could that have slipped by her?

According to testimony in a freedom of information lawsuit filed against EPA by the Landmark Legal Foundation, a Virginia-based conservative legal watchdog group, Browner commanded a computer technician on Jan. 19, 2001: “‘I would like my files deleted. I want you to delete my files.”Not coincidentally, the Landmark Legal Foundation had been pressing Browner to fully and publicly disclose the names of any special interest groups that may have influenced her wave of last-minute regulatory actions. Two days before she told her technician to purge all her records, EPA had gone to court to file a motion opposing the federal court injunction protecting those government documents.

Plausible deniability? Not bloody likely.

Incredibly, Browner asserted that there was no work-related material on her work computer. She explained she was merely cleaning the hard drive of computer games she had downloaded for her son, and that she wanted to expunge the hard drive as a “courtesy” to the incoming Bush administration. How thoughtful. Later, her agency admitted that three other top EPA officials had their computers erased despite the federal court order and ongoing FOIA case (the record is silent on whether Browner’s son was playing games on their desktops, too). A further belated admission revealed that the agency had failed to search Browner’s office for public documents as required by Landmark’s public disclosure lawsuit.

Not only were all the top officials’ hard drives cleared and reformatted, but e-mail backup tapes were erased and reused in violation of records preservation practices.

After a two-year legal battle, Judge Lamberth finally held the EPA in contempt of courtfor the systemic file destruction – actions Lambert lambasted as “contumacious conduct” (obstinate resistance to authority). As is typical in Washington, Browner weaseled out of any serious repercussions. Lamberth inexplicably decided that slapping the agency as a whole with contempt – rather than any individual – would deter future cover-ups.

Is this a gamble the Obama administration wants to take? Browner has crossed the line and violated public trust before in her capacity as eco-chief. Early in her first term as EPA head, Browner got caught by a congressional subcommittee using taxpayer funds to create and send out illegal lobbying materialto over 100 grassroots environmental lobbying organizations. Browner exploited her office to orchestrate a political campaign by left-wing groups, who turned around and attacked Republican lawmakers for supporting regulatory reform. These are the very same groups – anti-business, anti-sound science, pro-eco-hysteria – that Browner would be working arm in arm with as Obama’s “energy czar.”

This is regression we can’t afford.

Michelle Malkin

Oops, too Late...

Global Warming Hoaxers caught in the act. Still believe in Santa, too?

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

of comparison

WATER BUG OMELETTE, ANYONE?

Bugged By Global Warming [Excerpts]


...Some global-warming advocates have turned the issue into a religion -- the believers shall be exalted and the deniers shall be burned at the stake.

Many in the media -- folks who are supposed to be skeptical about things -- are as enamored of the "humans-are-destroying-the-Earth" story-line as they are of Barack Obama. They love to report doomsday scenarios that scare the bejesus out of us.

Corporations have jumped on board. They don't want bad press for denying or contributing to warming, and the better-run corporations are exploiting the frenzy to make dough.

As more folks embrace a religious conviction that humans are the cause of warming, the politicians are right with them. There aren't many votes in second-guessing the global warming gods. Both presidential candidates are in the global warming camp.

And the do-gooders, who love to control what the rest of us do, believe they've finally landed an issue that will give them the power they seek -- the power to make the rest of us sacrifice on a global scale to save Mother Earth.

The do-gooders are making tremendous headway. That's why I recommend you bone up on your cooking techniques.

You especially might want to master the use of garlic and butter and other spices and herbs that will effectively mask the taste of those crunchy critters we usually step on or swat.

You might want to invest in a good-quality blender, too ("bugamole," anyone?). Because the global-warming frenzy is picking up intensity. And that means one thing.

Bugs. They want us to eat bugs.

---

Tom Purcell's weekly political humor column runs in newspapers and Web sites across America. Visit him at www.TomPurcell.com.

GO GREEN!

from Michelle Malkin

Just when headlines began to get boring...

Does anyone else think the lack of real "Proof" of global warming is sending search Parties down some killer corny rabbit trails?

EL RUSHBO ON EARTH DAY

How to Celebrate Earth Day: "Drive. Drive! Drive five miles above the speed limit when you're on the highway. Go out and buy, buy, buy! Use extra toilet paper. Clog up the toilet if you have to with extra paper. Use, use, use. Turn on every light in the house, every light in the office, and leave it on when you leave -- and if you see anybody driving a stupid hybrid around, just buzz 'em with your horn and wave at 'em as you speed by. Just ram it down their throats, ladies and gentlemen."

EARTH DAY! YAY! ALMOST EXCITING AS THE POPE'S VISIT!

Michelle Malkin: April 22 is Earth Day. Get ready for an orgy of eco-sanctimony. I’ve often joked that the real agenda of the Greenies is to send us back into the Dark Ages–literally and figuratively. In contrast to the Gulfstream Liberal jet set who preach environmental socialism while enjoying the fruits of the free market, however, there are many left-wing world leaders who are open about their true aims. Take Bolivian thug president Evo Morales.

In other words--"We don't know what the heck we're doing, so we'll just make excuses."

Hurricanes are unlikely to become more frequent as the world warms, according to a new analysis by a scientists who until now had supported a link between global warming and tropical cyclone activity. But they may still become more intense. 

"The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, unveiled a novel technique for predicting future hurricane activity this week," according to a report in the Houston Chronicle. "The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries."

2007 saw fewer hurricanes than expected, though there were several rapidly-intensifying cyclones in the Atlantic basin. The early prediction for 2008 is for an above-average year filled with frequent storms and several intense hurricanes.

The art of hurricane prediction, even just a few weeks ahead of a season, is young. Scientists readily acknowledge that the list of unknown influences on hurricane activity is likely to be long.

As the Chronicle put it:

"Scientists wrangling with the hurricane-global warming question have faced two primary difficulties. The first is that the hurricane record before 1970 is not entirely reliable, making it nearly impossible to assess with precision whether hurricane activity has increased during the last century. The second problem comes through the use of computer models to predict hurricane activity. Most climate models, which simulate global atmospheric conditions for centuries to come, cannot detect individual tropical systems."

Seems to me, that's a pretty strong accurate statement regarding the concept of global warming as a whole--yet the Greenie ideocracy and greed continue to create more new laws, restrictions, and big government in the wake of needless fear. CE

FORMER HEAD OF OREGON CLIMATE SERVICE STEPS ASIDE AFTER KULONGOSKI FIRES HIM FOR BEING "CONTROVERSIAL" (READ THIS AS MEANING THAT HE DISAGREES WITH GREENIES DETERMINED TO FOLLOW THEIR ANTI-HUMAN AGENDA)

In February 2007, Kulongoski asked the president of Oregon State University to stop George Taylor from calling himself the state climatologist because of Taylor's skeptical stance on global warming.

Taylor, who has a master's degree in meteorology and runs the state-funded Oregon Climate Service, has been widely known as Oregon's state climatologist since 1991.

Taylor said he believes climate change is a combination of natural factor and human factors. "I don't deny that human activities affect climate change," he said. "But I believe up to now, natural variations have played a more important role than human activities."

Those views didn't sit well with Kulongoski, who believes the science increasingly points to human activity as the most likely cause of global warming. He has appointed task forces of well-known Oregon scientists and business leaders to advise him on climate change. [or, more accurately, he has appointed chogie boys to further his own agenda].

I LIKE MOOSE! MUST BE THAT GLOBAL WARMING AGAIN...

MOOSE VISITING BACKYARDS IN UTAH

THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!

Food prices worldwide hit record highs in 2006, and all the signs are that they will go on rising this year, and for the foreseeable future. The era of cheap food, the experts say, is over and we are going to have to get used to it. This is easier said than done for millions around the world, as evidenced by protests in Mexico over the cost of corn tortillas, and in Italy last September about the price of (wheat) pasta.

TALK ABOUT PUTTING THE BEAR BEFORE THE CART

Do polar bears, which have become the poster child for the potential ravages of future global warming, need special protection from Uncle Sam now?       

That's the question under consideration at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which is poised to recommend whether the icon of the Arctic should be officially designated as a threatened species – even though the bear's numbers currently are not in precipitous decline.

The judiciousness of protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), in anticipation that its frozen habitat will be thawing as a consequence of climate change, is a matter of hot debate. Many scientists say Arctic wildlife is experiencing the repercussions of a warming planet more rapidly than organisms in other regions, but others say listing the bear would cause economic hardship and do next to nothing to save its habitat.        

"This is a complex issue because we have most polar bear populations not showing significant declines at the moment, but we have a lot of climate models and data showing great losses in the foreseeable future," says Chris Tollefson of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the federal agency responsible for protecting wildlife and their habitats. The service's recommendation is due by Jan. 9.

      

If listed, the polar bear would be the first mammal listed as threatened as a consequence of global warming, and the federal government would be required to take action to protect it in Alaska, the only place in the US the bear lives, and in places the US issues permits. The ESA defines a threatened species as one likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.

      

With as many as 25,000 wild polar bears dispersed across five countries, the species is not exactly teetering on the edge of oblivion, say opponents of the effort. The World Conservation Union (IUCN), though, reports that five of the Arctic's 19 polar bear populations are already experiencing declines, as the bears lose habitat and food because of melting sea ice.

Even within the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, where global warming is considered a threat to the state, many regard the reasoning behind preemptively listing the polar bear as flimsy.  

"There is currently a healthy population of polar bears worldwide," says Ken Taylor, the department's deputy commissioner. "We are concerned that if they use climate modeling to project 45 years ahead, we might be getting too subjective scientifically."

 

GREENIES ARE WRONG AGAIN? ARE WE REALLY SURPRISED?

Data on tropical forest cover is so poor that we do not know if the forests are declining, a study has found.

Alan Grainger from the UK's University of Leeds examined UN analyses going back almost 30 years, and found that "evidence for a decline is unclear".

Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), he proposes a global forest monitoring system.

The UN admits there are problems with the data, but says tropical forests are certainly in retreat.

Dr Grainger is not so sure. "People have been assuming that forest cover is shrinking," he told BBC News, "and certainly deforestation has been taking place on a large scale."

       

                                 

We can no longer put off investing in an independent scientific monitoring programme                                                           Alan Grainger

    But, he says, there is also evidence that in some countries, forests are expanding spontaneously.

"Our analysis does not prove that tropical forest decline is not happening, merely that it is is difficult to demonstrate it convincingly using available tropical forest area data," he writes in PNAS. 

GOVERNMENT PURPOSELY PLACING POISON IN EVERY HOME

The irrational fear of Global Warming makes its believers idiotic. Not only are we to think that humans can influence the world's temperature, but we must obey egregious laws based on the lies of the Global Warming gods. Angry about the cost of fuel? Don't blame the gas companies--blame the environmental whackos who require outlandish measures to make fuel "safe" and "earth friendly." Worried about higher taxes? Blame the environmental whackos worshiping at the altar of self-importance, creating unfounded fears and guilt. Greenies are not interested in helping create a better life for all. Nope. They're interested in eradicating human life, as long as it in any way excels while utilizing earth's resources. There are strong ties between the Greenies and Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood (you know, the institution founded on hatred, fornication, disobedience, abortion, feminizism and racist ethnic cleansing). 

Which all brings me to the ridiculous requirements to change light bulbs to new "low energy" bulbs.  Big Brother Greenie is reaching into our homes, mandating our use of dangerous mercury bulbs whose impact on health is not fully explored--though there are indications they cause migraines and release mercury if broken. For what? Oh, because humans might be able to make a change in the environment--but probly not!  In fact, changes instituted to help the environment end up creating different biological hazards.

From the BBC:

Low-energy bulbs contain a small amount of mercury                                                         
                                     Disposing of bulbs safely                                       The Environment Agency has called for more information to be made available on the health and environmental risks posed by low-energy light bulbs.                   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                   It says because the bulbs contain small amounts of mercury, more information about safe recycling is needed.                   

                   It also wants health warnings printed on packaging and information on how to clear up smashed bulbs in the home.                   

       

              

...Environmental scientist Dr David Spurgeon said: "Because these light bulbs contain small amounts of mercury they could cause a problem if they are disposed of in a normal waste-bin.

"It is possible that the mercury they contain could be released either into the air or from land-fill when they are released into the wider environment.

                   "That's a concern, because mercury is a well known toxic substance."                   

 

                       

...Official advice from the Department of the Environment states that if a low-energy bulb is smashed, the room needs to be vacated for at least 15 minutes.

                      

                   A vacuum cleaner should not be used to clear up the debris, and care should be taken not to inhale the dust.                   

Instead, rubber gloves should be used, and the broken bulb put into a sealed plastic bag - which should be taken to the local council for disposal.

...However, this advice is not printed on the packaging that low-energy bulbs are sold in.                   

..."Mercury accumulates in the body - especially the brain," he said. "The biggest danger is repeated exposure - a one off exposure is not as potentially dangerous compared to working in a light bulb factory.

...The lighting industry and the government say the risk of mercury pollution posed by low-energy bulbs is minimal.                   

Kevin Verdun of the Lighting Association said: "Fluorescent strips, like the ones used in garages and kitchens, also contain mercury and have been used for many years without poisoning anyone."

But he said that warnings on how to safely dispose of smashed bulbs "might" be put on packaging in future, if the government and the public demanded it.

This month shops in the UK will begin the process of phasing out traditional tungsten bulbs as part of a government plan to completely replace them by 2011.

Ministers hope that using the more environmentally-friendly bulbs will save at least save 5m tonnes-worth of carbon dioxide emissions every year.

IDIOCRACY!

GLOBAL WARMING FREEZES MANATEES

This week's cold snap drove at least 100 manatees into canals near a Tampa Bay area power plant.

Tampa Electric Company's power plant in Apollo Beach discharges warm water into the canals, heating them to around 75 degrees. The result is a 30-acre sauna for manatees.

The endangered marine mammals prefer warm water. Water temperatures outside the canals in Hillsborough Bay had dropped to about 55 degrees — too chilly for manatees.

EXCERPTS FROM AN EXCELLENT ARTICLE ON THE FRAUD THAT IS GLOBAL WARMING FROM DON FEDER AT GRASSTOPSUSA.COM

...Ultimately, the Global Warming crusade is a frontal assault on procreation, the family and the future of mankind.

          In the December 9th edition of Medical Journal of Australia, Professor Barry Walters urges a one-time "baby levy" of $5,000, followed by an annual tax of $800 per child, on Australian families with more than two children.

          "Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," writes Walters, who calls childbearing "greenhouse unfriendly behavior."

          Walters will have to look hard for families to tax. Australia's fertility rate (the number of children the average woman has) is 1.75 -- well below replacement level (2.1) and less than half of what it was in 1960 (3.6) ....

.....................................................................................................................

...Beyond the fiscal flogging to be administered to families who stubbornly continue to procreate, Walters says he wants the Australian government to consider population control measures like China's, with its one-child-per-family policy backed by draconian penalties, sterilization and forced abortions.

          In Britain, a group called The Optimum Population Trust has the same agenda. The Trust is horrified by a brief blip in the U.K. birthrate -- up from 1.8 in 2005 to 1.87 in 2006.

          It notes that the lifetime energy consumption, or "carbon footprint," of a child born in Britain today is the equivalent of 620 roundtrip, trans-Atlantic flights. The Trust urges government coercion for Brits who don't follow the Planned Parenthood model.

"One solution to the crisis (a hot globe) is for people to stop having so many babies," says a March 14th  posting by Dave Johnson at that fount of idiocy, The Huffington Post. "We've already used up the fisheries. The cattle being raised to feed so many meat-eaters is as big a problem as the cars we're all driving." So the solution is to stop having babies and become bicycle-riding vegans.

"The population explosion has severely disturbed the ecological relationships between human beings and the environment," the Sierra Club warns. "In recognition of the growing magnitude of this conservation issue, the Sierra Club supports a greatly increased program of education on the need for population control." The left is really into control.

Global Warming fanaticism seems to lend itself to self-loathing. In 1989, David Graber, then a biologist with the National Park Service, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times observing: "Human happiness and certainly human fecundity are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true... We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon Earth. Until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature (by wearing natural fibers and living in trees?) some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

And they call them misanthropes.

Is the right plague what Jacques Cousteau had in mind, when he wrote in 1991: "In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but its just as bad not to say it." A speaker at Gorbachev's 1996 State of the World Forum in San Francisco called for cutting the global population by 90%. He did not specify the method.

Most of the Global Warming-ists are content to make preposterous predictions and induce panic, while leaving their ultimate agenda unstated. 

Thus, in accepting his politically correct Nobel Peace prize, Al Gore (the Herman Munster of Global Warming) declared that, "We have begun to wage war on the Earth itself." Gore predicts that our trashing of the ozone layer could cause sea levels to rise by 20 feet in this century. Would that be before or after New York City is covered by a glacier, a la "The Day After Tomorrow"?....

......................................................................................................

....Hence, the inevitable conclusion: The world would be better off with all of us dead.

·  "Given the total, absolute disappearance of Homo sapiens, then not only would the Earth's community of Life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being enhanced. Our presence in short is not needed," Paul Taylor in "Respect for Nature, A Theory of Environmental Ethics."

·  "We have no problem in principle with humans reducing their numbers by killing one another. It's an excellent way of making humans extinct," a spokes-creature for the Gaia Liberation Front.

·  "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs," John Davis, editor of the journal Earth First.

· In the book "The World Without Us," Alan Weisman celebrates what he sees as the inevitable extinction of humanity, as vine and branch, deer and bear, reclaim our cities.

·  There's even a Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which describes itself as "the humanitarian alternative to human disasters." VHEMT explains that "the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us."

·  Continuing with this grotesquely morbid line of thought: "When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve... and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature's 'experiments' have done throughout the eons." Is that why liberals seem to be disappearing?

          The let's-all-die-for the-planet movement may be the fringe of Global Warming. But their conclusion is the logical expression of its ethos. Why settle for the gradual extinction of humanity through below-replacement birthrates and deindustrialization when we can accomplish the same thing in a generation? (For other Global Warming-ists, their death wish is more subconscious.)

          But rather than having the decency to just kill themselves, they need to make a statement -- like the poor bastards who go to a mall with a high-powered rifle to see how many innocent bystanders they can take with them.

        If you see Al Gore in a shopping center with what looks like a semi-automatic -- or at a podium handing out Kool-Aid -- run.