Happy Harvest Moon and Autumnal Equinox
Photo from the OBRL Observatory.
Click here for a larger image:
Happy Harvest Moon and Autumnal Equinox
Photo from the OBRL Observatory.
Click here for a larger image:
This is Not Good news.
Say Goodbye to Sunspots?
Weaklings. Without penumbrae, which can be seen in the yellow image, today’s sunspots are weakening magnetically.
Scientists studying sunspots for the past 2 decades have concluded that the magnetic field that triggers their formation has been steadily declining. If the current trend continues, by 2016 the sun’s face may become spotless and remain that way for decades-a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth.
The central findings:
Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields
Matthew Penn, William Livingston
(Submitted on 3 Sep 2010)
Independent of the normal solar cycle, a decrease in the sunspot magnetic field strength has been observed using the Zeeman-split 1564.8nm Fe I spectral line at the NSO Kitt Peak McMath-Pierce telescope. Corresponding changes in sunspot brightness and the strength of molecular absorption lines were also seen. This trend was seen to continue in observations of the first sunspots of the new solar Cycle 24, and extrapolating a linear fit to this trend would lead to only half the number of spots in Cycle 24 compared to Cycle 23, and imply virtually no sunspots in Cycle 25.
We examined synoptic observations from the NSO Kitt Peak Vacuum Telescope and initially (with 4000 spots) found a change in sunspot brightness which roughly agreed with the infrared observations. A more detailed examination (with 13,000 spots) of both spot brightness and line-of-sight magnetic flux reveals that the relationship of the sunspot magnetic fields with spot brightness and size remain constant during the solar cycle. There are only small temporal variations in the spot brightness, size, and line-of-sight flux seen in this larger sample. Because of the apparent disagreement between the two data sets, we discuss how the infrared spectral line provides a uniquely direct measurement of the magnetic fields in sunspots.
Southern California’s summer to end with a chill: It was the coldest in decades
The Obamite Ministry of Truth has come up with a new term to sustain global hysteria (and the gravy-train) feeding what they once called "CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming".
It seems the old terms are not sufficiently scary anymore, so they have come up with newspeak terms they hope will set the matter straight, once and for all.
The new terminology is: Global Climate Disruption!
But in reality, it is more of the same old Global Climate Deception!
A review of basic scientific methods is in order:
The value and accuracy of a theory is most centrally determined by it’s ability to predict how things go, its ability to predict the future.
The "CO2 warming" or "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) theory was originally proposed around 50 years ago, alongside other theories such as the "new Ice Age", and bore no overtly deceptive connotations. That was a time when climatologists still modestly confessed they did not know everything, allowed open discussion on all sorts of ideas. There was still a commitment to truth, and fact. After c.1970, political activists swamped the universities, and there was a general trend of intolerance for any theory which went against the typically Marxist-Socialist agendas of the new activism. CO2-driven global warming seemed like a great idea to pound the heads of capitalist governments, which were already by then self-reforming on issues of air and water pollution, through the efforts of both conservatives and liberals in government. (Socialist nations, by contrast, became cesspools of intensive pollution and environmental destruction.) By around 1990, the UN also got into the "climate" business, even while failures of CO2-greenhouse global-warming theory became increasingly apparent. However, by then the political-activist juggernaut of "Global Warming" was on a roll, and wasn’t going to stop for any failures in its original premises.
"Top" climatologists pushing the warming theory by then had become heads of well-funded institutions, and became media celebrities where, in front of reporters and the public, they promoted overtly political agendas and condemned their critics as dangerous ignoramuses. Journal editors and department chairmen, always concerned about grant-money revenues and the political climate, increasingly required their faculty to teach the new warming catechism, which also appeared as dogma in textbooks, and new graduate students had to recite the correct global-warming prayers in order to graduate. All things related to weather catastrophe required expert commentary, and someone to blame also, even if weather science was very immature, and natural climate cycles could be identified.
So, how did the CO2 theory go? Did it predict the future, or not?
Where CO2-greenhouse theory predicted more hurricanes, eventually it became clear that fewer actually occurred. Where CO2 theory predicted non-stop global heating, only sporadic heating with cooler down-turns prevailed. The years between c.1940 to 1970 were cooling, and so have been the years following c.2000. Temperature data indicated the 1930s and the El-Nino year of 1998 were the hottest within the 20th Century, even while the UN IPCC was taken over by political operatives who pushed international tax scams and Climate Socialism, and promoted the fraudulent "hockey stick" graph. CO2 increases over millions of years always followed the ending of major Ice Ages by several hundred years, not preceding them as CO2 theory demanded, but no matter. Al Gore got a Nobel Prize for promoting a propaganda film composed of multiple falsehoods — but nearly everyone who pointed out the Emperor Has No Clothes was either ignored, silenced or ridiculed.
CO2-greenhouse theory also predicted a global net loss of polar ice cover, but ice-caps expanded in the Antarctic over the same time floating sea ice cover in the Arctic reduced. So there was no net loss of polar ice cover. And whereas CO2 theory demanded that no significant global warming exist prior to the industrial revolution, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) always stood out as a gigantic contradiction, being even warmer than today, and yet without the predicted "eco-catastrophes". Polar bears, penguins, whales, etc., survived the MWP quite handily. Biologists were then being excluded from conferences and publishing when their data showed increases in polar bear and penguin populations… but, none of the "people who mattered" paid attention to such details. New knowledge about the Little Ice Age (LIA), which developed after the MWP and lasted all the way down to c.1800, indicated the present warming trend was in actuality our coming out of the chilly depths of the LIA. The "hocky stick" fraud neatly ironed out all the bumps and dips in the global climate record, however, and oh well they are also now erasing the MWP and LIA from textbooks and internet websites, busy little bees in the Ministry of Truth.
Not one of the central predictions of CO2-greenhouse/AGW theory came true!
But oh my how popular it all became. Hollywood, Big Media, grade-school teachers and everyone under the age of 12 became sudden experts on "global warming" and the forthcoming "end of the world" — hectoring parents and businessmen and farmers on their "carbon footprint", declaring how "climate deniers" (the guys in the rumpled suits, who still had some scientific integrity) were oh just like Hitler and so forth. Shut ’em up. Put ’em all in prison, yelled the socialist enviros, when they weren’t yelling "death to Israel".
Ergo, Voila, comes now the "New Improved CO2 theory", with fancy new packaging, like some new laundry detergent. "CO2" won’t even be mentioned anymore! Instead, "Global Climate Disruption" will now dazzlingly scrub clean all those prior predictive failures and dirty lies. They now will be able to predict warm or cold, wet or dry, violent or peaceful weather, drought or flood! No matter what happens, they’ve got it covered! Brighter and whiter! Scrub, scrub, erase, erase. Of course, this new theory cannot tell you where or when any of those weather catastrophes might occur, as it "predicts" both everything and nothing at the same time! So it is basically worthless as a theory, and that my friends is the hallmark of bad science, a theory which has no bearing upon how the real world actually functions.
This is all Scientific Methods 101. So is the principle, that bad scientific theory is invariably followed by social disasters.
James DeMeo, PhD
Meanwhile, and of much greater predictive significance for global weather and climate, mostly zero or only a few sunspots are typically occurring, when we should have over a hundred daily at this point in the cycle.
Surprise September Snow in Montana (today)
Texans Fighting Back…
Misc. Items. Review and Learn.
The eternal flame of Muslim outrage
By Michelle Malkin * September 10, 2010 08:24 AM
Shhhhhhh, we’re told. Don’t protest the Ground Zero mosque. Don’t burn a Koran. It’ll imperil the troops. It’ll inflame tensions. The “Muslim world” will “explode” if it does not get its way, warns sharia-peddling imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Pardon my national security-threatening impudence, but when is the “Muslim world” not ready to “explode”?
At the risk of provoking the ever-volatile Religion of Perpetual Outrage, let us count the little-noticed and forgotten ways. …
*snip* Read the full article at the above weblink.
Harbitude is the opposite of dhimmitude.
Develop some harbitude and become a harbi with attitude!
Geert Wilders Speech at the Protest
The dangerous illusions of illiberal PC.
ANDREW C. McCARTHY
SEPTEMBER 11, 2010 4:00 A.M.
If only the fantasy were true: If only there actually were a dominant, pro-American, echt moderate Islam, an ideology so dedicated to human rights, so sternly set against savagery, that acts of terrorism were, by definition, “un-Islamic activity.” Imagine an Islam that, far from a liability, proved an asset (indeed, an indispensable asset) in combating the threat against us. Imagine that we could accurately call the threat mere “extremism” – no “Islamic” (or even “Islamist”) modifier being necessary because the “extremists” truly were a tiny, aberrant band, fraudulently “hijacking” a great religion.
If the fantasy were true, who among us would not be proud to mark the annual observance of September 11 by breaking ground on a $100 million Islamic center cum mosque at the site of the most horrific attack in American history? In the nine years since the atrocities that claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans at the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Shanksville, Pa., such an Islam – if it really existed – would have spearheaded the defeat of America’s enemies.
Such an Islam, over nine long years, would have risen up and made itself heard. It would have identified by name and condemned with moral outrage the imposters purporting to act in its name. It would have honored America’s sacrifice of blood and treasure in the liberation of oppressed Muslim peoples. It would have said “thank you” to our troops. It would have joined America, without ambiguity or hesitation, in crushing terror networks and dismantling the regimes that abet them. It would not have needed trillion-dollar American investments to forge democracies; it would naturally have adopted democracy on its own.
What excruciating truths have we yet failed to grasp on this ninth anniversary of 9/11? The first is that such an Islam does not exist. The second is that, despite this fact, American foreign and domestic policy continues to proceed as though it does exist – and as though it were the only real Islam. That is, nine years after Islamists made their commitment to our destruction as unmistakable as possible, nine years after the non-occurrence of all the wonderful things that would certainly have happened if the Islam of our dreams were the Islam of our reality, our national-security strategy is still steeped in fiction.
*snip* Read the full article at the above weblink.
Pat Condell has it "spot-on".
Builder and Hard-Hat Boycott of Victory Mosque Construction
Criminal Islamic Mafia behind Victory Mosque funding
Mainstream News Media Lies on Ground Zero Protests: "Worse than Pravda".
Lying about the numbers; covering up for the Stalinist Left support for the mosque
Mosque Supporters in NJ Transit Authority: Imposing Sharia Law Against Blasphemers
"I’m a poor little sheep, with no place to sleep. Please open the door and let me in…. Or Else!"
With apologies to authentic wild and noble wolves and sheeps.
A politically-incorrect, but totally true narrative on the Islamic + Left-wing alliance against life, love, and human freedom. Several items below.
Victimizers Play the Victim
by Pamela Geller
The Associated Press ran a piece recently with this headline: For U.S. Muslims, a 9/11 anniversary like no other. It mimics a press release from Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and it is, of course, utter nonsense. But it is far more serious than that.
Here again we have the victimizers playing the victim, with the complicity of their shills in the press.
The story said: “American Muslims are boosting security at mosques, seeking help from leaders of other faiths and airing ads underscoring their loyalty to the United States – all ahead of a 9/11 anniversary they fear could bring more trouble for their communities.”
It told readers that the Hamas-linked Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)-an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial- “will hold a summit of Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders in Washington ‘to address the growing tide of fear and intolerance’ in the furor over the planned New York mosque.”
We have reached the point where Islamic supremacists and Muslim Brotherhood proxies are virtually dictating their propaganda and fallacious narrative to big media and scribes, who take it down word for word, lie for lie, and report it as fact.
Unindicted co-conspirator, Hamas-linked, Muslim Brotherhood-front CAIR is the go-to guy for all things Islam. Never are they identified for the subversives that they are. Never are their jihadist connections or convicted leadership mentioned.
They’re presented as moderate, objective authorities, just as Anwar Awlaki was the go-to imam for the big media right after 9/11. Awlaki was imam to several of the 9/11 Muslim terrorists, as well as the Fort Hood jihadi, the Christmas day bomber, the Times Square bomber, et al).
The willing dupes in the mainstream media lather, rinse, repeat. They hit bottom and just keep digging. They still don’t get it. In the information battle space, it’s a game, and they are being played. But could the stakes be higher?
Muslims in the U.S. are not the ones living under death threat. People who are standing up to jihad activity and Islamic supremacism are. They are not the ones targeted. We are. They are not getting death threats. We are. They don’t have to live with 24/7/365 heavy duty security, Geert Wilders does. Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Salman Rushdie, the producers from Comedy Central, and accidental counter-jihad tourists like Molly Norris live under death threat. As do I.
Good, decent souls speaking out against a radical ideology, gender apartheid and supremacism are demonized and marginalized. But the media blacks that out. They never report on that. Their narrative of Muslims “living in fear,” and worse still, living in fear on the anniversary of 9/11, is the ultimate insult.
The AP is alleging that Muslims are in fear of 911. Why? We were attacked by Muslim terrorists. What has the Muslim community, the ummah, done to eradicate the ideology that inspired those attacks? Or the Fort Hood jihad, the Fort Dix Six, the Christmas day bomber, the Times Square bomber?
We have waited patiently, have we not? What efforts, in the past nine years, have been made to expunge the Koran of its genocidal prescriptions? With the exception of dawah (proselytizing) camouflaged as “interfaith dialogue,” nothing has been done. The West, meanwhile, has bent over backwards in “outreach,” “mutual understanding,” and “mutual respect.” Where is the reciprocity? And where has it gotten us, except further down the rabbit hole?
Real fear is living as a non-Muslim in Muslim countries under the Sharia. Real fear is living as a Coptic Christian in Egypt. Real fear is living as a Christian in Indonesia. Real fear is a girl going to school in Afghanistan, real fear is being an Israeli awaiting the Islamic nuke, real fear is being a Jew in Europe, or a pro-Israel Jew on many U.S. college campuses. And on and on and on.
First, the concrete facts. Hate crimes directed against Muslims remain relatively rare, according to the latest FBI report. So all this push back by the bullies is a tactic.
We are now being clubbed with two reports of mosque incidents in Tennessee and California. Mind you, many recent mosque incidents have been discovered to have been faked by Muslims, so let’s wait to see who is arrested. And no matter who is responsible, Muslims or non-Muslims, they should prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Synagogues have been desecrated and attacked in record numbers, but no one talks about that. Real attacks. Anti-semitism is at record highs worldwide, the highest since World War II. But only this relentless nonexistent “Islamophobia” gets played on an endless loop, a psy-op on the American psyche-and we are tired of it.
Defense against Islamic jihad is a healthy response to a mortal enemy.
The 9/11 Koran burning in Florida is a dumb idea. I don’t support such acts. Book burnings are always a bad idea. But Muslims have nothing to fear from those Christians. It is insensitive for that church to burn the Koran, but it is still a free country, is it not?
Islamic supremacists can’t whine about “insensitivity” while planning to erect a 15-story mega mosque on Ground Zero.
It is Muslims who should be ripping out the violent passages in the Koran that have inspired 1,400 years of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilations and enslavements that resulted in the slaughter of 270 million souls, Muslims among them. Only the Muslim world can reform Islam. What is being done?
This AP article takes the cake. Basically it is saying that if Muslims get violent, it’s our fault.
Responsible journalism is dead.
(go to the original item for the documentary weblinks)
The "Peaceful Muslim" facade-mask is slipping.
IMAM RAUF’S NEWLY DISCOVERED EXPLOSIVE AUDIO TAPES
Steve Emerson has unearthed 13 hours of audio tape of Imam Rauf. Emerson and his team of investigators has spent the past four weeks going through the newly found material. Rauf is a "radical extremist cleric who cloaks himself in sheep’s clothing."
Among the shocking revelations Emerson’s team will reveal next week — they found Rauf:
Defending wahhabism – a puritanical version of Islam that governs Saudi Arabia
Calling for the elimination of Israel by claiming a one-nation state, meaning no more Jewish State.
Defending Bin Laden’s violence
Demonstrating that there is a lot more to this man than merely a cleric.
Related and important:
Islamic Terrorism in the USA
U.S. Terror History Map
More mosque revelations
So now it transpires that a key money- man behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque is a one-time supporter of a group shut down by the feds because it was a front for Hamas.
No wonder the mosque’s principal imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, refuses to discuss the project’s finances.
Or, for that matter, refuses to speak harshly of Hamas — an Iranian cat’s-paw that’s long been one of the deadliest Islamist terrorist organizations operating in the Mideast.
It was reported last night that Hisham Elzanaty — an Egyptian-born businessman from Long Island — provided a big chunk of the $4.8 million needed to buy the building that will be demolished to make way for the mosque.
Among other things, Elzanaty runs a Bronx-based medicial supply company that had to refund more than $300,000 in Medicaid payments in 2004-2005.
In 1999, he donated thousands to the Holy Land Foundation, later shuttered by the feds because of its Hamas ties.
All of this is, as they say, enough to give one pause.
But we doubt it will truly surprise any among the 71 percent of New Yorkers found this week by Quinnipiac University pollsters to oppose the mosque.
Mayor Mike and others think they are bigots, but most seem to have asked — and answered to their own satisfaction — a fair question:
How close to the scene of that deadly Islamist attack on America is too close to build a mosque?
Answer: The proposed site was close enough to have been hit by a landing-gear assembly from one of the crashed airliners on 9/11 — and that’s way too close.
They’re also nervous about the project’s backers — even before Elzanaty popped up — deciding that, with those folks involved, anywhere might be too close.
As The Post reported yesterday, Rauf has been catching iffy tax breaks since 1998 for an organization run from his wife’s Upper West Side apartment.
How’d he do it? By telling the IRS the one-bedroom digs were actually a mosque where 500 people prayed daily.
These are only the latest revelations about the mosque’s backers, who’ve run up a cumulative record of petty crime, slumlording and tax-scamming.
And that’s being generous.
Rauf, who’s due back in New York this weekend after a long trip abroad, has plenty of explaining to do to the people he’s been thumbing in the eye for weeks.
First there is Elzanaty’s role, of course.
Then there’s the elephant in the room: Whence the $100 million needed for the mosque?
And then there is this.
At a forum in Dubai on Tuesday, Rauf appeared to call the 71 percent of New Yorkers who oppose his project religious "extremists."
"The battlefront . . . is not between Muslims and non-Muslims," he said. "It is between moderates [and] extremists and radicals of all faith traditions."
We’d guess 71 percent of New Yorkers would include a representative cross-section of "all faith traditions."
Are they "extremists" for opposing the mosque?
New Yorkers hardly ever agree on any thing
Book-burning, or Koran-burning, seems a topic of interest today, so it is worthwhile to revisit the most important episode of literary intolerance in American history. And it has nothing to do with the Koran, Bible or Darwin either. And it wasn’t connected with provocative Christian pastors or fist-shaking Muslims either.
I speak about the burning of Dr. Wilhelm Reich’s scientific books and research journals in the 1950s and 1960s, and Reich’s later imprisonment for daring to defend those same writings against a power-drunk US Food and Drug Administration — a "do-good", "for your health" socialist-oriented government agency, which is still a power-drunk, anti-freedom and Big Brother socialist organization today.
The following article has a short summary of book-burning episodes, which includes a sympathetic mention of the burning of Wilhelm Reich’s books. Very worthwhile.
The books have been burning
Of interest also is the mention of the burning of comic books in the USA, in the late 1940s, around the same time that the persecution of Reich began. This is related to the burning of Reich’s books, in that some of the same people agitated for both.
The comic-book burning was triggered predominantly by the social arsonist Dr. Frederik Wertham, a leftist psychiatrist who wrote books and articles on the supposed dangers to children from comics. Nobody burned his books, I note, which were in fact far more socially dangerous than any comic book! Wertham used the easy target of racy and violent comic books of that era as an effort towards stimulating government controls over the press. His message predictably fanned the fears of some parents, that the comics would turn their kids into jelly-brains, juvenile delinquents or criminals. I grew up on comic books and lived through that period, so can give first-hand testimony on the ridiculousness and ineffectual nature of Dr. Wertham’s scare-talk. I heard the same fear-talk about comic books from my teachers, and also about rock-n-roll music, which only made them sound more attractive. They were always mixed with fears about the very real aspects of the American sexual-revolution of that period. In spite of its frequently licentious and excessive components, the social change which came about in the post-1950s era in largest measure swept away the hypocrisy and double-standard prudery of the era, with a great liberation of women, including the spread of contraceptive knowledge and technology. Love within marriages was benefited by those changes, not eroded by them, as contraception and abortion legalization allowed fewer unwanted babies, and love-less marriages were more easy to dissolve. Sexual freedom in this regard strengthened the family love bonds in more rational ways, and so did not result in the social disintegration which was predicted by some.
We are always informed by the "intelligencia" that the people pushing censorial hysteria against those social changes were right-wing Christian conservatives, and there certainly were a few isolated religious extremists yapping away about the dangers of comics and rock music, and teenagers "necking" and such, wagging their fingers at everyone else. They made loud noises, but most of the nation ignored them. There also were a significant number of highly-placed left-wing atheist fanatics who barked out against such social change. They were against comic books and rock music as well, and they seemed to predominate among the academic types who would give "authoritative lectures" and write entire books on the subject. Like psychiatrist Frederic Wertheim.
Wertham was a significant character in the history of orgonomy also, as around the same time he was fanning the flames of comic-book hysteria, he also penned a terrible "book review" of Reich’s Mass Psychology of Fascism, making scare-talk which roused the socialist left against Reich’s work and ideas. Reich had openly identified Communism as a form of "Red Fascism", being quite similar to the "Black Fascism" of Nazism. That upset, and continues to upset, the various anti-freedom Reds, who probably burned more books than any other social group. Wertham was cut from that same Red fabric. His leftist-screed against Reich appeared in the New Republic magazine, then under the editorship of KGB-controlled agents such as Henry Wallace — former Vice President and communist whom President Roosevelt had fired for his open Soviet sympathies. The magazine’s publisher was Michael Straight, who late in life openly confessed being a KGB agent and American member of the Cambridge Five spy ring. Wertham’s article in New Republic was followed the next year by an even more aggressive smear against Reich, penned by Mildred Brady. She was also a recently-exposed Comintern agent with contacts and influence within the FDA. Both she and her professor husband had been fired from government posts a few year earlier for their pro-Soviet activities. Together these anti-Reich writings, penned by atheist left-wingers, triggered a small avalanche of copy-cat articles which ultimately led to the destruction of Reich’s books and his death in prison.
So it is both ironic and refreshing to see this new article on book-burning, which mentions both the comic-burnings and the burnings of Reich’s books. It reminds us that the same Communist writer who agitated against comic books for youth, also was against Wilhelm Reich’s social theories and writings. It is a lesson, to be wary of not just the right-wing extremists who would promote Holocaust denial and other trappings of the Nazi Party, but also of the equally-pathological left-wing fanatics who promote book-burning and censorship. Both embrace a similar genocidal ambition to totalitarian power, though in fact today the left-wing threat is greater, given how Nazism was basically obliterated during WW-II.
The details about Reich’s persecution and his persecutors was most ambitiously and accurately documented in Jim Martin’s Wilhelm Reich and the Cold War, published over ten years back. He started out intending to disprove Reich’s claim that the communists were behind the smears and plots against him. Instead, Martin found evidence which supported and affirmed Reich’s claims. It was the left-wing who were most active in the destruction of Reich. Martin documented multiple examples of Marxist left-wingers, cloaked fellow-travellers and open Communists, with KGB agents lurking the background, who plotted to destroy Reich. The book is as rare as hen’s teeth today. If you find a copy, grab it.
Meanwhile, as a reminder of how these issues continue to be important today, I wrote a summary article on the subject: "New Information on the Persecution and Death of Wilhelm Reich". Here:
Or, get it by PDF here:
If you are living in the NE USA, or going to be in NYC at the time of the 911 memorial service, please consider to lend your support against the spreading influence of Islamic Sharia Fascism in the USA by attending the protest against the Islamic "Victory Mosque" which will take place shortly after the official memoriam events.
Full information and details are available here:
Be sure to view the powerpoint download, which was prepared on February 2002, and remember.
Information also here:
Stand up for your remaining freedoms, or be prepared to see them swept away.
James DeMeo, PhD
Author of Saharasia
Note once more, how the term "climate change" has almost uniformly replaced the former loudly-spoken "CO2 warming" or "greenhouse warming". Like good Orwellian word-benders, use of the "climate change" moniker will allow them to jump around and yell about the end-of-the-world whether the global temperature goes up or down. And then no matter what, they will proclaim this justifies more government rule-making to boss you around about everyday life, and pouring of more taxpayer money down into the rat-holes they call "programs".
CLIMATE CHANGE LIES ARE EXPOSED
A damming report has highlighted questions over the credibility of a leading climate change body
Tuesday August 31,2010
By Donna Bowater
THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.
A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.
It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.
*snip* go to the weblink for the full article.
Another report on the same…
EDITORIAL: Global warming report feels the heat
Independent review finds fault with U.N. scientists