Just for fun, based on the last post!

This is from Wordle, and is based on my globul warming post, enjoy!

GLOBAL WARMING?!

Okay lugnuts, I promised so here it is.

GLOBAL WARMING!! Bullshit.

I could argue for hours on this dead dog. The simple truth is if you believe it, likely your a member of the church of global warming, lead by high priest Algore himself. I do have a question or two for you though;
1) How is it that a gas representing less than 2000th of 1 percent of the atmosphere can have such a profound change in the planetary temperature? Current tests show about 380 ppm (parts per million) concentration of co2 in the atmosphere. Get your calculators out kiddies and follow along, 380/1,000,000=0.00038. That's right, 0.038% of the atmosphere is co2. This is up from about 1800 where it was 280ppm, an increase of 100ppm or about 40%. Sounds like a lot? Well, 280ppm is about like five chipmunks farting in the superdome. Since 1800 two more chipmunks have farted. OH MY GOD, RUN FOR THE HILLS! DESTROY ALL CARS! SHUT DOWN ALL INDUSTRY! TURN OVER THE CONTROL OF SOCIETY TO ALGORE. Tongue in cheek there kiddies, well except for the last part.
2) If we even consider accepting your jacked up premise that a change in the atmosphere of 0.0001 in a single odorless, colorless gas can cause a 0.7 Celsius change in the global mean temperature (remember that figure kiddies, there is a test later), a why is it that the temperature change has led the o02 increase, not the opposite? Seems the temperature has gone up years in advance of the increase of co2. Hmmm.
3) Since water vapor is more than 100 times more effective as a so called 'green house gas', why has it failed to produce a similar increase since water vapor levels have increased in the upper atmosphere by 75%! Shouldn't that have cause several degrees of warming more than the factional increase from CO2?
4) Finally, why do most global warming cultists close their eyes, cover their ears, and go 'nya-nya-nya'! at the top of their lungs when you mention sunspots?!

Yeah, see there is the rub. For years the global warming ninnies have been screaming that it's man causing it (ignore the global climate cycle of ice age every 10,000 years, that we're overdo for), but completely disregard things like the medieval warming, little ice age, etc. You want to know what links up the best with our global climate (hot, cold, etc)?!?!? SUN SPOTS, assholes (little homage to George Carlin there, RIP). When you slap down the history of sunspots next to the global record of hot/cold, you get a chilling correlation (pardon the pun). They really hate it when you mention the Maunder Minimum. A most inconvenient time from 1750-1800 where there was no sunspots, and we got us a little ice age. OOps.

Well, we're followers of the church of global warming, so faith can carry us through. (Hallowed be thy name, our forged scientific data and Algore shall comfort us!) After all, there is not definite proof of those two events being linked, right? Well, you're right, of course.

Say hello to my little friend, proof;

TADA!

Please read it carefully, it might damage your faith in that church...you might even catch a note about DECREASE in global temperatures. But, but, but, how?

No sunspots, boys and girls, for more than a year. Quite a bit more if you consider we're supposed to be heading up into the next solar maximum, that little eleven year cycle of solar activity. Every eleven years we go from lots of solar sunspots, to almost none, and back up again. Last couple years were real scorchers with record numbers of sunspots. Scientists had to change their panties in expectation of this next maximum. They expected unprecedented shows, launched new satellites, and made sure the SOHO observatory was ready. The problem? Nothing happened. The minimum was more than a year ago. They expected sunspots by now at the rate of dozens a day. All we've seen are a few late shows from last year (they can tell somehow what cycle a sunspot is from). There is one little one now, other than that, the sun is dead as a doornail.

Dead Sun

This is a good one. "sunspot watchers are getting antsy" No shit? Notice the date on this article. More than a month, and still jack shit.

Compare that to this;

Sun? What sun?

Huh, 2004, global warming 'out of control', record sunspots, 2008, no sunspots, globe cooling off. Quick, call Algore, the FEVER HAS BROKEN!!!

There were hints at the end of the last cycle, something strange was going on...

Houston, we have a problem...

But we're way too busy trying to cool the planet off to worry about SCIENCE! What happened to fact checking, analysis, and more fact checking? Forget about that, there's big money to be made scaring the shit out of people.

I believe most scientists knew the jig was up a couple years ago. Have you noticed they don't mention global warming as much? Now it's all about CLIMATE CHANGE! Oh my GOD! Even better, you can blame EVERYTHING on climate change. Too hot, too cold, no rain, no snow, too much rain, too much...you get the idea. Only problem is, these pesky sunspots. Don't you hate it when hard facts slap you in the face like a pissed off whore? So what to do? Simple, don't talk about it. Look for articles, and good luck to you. It took me a couple weeks of spare time searching to put together a good look at this picture, and I don't like what I see.

Who likes winter? We all do, right? You like it so much that you want a month of summer, then back to winter? That's what happened during the Maunder Minimum. Ouch. We're gonna have a lot of Canadians camping in Georgia for a few decades, we better start stalking up on beer.

This is my current main site - SOHO SATELITE my browser opens to it every morning. Remember that first one I showed you, where they mentioned the 0.7C drop in temperature? Supposedly global warming caused 0.7c temperature increase in the last century. A lack of sunspots for one year reversed it. Global temps were 10c colder during the maunder minimum, that's about 18 degrees boys and girls. In Kentucky where I live, summer averages about 91, winter about 21. Change that to high of 73 in summer, 3 in winter. I don't know how many of you have gardens, but guess how many things grow well with a one month growing season and temperatures in the seventies? We're back to jack shit again.

Well, they'll keep it quiet as long as they can. I'll pray to wake up one morning to even a couple sunspots, but at this point? Don't think they'll keep it quiet? Go to yahoo.com and click on the news tab, now type in sunspots. Yeah, you see?

You get (Cliff has been a MMGW for a while, bless his heart). Two years since anything, more than a year since we were supposed to enter the new cycle. Not a single major press story, or minor for that matter. (BTW, a gem from cliff was My Man Cliff awesome story).

Nothing on CNN.
Nothing on ABC News
Nothing on CBS News (mention of expected peak from 2007, that's it)
Nothing on NBC or MSNBC except a blub from a year ago about the First Sunspot of the new Cycle! Turns out that was wrong...
You can't really blame them, they're busy trying to get Obama elected...

What about our only hope, Fox News? Ahhh, here we go!
Fox Comes Through, sort of...

It's a few weeks old, and is mainly of the sort 'don't worry, nothing to see here' that you see just before it blows up in your face, but it is the ONLY ARTICLE BY ANY NEWS AGENCY! This is fucking pathetic! If the global temp suddenly spiked by .7C, it would be all we heard about 24/7, even from Fox!

So, what is in the weeks to come? I guess we'll hold our breaths, and see. Regardless, global warming is gone for now, lets see what the future brings...

Funny? Without a doubt!

/start
20

OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets

/end
Coming soon - GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!

The Shallow End of the Pool

Make no doubt that this political contest for president will be centered around two subjects. McCain's lack of blackness, and McCain's lack of youth. And it is taking much less time than I would expect for the guns to be warmed up. Witness today's Bloomberg article by Lorrain Woellert, available on yahoo;
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080619/pl_bloomberg/atptdqenc5r0;_ylt=Apz4n5E3JTtVGc7aJjPdNpbCw5R4

On its surface the article simple discuses how McCain's energy policy would operate, including the laudable goal to build another 100 nuclear plants. I must stand up and cheer as a SENSIBLE environmentalist and global warming skeptic, I've been yelling NUCLEAR POWER at the top of my lungs for years. But of course the nuclear knee-jerk crowd go cross-eyed and scream bloody murder every time the see the only truly green alternative power.
Anyway, Ms. Woellert's article points to several elements of candidate McCain's plan, and then opines the following;

"McCain, an Arizona senator, also vowed to spend $2 billion on research into clean-burning coal.
``This single achievement will open vast amounts of our oldest and most abundant resource,'' McCain, 71, said. ``It will deliver not only electricity but jobs to some of the areas hardest hit by our economic troubles. "

No where else in the article is any mention made of age, especially not the over-youthfulness (IMHO) of the democratic opponent. This is subtle but obvious ageism at work. Mark my words, it will be a lot less subtle as time goes by. You never saw a mention of President Bush's age in nearly every article leading up to the '04 election, nor of his opponent John Kerry. Why now? Is it fundamentally necessary that we be spoon fed lines to burn John McCain's age into our brain like the flashbulb image of a nuclear blast. Are certain people hoping we'll walk into the polls and look up at the candidates then see an afterimage next to both names; McCain - Old / Obama - Young. Distasteful, transparent, and pathetic. Shame on you, Ms. Woellert.

But this is just a warm up. Here we go, boys and girls, let the games (and subtle smears) begin.

Government is Force

When a society matures it tends to take on an ever increasing amount of 'responsibilty' for its citizenry. It is an unfortunate truth that most people consider this a good thing. You don't have to scrutinize the food in a box you buy in the store, just open and gobble without a second thought! After all, the government makes sure it is safe and nutritious (well, at least safe). And if polluted food from China kills a few people? No problem, Uncle Sugar will make it all better. How many people can even recognize that their food might not be 'good' anymore? What is that smell? Does this taste funny to you? What are those blue flecks in this chili? I sat next to a woman in a fancy restaraunt last week when she commented that it tasted "very funny" to her partner. After a moment she shrugged and gobbled it down. I doubt even our parents (I'm speaking to my fellow boomers here, you Gen-x types are on your own) would have done that. Spoiled or poorly preserved food were a common thing then. Of course then you just tossed it out and made more. These days its more complicated, involving a call to a lawyer, or at least the obligatory new media press conference. The truly scary part is we not only expect perfect and safe food with every bite, we demand it.
This mindset goes across the spectrum of products and services in the US, and most of the western world for that mater. Is it a good thing? I have mixed reservations. But of course if my tuna sandwich has a strong metallic taste, I'll send it back to the kitchen (I've checked the news for announcements of poisoned patrons in Palisades NY, nothing yet). We do enjoy a period of unprecedented consumer confidence. Oh, we're not sure of the economy, but we know that the new $4,000 big screen TV we just bought will work, at least for a year or so. Yes, that is a new 42" Samsung LCD in my living room, and I researched the purchase for a week before deciding on this modest choice. More than one guy in the checkout line gave it a self-satisfied sneer, no doubt thinking about their 52" model at home. I just smiled back because I paid cash for my TV. How many of them can say that?
Anyway, the issue if our nanny-state. So far who can argue at this wonderful safe world? Oh, there are a few who try to look through the crystal ball and see us strapping on government mandated bath helmets before climbing into the water with temperature careful controlled by government approved temperature controled water system delivered by government treated and purified water from government guaranteed watersheds. I scoff, like this could really happen? Wait a second...
Anyway, what can really come from this? Is there a possibility the goverment might get a little high handed in their protection of their 'constinuants'? No shit, you think? How about this one?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/126710.html

I'm sure a lot of you watched as the Texas CPS swooped in and snatched the kids from those whakos. Religous nuts! I'm sure you thought; "good thing before they did another Branch Dividian and killed themselves!" (more on that one some other time). Well, read the story above. Oops, turns out those 'religous nuts' were not considerate enough for the high handed government goons, they didn't bother actually breaking any laws or hurting those kids. Damn it, you need to cooperate and break some laws so we can 'help your kids' here! So now those kids, who all turned out to be happy, healthy, and a lot better educated that most of our screwed up brats, are actually screwed up by the morons who went to help them. Yep, big surprise. We went to help them, and screwed them up in the process. Many of those kids are going to bear emotional scars for the rest of their lives. Texas is going to end up writing some checks for this one, and for a change I agree. They had no damn right to do that. Cases like this need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Swooping in and abducting a hundred or so kids from a religous retreat just because a few people don't like or understand the way those people live is not a 'civilized' thing to do. In our great American experiment we are now in the 'knee jerk reaction' phase of our growth. In the early days the state just ignored everything the people did until it drew a body count. Later the goverment would react, usually slowly and often innapropriately. Now in the modern info-age, the reaction is almost always expensive, too extensive, and usually innefectual. But why are we surprised from government? Like the subject line says, 'government is force'. I can't place the quote, but it's true. You don't pay your taxes or stop at stop lights because you are overwhelmed with feelings of altruistic love of your fellow man. You obey the laws because if you don't the government thugs will show up with guns and take you to jail, break up your family, and confiscate your wealth. Fear makes you obey, fear of goverment force.
One more thing. This whole incident with the kids was mainly triggered because the government has been watching that clutch of religously zealous followers with a microscope. Why? Well if you read the story or watched any TV you know they're a splinter group of the LDS, the ones that beleive in polygamy. In modern America, sodomy is perfectly okay, but don't you dare try and have more than one wife. Hell, in the Seattle area (unfortunately where I grew up), there is no law against raping an animal, but there is against having more than one wife. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate. One is quite enough for me. But I have to ask the question, why is one formerly moraly reprehensible behavior now 'normal', but another not? It seems the love that dare not speak its name, now the love that won't shut the hell up, has some questions to answer....

Bread and Circus

The Democratic convention in Denver is liable to be one of the wildest shows seen in quite a long time. The left are beginning to eat their own after their annointed few (Dem congress 06') failing to;

1) impeach President Bush (snort)

2) surrender in Iraq

3) tax and spend us into oblivion



Well, the Republicans are helping on part of #3, but still not executed as demanded.



You ever seen a bee hive or ant hill when disturbed? That scene best descibes the left in this election season. You can tell when they are so freaked out they can't see straight, they actually forget to insult a conservative in every sentance. It may well have been at least a month since I've seen the press gleefully reporting on a conservative being called a Nazi by some prominent democrat. The dems are in a feeding frenzy, and blood is in the water.



Need an example?



http://www.recreate68.org/album1_dnc_005.htm



Many of the radical left consider Obama's win a betrayal. Blacks are good for votes, not to be voted for! Oh, places like Georgia or Alabama will elect a few every now and then, but president?! Everyone knows Hillary has been picked at the presumptive nominee. Rush Limbaugh's caustive buy pointed "Obama the Magic Negro" radio play has the bite of audacity, but also a ring of truth. You won't hear anyone in the media say it, but its really Republicans who want a color blind society. I could care less the color of the skin of a leader I vote for, as long as he represents my interests. President Bush has appointed more women and minorities than any other president in history. But still we need Hillary or even better, Obama to save us and give America "credibility". Bullshit.



Will America have a black president? Who would be stupid enough to even as that question? Of course we will. And the first time the nominee is a conservative (and hopefully liberatarian to boot), I'll be waving the flag and sending checks. Any American who would vote for Obama just because he had ancestors from an African nation is little better than David Duke, Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, and you should be embarassed with yourself.



This election holds a real fascination for me. This is one of those rare 'open' presidential elections. Not only is the sitting president precluded from running due to term limitatation, but there was no presumptive 'heir' to his presidency. This role is often filled by a VP after a two term president (see George Bush the elder, Algore, etc). Cheney said from the beginning he wasn't interested in being president. In part that is too bad. His Vader like visage would be fun to watch against the slick Edwards like brooks-brothers personae of Obama. Hillary had that level of certainty until Obama and Rush Limbaugh overturned the applecart. Don't know about that? Look into 'operation chaos' by el-rushbo. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031208/content/01125108.guest.html

Rush had the genius to realize that the longer the Democrats attack each other, the better off conservatives will be. Who knows how effective he was, but look at the carnage and decide for yourself.

So beyond these facts, there is also the final candidates themselves. When you close your eyes and think about it, how is this even a race to consider? We are presented with two choices; a decorated war hero, former prisoner of war, acknowledged 'outsider' who has operated within the structure of DC for decades whilst getting results and causing minimal damage to our civil liberties and still killing badguys, or a first term senator from a noted corrupt political city with nearly no experience in governement and barely enough years of life to qualify for the job. Fascinating. We're in the struggle of our age against islamo fascists, and one of the candidates is an acknowledged dove. Beyond that he has bragged that he'd invite every third world tin pot dictator over for brunch at the Whitehouse. WTF? America has NEVER talked to these sort of bottom dwelling, scum suckers. We let other more useless nominal democracies (see France, Italy, most of europe) initiate those contacts and get some concession towards civilization before continuing. Everyone knows when you land in DC and chat with the Prez, "you're somebody to be taken seriously". He's going to have tea and crumpets with Ahmadinejad (or as Dennis Miller calls him, Aquavelvajad) just like that?! One tries to look back through the lense of time and imagine FDR popping over to Berlin for some struedel with AH. Don't like that comparison? You haven't been reading what Ahmadinejad had been writing. American presidents don't chat with dictators, we blow them to hell and/or accept their surrender.



Fascinating election season. History has been made and will continue to be made. Part of me wishes Obama wasn't such an empty suit so I could vote for him. With an eye towards the liberals 'need' to make firsts such a big deal, it might have been worth getting that one out of the way. I don't worry about what Obama might do as president, it's not like he's really said anything other than the whole dictator thing. All he's offered is hope and change. Rrrright. I don't hope for change, I hope for survival. I hope Americans have enough common sense to look and listen in the coming debates. Obama is all posing, McCain is poise. Obama is hope and change, McCain is leadership. It goes beyond the whole 'military experience as CIC' debate. Besides, it's one that really won't come up since its laughable on the dems side this season (I think we've had enough real life lesson at just how dangerous a persident is with no experience in military matters). This debate goes to the core of what a person is, what they have accomplished, what you can expect of them, and what they have done in life. Or in the case of Obama, what you haven't accomplished. He hasn't been behind one important piece of legislation, and aside from a no vote on the use of force in Iraq he hasn't stood up for one cause. That last item is the straw that broke this camel'l back, no pun in tended.

Out of Control

Been gone too long, sorry to my fan out there.

So now we're down to two. Two candidates, two philosophies, two parties, two asshats.

I wouldn't be happy voting for either of these douchebags, and neither are most people. Oh, don't get me wrong, the Obamination has millions of followers, but so did Hitler, Jim Jones, and Chairman Mao. I list them because they (like Obama), are all charismatic douchebags that eventually ended up costing the lives of millions of their own faithful. And have no doubt about it, Obama will do the same. By even HINTING that you will talk with murderers and despots, you empower, embolden, and codify their religion of opression. I'm in the Regan/Bush/Dr. Savage camp on this. The only way to deal with terrorists is to kill them every time you find them, and just for good measures you kill everyone that was hiding and supporting them.

Make no qualms here, if we're going to kick terrorism in the nuts, we're gonna get dirty on this. The only other choice is to by a quaran, a prayer rug, and practice kneeling. These guys don't want us to go away, they're out for the big win. Islam is indeed a religion of peace. You will be at peace with their ruling you, or you will know the peace of the grave. They are just about the least cuddly, least inclusive, least civilized (in the modern liberal sense) religion on the face of the planet. They do not play well with others. As many great men have said, we can't fix Islam, it has to fix itself. All we can do is destroy it. If they give us no choice, that will happen. Americans have been very whimpy over the last eight years, but you still see hints of a backbone. I have no doubt that the moonbats will be shoved into the basement should a nuke go off in the United States. They came come out and protest after all the bad guys are dead. That is what they're best at, right?

Oh, and McCain? He's a douchebag too, but at least he'll kill terrorists. He'll also let another 50 million illegals in and jack up the economy. But I can live with that, I doubt I will survive an Obama presidency. I'll pull "R" again. Like I have a choice? I won't make the same mistake I made with Clinton.

BTW - FUCK YOU HILLARY, now go away.