Eric Holthaus vows to stop flying, have no more children, all because of the weather.

I hearby nominate meteorologist Eric Holthaus for a Darwin Award.
 (The Darwin Awards are given to those who remove themselves from the gene pool, sometimes via accidental death by dumbness, thereby ensuring survival of the fittest.) 

Weatherman Eric Holthaus has taken a look at the U.N.'s Climate Change report and vowed to stop flying. 
Actually, that's not the way our friends on the Left speak. 

"I'm committing right now to stop flying."  he Tweeted.  "It's not worth the (harm to the) climate."  

These guys don't vow or promise to do anything.  They're like a trendy restaurant, and are "committed to a smoke-free environment".  Or "committed to ensuring diversity".  They're not promising.  They're just committed to the idea.   

He's also going to get a vasectomy so that no more offspring of his will warm the planet.  This, of course, has prompted numerous wags to suggest that the entire liberal tribe (in the American sense of the word) go therefore and do likewise. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436551/A-weatherman-breaks-tears-vows-NEVER-fly-grim-climate-change-report.html#ixzz2gC04tmH

I did my part by going to Mr. Holthaus's Facebook page and wagering that he can't stick to his no-fly resolution for five years.  (He's a Wall Street Journal weatherman who flies to conferences and meetings and seminars and crap.  He'll no more stay grounded than Al Gore.)  

As far as the vasectomy goes, that's no one's business but his.  The gene pool does have a way of policing itself, right?  Seriously.  Eric knows how accurate TOMORROW'S weather report is.  He's going to end his branch of the family tree because of something printed by the freakin' United Nations???  A Darwin Award is in order. 

Ron Paul, on "An Administration Gone Rogue"

Guess who scored a ticket to Ron Paul's speech at the Will Rogers Memorial Center in Cowtown on the 11th???
That should be good. 

BTW, Ron Paul has hired relatives as staffers, he's added non-germane earmarks to bills, somebody wrote some incredibly disturbing racist stuff in his late 80's-early 90's newsletters, and I think he once lost his patience with an incompetent nurse.  He once farted.  He has delivered more than 4,000 babies, most of whom now contribute to Global Warming.  There are rumors that in the 7th grade, Ron Paul wrote a negative book report about To Kill A Mockingbird. 
(I'm going to start getting all the negatives out of the way early so my Facebook and website trolls don't have to work so hard.) 

Here's Dr. Paul's latest broadside against Those Who Program The Teleprompter.  It's called "An Administration Gone Rogue". 

Have certain parts of the Constitution become irrelevant, as a former Republican leader once told me at a Foreign Affairs Committee hearing? At the time, I was told that demanding a Congressional declaration of war before invading Iraq, as Article I Section 8 of the Constitution requires, was unnecessary and anachronistic. Congress and the president then proceeded without a Constitutional declaration and the disastrous Iraq invasion was the result.

Last week, Obama administration officials made it clear that even the fig leaf of Congressional participation provided by the 2003 "authorization" to use force in Iraq was to be ignored as well. In a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated clearly and repeatedly that the administration felt it was legally justified to use military force against Syria solely with "international permission". Such "international permission" could come by way of the United Nations, NATO, or some other international body. Secretary Panetta then told Senator Sessions that depending on the situation, the administration would consider informing Congress of its decision and might even seek authorization after the fact.

While Senator Sessions expressed surprise at the casual audacity of Panetta in making this statement, in reality his was just a bluntly stated explanation of what has been, de facto, the case for many years.

If we had elected my Libertarian buddy John Jay Myers to Pete Sessions' seat in Congress, John Jay would've done more than merely "express surprise.  John Jay would've jumped the railing and gotten into Leon Panetta's fat, war-profiteer face.  Oh well. 

When President Obama committed the US military to a pre-emptive war against Libya last year, for example, Congress was kept completely out of the process. Likewise, military action in Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and so on, proceed without a Congressional declaration. In fact, we haven't had a proper, constitutional declaration of war since 1942, yet the US military has been engaged in Korea, Lebanon, Iraq, Bosnia, Liberia, Haiti, and Libya with only UN resolutions as the authority. Congress's only role has been authorizing funds, which it always does without question, because one must "support the troops".

Of course we should reserve our harshest criticism for Congress rather than the Administration. If the people's branch of government abrogates its Constitutional authority to the Executive branch, who is to blame? Who is to blame that Congress as a body will not stand up and demand that the president treat the Constitution as more than an anachronistic piece of paper, or merely a set of aspirations and guidelines? The Constitution is the law of the land and for Congress to allow it to be flouted speaks as badly about Congress as it does about a president who seeks to do the flouting.

Just last week the administration announced that it would begin providing material support to the rebels who seek to overthrow the Syrian government. Was Congress involved in this decision to take sides in what may develop into a full-fledged civil war? And what of reports that US special forces may already be operating inside Syria? Still, Congress sits silently as its authority is undermined. Does anybody really wonder why approval numbers for Congress are so low?

Many of my colleagues who stood by as then-President Bush used the military as a kind of king's army are now calling for Congress to act against this president for openly admitting that is his intent. I agree it is time for Congressional action in response to these attacks on our Constitution, but the solution is simple and Constitutional. The solution is simply voting to withhold funds, since Congress has the power of the purse. No money for undeclared wars!

The picture of Barack Obama as a jet fighter came from SodaHead, in an essay entitled "Hey, Obama, What do you say?  How many kids did you kill today?" 

No one believes in Global Warming

No one believes in AGW.   Not according to Forbes:

Much was written about the most recent United Nations Climate Change Conference, which was held in Durban, South Africa November 28 through December 9 of this year. However, most commentators gave short shrift to the most important—in a sense, the only—outcome of the meeting. This was, of course, the agreement to hold yet another conference in yet another nice location (Qatar) about a year from now.

The Durban conference was the seventeenth conference of its kind. They have been held annually since 1995 in places such as Geneva (in July 1996) and Bali (in December 2007). Don’t hold your breath for one to be held in Newark, New Jersey, or Fargo, North Dakota.

Good one !  Even better...."I might believe that humans cause global warming when the next UN Climate Change Conference is held via SKYPE." 

The meeting in Durban provided an opportunity for Progressives to make their latest argument that ordinary people should surrender their freedom and hand all money and power over to unelected, unaccountable “experts” like, well, the people at the conference. This is, of course, in order to “save the planet” from “climate change”. (The issue that had for years been called “global warming” was rebranded as “climate change” when the most recent decade’s worth of data proved uncooperative.)

I'm glad other people are starting to Beat The Dead Horse of "warming" vs. "change".  It's been so lonely here, fighting that linguistics battle all alone for so many years....

First, let’s get the known and knowable facts out of the way. Is the climate changing? Yes. One feature of the manifested universe is the impermanence of all things. The climate has changed over time and will continue to change. Is the change good or bad? Like all change, it is both good and bad.

But, overall, is it good or bad? We can’t say. We don’t even have a conceptual framework that would allow us to answer that question, or even to adequately describe how the climate is changing. “Climate” is an abstraction, and all abstractions are untrue (or at least incomplete).

Is human activity causing the climate to change? We don’t know, and there is no way, even in principle, that we can know. It is difficult enough to determine the “what” of climate change. To determine the “why”, we would need to do controlled experiments. And, for this, we would need another planet, identical in every way to our own earth, which we could use as a “control”.

But wait! Isn’t the science “settled”, thus making anyone who questions the climate change “consensus” an anti-intellectual Luddite? No. Nothing in science is ever settled.

This statement is pure, undiluted greatness:  Nothing in science is ever settled.  That's why it is called science and not theology.  "Settled Science" is a phrase created by someone's marketing department. 

“Science” consists of nothing but theories that have not yet been disproved by evidence, but which, in principle, could be so disproved. Even Einstein’s theory of relativity, which has been validated by thousands of experiments and measurements over almost a century, was recently called into question by experiments involving neutrinos that appeared to travel faster than light.

If something is “settled”, it is not science. It is religious dogma, and an assault upon freedom of thought and inquiry.

Yeah.  What he said.  And one of the signs of religious dogma is an effort to prevent people from looking into the origins and fundamental truth of the dogma.  Another is a casting out of heretics, say, shit-canning any editor willing to publish something skeptical of the dogma in a peer-reviewed journal.   Or being willing to accept his resignation when he is shown the tools of the Inquisition. 

But don’t the climate scientists’ computer models prove that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are causing climate change? No. First, no computer model can ever prove anything (see the definition of “science” given above). Second, we do not have the capability to model a system as complex as the earth.

The most any computer model can be is a useful tool. As it happens, all of the computer models that have been developed over the years by climate change proponents have already been invalidated by events that they did not accurately predict. For example, given the fast rising CO2 concentration in the earth’s atmosphere, global temperatures should have gone up much faster than they have over the past ten years. (And, it is not even clear that they have risen at all,)

But...but...but....THE EARTH IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A FEVER !!!!

So, we don’t know what is really happening to the earth’s “climate”. Even if we did, we could not be sure why it was happening. And, we have no way of knowing whether the change was good or bad for mankind as a whole.

But what of the Progressives’ argument that, because the effects of climate change are potentially so disastrous, we should surrender our freedom and move to a centrally planned world economy managed by experts, “just in case”?

This is known in Voodo Circles as the "Precautionary Principle".  Just in case the planet really is warming, we should buy lots of carbon credits from Al Gore's companies, we should buy indulgences purchase the right to emit carbon through a cap and trade system, we should be required to purchase lots of machinery painted green, and insist that diesel tractors get 15 miles per gallon.  All of which would enrich the Warmists and their donors.  But still, we should be safe, right?  Just in case? 

Two points about this: first, it’s not going to happen. The Progressives will have to content themselves with extracting a few billion dollars per year from taxpayers to fund cushy “research” and “advocacy” jobs, and to hold climate change conferences like the one that just concluded in Durban. Second, the climate change advocates obviously don’t believe in climate change themselves.

My favorite proof is that the Warmists still drive cars, fly in planes, plug in computers, travel about from place to place, and use electricity.  This guy apparently has some other evidence:

You can’t necessarily tell what people are truly committed to from what they say. However, you can always tell what they are truly committed to by how they negotiate. If someone really wants to do something, they will react to a suggestion by engaging it. They will “work with” the suggestion, trying to see how it can help them do what they say they want to do. If someone says that they want to do something but they really have some other agenda, they will respond to a suggestion with an instant, “Yes, but…”

Like, when an employee asks to hop in his car and drive to another factory to pick up a wicket or a sprocket that he must have to prevent a shipment from being late.  I point out that he can rob a wicket or a sprocket from another unit.  Then he mentions some paperwork that need to go to the other factory.  I point out the scanner on my desk which is capable of sending the paperwork over.  Then he leaves in a huff and goes back to work.   
He just wanted to drive to the other factory.  Listen to the radio on the way.  Get out of the heat.  Flirt with the ladies at the other shop.  The wickets, sprockets, and paperwork were an excuse. 

The climate change crowd has been frantically “yes, butting” geoengineering, which involves using technology to control the climate directly. Their efforts in this regard would be hilarious if the stakes in terms of money and freedom were not so high.

It is obvious that even if “climate change” is happening, and even if it is a bad thing, it is not going to be reversed by reducing CO2 emissions. Despite decades of climate change conferences, protocols, and agreements, fossil fuel use has been rising rapidly as people all over the world have adopted free market economics as a way of escaping poverty. So, if anything at all is going to be done about climate change, it will have to be done by “geoengineering”.

Geoengineering is a far more logical response to “global warming” than are efforts to curb CO2 emissions. First of all, geoengineering does not require that our assumption that it is man-made CO2 emissions that are causing the problem be correct. It would work regardless of what was “really” causing global temperatures to rise. Second, there are geoengineering approaches that could cool the earth at a cost of a few billion dollars per year, rather than tens of trillions of dollars per year. And, third, geoengineering does not require that the people of the world surrender their personal and economic freedom.

You can hear them in the background now, can't you?  If we can change the earth's temperature at all, using nothing more than some water and a few miles of Wal-Mart water hose, how will we ever properly punish the capitalists?  How will we make money off non-warming scam?  And most important, how will we retain our incredibly annoying air of self-righteousness? 

Given that geoengineering has the potential to actually do something about the climate change “problem”, the reaction of the climate change crowd to it has been illuminating. They have gone all-out to stop geoengineering experiments from being conducted, and they are doing everything they can to prevent geoengineering from even being discussed.

You're damn right they're going to try to prevent it from being discussed.  Wouldn't you?  Especially if it meant no more trips to Copenhagen, Kyoto, Durban, Bali or even Newark, New Jersey?  They won't even have the money to go to the Motel 6 in Yazoo City.  Think of the downfall....

Climate change proponents recently mounted a desperate effort to stop an experiment in Britain designed to spray 40 gallons of pure water into the upper atmosphere (the so-called SPICE project). Thus far, they have managed to delay the test, and they are arguing that even if the experiment goes ahead, the results should not be made public.

We've been down this road before, with the "Hide the decline" emails from East Anglia U.  There are certain things that the peasants and serfs shouldn't be allowed to see.  Science gets rather unsettled afterwards. 

The Progressives are well aware that their opposition to geoengineering experiments exposes their entire game, which is all about money, power, and central-planning control of people’s lives, and has nothing to do with concern about the earth. Unfortunately (for them), they have no choice. Geoengineering solutions might actually work, but they do not require that Progressives be given taxpayer money to hold lavish conferences in lovely places like Durban, South Africa.

They really do fly to South Africa to discuss how to reduce carbon emissions.  I don't care who you are, you've gotta admit it.  That's funny. 

Panic! Panic! Send Us Money! (Oh. Wait a minute....)

Panic, panic, panic !  Send us your money !  Repent of your environmental sins!  The end is near!  Confess your planet-warming habits, and bow before the throne of Saint Albert, The Goracle Of Music City, Tennessee !!!!   Purchase carbon credit indulgences from Saint Albert, The One who knows the desires of Gaia the earth-goddess !!!

Recycle your toilet paper !!!
Keep burning oil, but send Washington your money as a sign of atonement !!!
Goddammit, stop moving around on those freakin' machines !  It infuriates your superiors when you can escape their cages !!

Oh.  Wait a minute.....

From London's Daily Mail:

It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.

Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.

Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.

It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators from the BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, The Economist and numerous media outlets in America.

The Washington Post said the BEST study had ‘settled the climate change debate’ and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a ‘cynical fraud’.

Speaking of "cynical frauds", one of the best ways to detect them is to look and see who flies to Durban, South Africa, next month.  Remember the Climate Change conference they had in Copenhagen, the one where there were so many Lear Jets, Gulfstreams, private planes and airliners trying to get into Denmark that they had to park a lot of them elsewhere in Scandinavia? 
If you fly in an airplane, you aren't concerned about human activity contributing to Global Warming.  It really is that simple.

 But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.

Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

However, Prof Muller denied warming was at a standstill.

‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off’.

A graph issued by the BEST project also suggests a continuing steep increase.

You can hit the link at the top to read the rest.  None of it matters.
No matter what Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell say, we aren't big enough to influence the weather, much less the climate.  Yes, we have sinned, but Gaia isn't angry.   
Here are the lyrics to Monty Python's "Galaxy Song". 

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

Oh, and in related news, more than a million people lost power in the Northeast yesterday, October 29th. 
Snowstorms. 
 

Have you taken in a Climate Change refugee family?

I have taken in a climate change refugee family of four.  They were driven out of their home in the Mekong Delta because of the flooding from the melting polar ice caps. 
We are working to place 8 other families, and I hope you can spread this appeal to everyone on your email list. 
In the meantime, please pray for the people in the Southeastern U.S. as they begin abandoning their homes in a quest for higher ground. 

Oh.  Wait a minute.  None of that happened.  False alarm.  Chill out.  Never mind. 

Back in 2005, the U.N.'s Chicken Little Climate Outfit put out an alarm designed to scare the crap out of everybody living less than half a mile above sea level.  We were going to have 50 million climate refugees by 2010. 

Fifty million climate refugees by 2010. Today we find a world of asymmetric development, unsustainable natural resource use, and continued rural and urban poverty. There is general agreement about the current global environmental and development crisis. It is also known that the consequences of these global changes have the most devastating impacts on the poorest, who historically have had limited entitlements and opportunities for growth.

Why the screen shot, instead of a link? Well, the representatives of truth at all costs decided that their predictions were a bit embarrassing and scrubbed the site.  We still have this Inconvenient Truth of a relic thanks to the miracle of Google cache. 
The also tried to delete the delightful map that showed which parts of the world would most likely be under water by now.  With that many climatologists leaning all over each other at the U.N., you'd think that one of them would know that this stuff stays out there on the internet forever....

And in the words of Anthony Watts,

And here it is in full-sized hi-resolution glory, suitable for printing, slides, or coffee mugs…wherever it might be appropriate to show the folly of these boneheads.

You can hit this link and get a larger version. 

I'm emailing this trophy to our graphics department today to have it posterized.  And I'm talking a really huge poster.

This non-crisis is about fund-raising through fear. 

It would've been interesting to live with one of those flooded-out refugee families, though. 

U.N. Climate Change panel travels to Cancun Freakin' Mexico. While the U.K. freezes.

While the U.K. is struggling with its earliest widespread snowfall since 1993, the U.N.'s Climate Alarmist panel is meeting in Cancun, Mexico, to discuss further rationing of goods and services. 
Apparently, they've never heard of using Skype for conference calls. 
Lord have mercy, it looks like everybody is having a good time !!!