Global warming thugs declare the debate is over. 25,000 scientists protest they were never invited to participate

(originally posted June 25, 2008)

In 2006 the IPCC rounded up 2,500 names of scientists and politicians who took science in high school and put them on a document declaring a consensus has been reached. Declaring at the time what was to parroted by the Global Warming cultists since then, that "The Debate is Over". (I mention that the IPCC rounded up names of scientists because they listed the names of dissenting scientists and those whose work is cited in the report as if they supported it. Many of these same scientists were excluded from the IPCC panel because they denounced the theory)

What the IPCC and Global Warming cultists did not expect, certainly not to the extent it occurred was dissent. The early dissenters, who dared to question why unsupported hypotheses were being declared science, not to mention were being treated as undeniable fact, were treated as pariahs. These dissenting scientists who dared question the now disproven "hockey stick chart" were branded as being on the payroll of "Big Oil". Many, simply for acting as scientists and questioning the IPCC and their ever growing cult of followers, lost their reputation, their jobs or had their grants slashed, which is the same thing.

People such as myself, who are not scientists but understand basic science, were branded deniers by the cultists who were unable to prove their theories. Truth be told, with every attempt to prove their theories the shaky basis upon which their conclusions are drawn became more and more obvious.

Then there is the disingenuous and outright sneaky way they mold data into what they want it to say. Take for example the random start date of 1880 for the start date of this global warming period. That date did not come into play because scientists plotted world temperatures into a computer and they saw a resulting graph where temperature started to spike. That date was chosen solely because it was the first full decade where the US began widespread use of fossil fuels as Standard Oil began it's widespread monopoly and 3 decades after the end of the last year of the little ice age.

In order for the famous "hockey stick" to take shape it required enhancing good data and losing unfavorable data. It meant flattening out the extremes of the medieval warm period and the subsequent "little ice age". It also plain out changed the facts of the event. Despite evidence that the MWP had average temperatures greater than present day by at least a half degree Fahrenheit, most IPCC approved charts show it to be cooler. It is known that during the little ice age there were world wide reports of glaciers and year round ice caps were there were none previously. During the little ice age villages that dated back to the time of the Roman empire were obliterated by Alpine glaciers.

The Cult of Global Warming ignores some scientific data, such as box core samples that indicate the temperature during the MWP was more than 1 degree Celsius above the ideal that they established. And they have altered the data to say that at points the average temperature during the LIA was warmer than the actual 2 degrees Celsius below their optimal temperature. Why flatten the highs and lows of actual determined temperature? Because it allowed them to devise the hockey stick graph indicating the improbably steady and fairly predictable climate history until 1880.

As most now know the hockey stick graph was debunked prior to the movie "An Inconvenient Truth", but it is still used by the faithful as though it were relevant fact. The argument the Global Warming cultists use is that the graph may not represent actual data, but it demonstrates graphically the sudden temperature change, even if it is not correct. Witness the Nobel Peace Prize Al Gore and the IPCC won. It was awarded to them for "raising awareness" of global warming. The "science" was debunked and just as quickly discarded, the award was for what they were doing, not for how they did it.

The ends, it seems, do justify the means. Because in no other endeavour would these unsupported hypotheses be accepted as fact without a single piece of proof to support them.
On the positive side people may notice that despite the debate being over the global warming cultists are changing their arguments slightly. Their new tactic is to start using the same terminology that the people who have been fighting with them for the past two years have said. I now hear people say such things as "we can't expect that 6.5 billion people don't have an effect on the planet." This is reasonable and makes sense, but they are trying to detract us from their statement that global warming is the result of carbon dioxide created by human activity. They incorporate "pollution" into their arguments, I have maintained for over a year that the Global Warming scare is detracting from real environmental issues.

It seems from their change of debating tactics and relinquishing of their talking points that they are losing their faith but just can't bring themselves around to admitting they were duped. That is why I refer to it as The Cult of Global Warming, and its followers as Global Warming cultists. In order to believe the Earth is warming because of man's carbon dioxide emissions, due primarily to burning fossil fuels, as is the contention of the IPCC and Al Gore, one has to be willing to believe what they are saying is true. They have to be willing to suspend disbelief of reality and not question basic scientific knowledge. It is this suspension of all scientific principles (verifiable data, repeatable results, peer review) that makes even casual believers in Global Warming members of this world wide cult. And it is a cult in the way it operates.
Oh yes, one more observation. I have noticed that many of the Yahoo Answers and Y360 (and others at other locations throughout the net) global warming cultists are also self proclaimed agnostics and atheists. Could it be that these people are proving that man needs to believe in a higher power, something greater than themselves that requires faith in the unknown? They knock believers for having faith in something that cannot be proven with empirical data, and yet global warming is no different, but they defend it vehemently.

If you believe that global warming is caused by man increasing carbon dioxide and don't wish to be called a cult member simply provide scientific proof of that hypothesis. But don't go changing the debate, the IPCC and Al Gore have ONE argument, man's carbon dioxide emission are the reason "Earth has a temperature."

Declaration of Energy Independence

Each of the following items need to be addressed like the NASA program was. Set a goal and make it happen, no excuses, failure is not an option.



Item 1: Do the science. Establish goals and timelines. Do it.

While Energy independence affects many aspects of the economy, mostly the economy, it has to be the most important facet of a comprehensive policy. The first step is to determine, no propaganda allowed, how much energy is being consumed, how it is being consumed and where that energy comes from. Once we determine how much energy is imported we set a goal to reduce it over 10 years to a much smaller number, say 20%.


But unlike global warming and most environmental science cut the BS propaganda non-science, otherwise it will remain politics as usual.



Item 2: Reducing Electrical Grid’s Dependence on Fossil Fuels


One of the major users of fossil fuels, and a major determining factor in the economy is the electrical grid. The most economical fuel for plants is coal, the problem is getting the coal to the plants and scrubbing the emissions for pollutants adds to the cost of it. The most economical and cleanest electrical source is nuclear power. Nuclear technology is cheaper, safer and more reliable than any other energy source. Newer pebble bed technology does not require the massive amounts of cooling water and doesn't run the risk of having an uncontrollable reaction. It can also be set in the footprint of most coal and gas fired plants so the existing infrastructure can be used. They are also more flexible allowing for right sizing of the reactor to meet local needs instead of relying on a "bigger is better" mentality.


However, if you have plenty of water and the infrastructure is nearby, build a pair or trio of 1000 MW behemoth light water reactors. At night when the power demand is less keep the nuclear reactors at 100% and draw down coal and gas plants.


Still have excess power capacity? Use the surplus electricity to provide energy for a hydrogen gas plant. Run the hydrogen plant at night when the demand for electricity is lower and instead of slowing down the nuclear reactors that only waste fuel when not at or above 100% capacity.




Item 3: Alternate Energy Sources (Wind, Tidal and Solar)

Allowing that with any power source they will always be the NIMBY contingency. These alternate technologies can help reduce strain on the grid, or may help power remote areas but since they rely on sun, wind, or waves, they will most likely never equal their potential, perhaps 10% of demand.

But these sources are only truly effective when their energy can be stored, not impossible but very expensive and storage systems (batteries) are expensive and ecological nightmares.

Item 4: What do we do with all this extra coal?

Gasification or liquification of coal to fuel. Want to see crude prices drop? All the US has to do is announce they are going to start building 10 new coal cracking plants a year for the next 5 years. Really want to see OPEC's turbans get twisted? Also announce the construction of shale recovery facilities, 5 a year for 5 years.



Item 5: Ethanol


Great stuff for human consumption, really poor choice for an auto fuel. In order to make ethanol you have to take food, use water to make it into a mash, then you distill it by burning fossil fuels to get the ethanol. There is a marginally positive energy return in ethanol. At first it took more energy to make than it released as a fuel, but that has reversed and now it releases marginally more energy than it takes to make it. But the ratio is so close it can flip-flop solely because the cost of grain escalates due to further demand and the cost of the fuel used to get it to market.


The ethanol from corn debacle has totally screwed up the economy, and due to the US's position of "breadbasket of the world" 25% of the food and feed grain we grow we export, often to countries unable to pay the inflated cost of grain. This leads to food riots and starvation and the US will get caught in a humanitarian aid quagmire. It is cheaper and better for all involved to not inflate the cost of food by using it as an inefficient fuel.



Now ethanol from sugar is another matter entirely. Although it is also only marginally energy positive, it is much cheaper, much easier to grow, grows in abundance and can be grown (despite popular opinion) in much of the US. Sugar quotas are frequently lowered from planting to harvest, to keep prices at an artificial price. It requires moderate water so from Florida to east Texas and as far north as Tennessee is prime growing location, although with irrigation the southwest would work as well.


Ethanol can also be made from other wild grasses and other bio-mass.



Item 6: Bio-diesel

Easier to replace than gasoline with ethanol is petro-diesel with bio-diesel. The diesel engine was designed to be run on a vegetable oil based fuel. My suggestions are soy and peanuts as the main crops to be converted to bio-diesel as it would have negligible impact on the food chain.

There are a lot of empty or under utilized tobacco fields that could grow soy, canola or peanuts to be converted into fuel. A fatal mistake the corn to ethanol crowd made was by using food and feed stock crops for conversion to ethanol. They should have studied what crops can be grown on presently open land, or where farmers are paid not to grow and use that corn exclusively. Now all farmers are converting to corn, which is increasing grain prices across the board, and as new ethanol plants come up there is no corresponding drop in the price of corn because there is no surplus.



Item 7: Drill off shore, drill domestically, search new sources of fuel


So what can we do to reduce the price of oil now? Drill off shore, drill in ANWR, start processing coal into fuel, begin refining shale, build NPPs, design a smart bio-fuel program that doesn’t involve burning fuel to turn food into fuel. Set a timeline and announce the goals for energy independence.



Item 8: De-politicized energy program

Another key component to energy independence is to deregulate energy. Make it a free competitive market. Let the market determine which power sources the market will bear. Attempting to force people into a certain type of energy developed by a certain source may sound nice, but may not be economically feasible.



Item 9: Convert fleets, buses and taxis, to CNG/LNG

There is already an infrastructure set up natural gas, but not for retail. As nukes replace gas fired plants and as off shore drilling taps more natural gas it will become feasible to have large stations and depots for CNG vehicles. Until then it is fairly simple to fuel vehicle fleets.
As hydrogen becomes viable (see Item 2) use that for trains. Just like in the 1800’s right behind the locomotive was the coal car. Now a hydrogen fuel tanker, or series of tankers, would be behind the locomotives. Hydrogen could also become a motor vehicle fuel I’m not a proponent of it due to its volatility. But hydrogen’s best use could come from ethanol plants where the nuclear power plant generates the hydrogen during off peak hours. The ethanol plant burns the hydrogen instead of fossil fuel in the distilling process. The VOCs from the alcohol are recaptured and incinerated yielding a gain in BTUs.

Item 10: Hybrid and Flexfuel vehicles

Hybrids are good at reducing short term energy usage but limited in that many people cannot afford them, the manufacturers cannot produce them fast enough. Flex fuel vehicles rely on turning food into fuel. Until the ag-lobbies release their ownership of Washington and ethanol is made from sugar or non-edible plants the flex fuels are a hindrence to energy independence.

Biodiesel, can stretch and even replace diesel from crude oil. Ford and Volkswagen have ultra-efficient diesel engines that get gas milage that exceed hybrid vehicles. The down side is that Americans have a mental block against deisels. Somehow they equate deisel with smoke belching OTR trucks and 1970 era Mercedes diesels. The technology of producing the fuel, like the technology of producing the engines have evolved dramatically since then.

What else can be done now? Stop allowing every state to make up its own gas formula for pollution. Have a coastal non-attainment blend, an inland attainment and non-attainment blend, and a high altitude blend. The mix and match demand caused by various blends is part of the reason there have been supply shortages in the past, and with the aging refining infrastructure can be a serious supply problem.

Stupid is as stupid does

(originally posted June 23, 2008)


Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol

Senator Barack Obama last July in Adel, Iowa. His strong support of ethanol helped propel him to his first caucus victory there.
By LARRY ROHTER
Published: June 23, 2008
When VeraSun Energy inaugurated a new ethanol processing plant last summer in Charles City, Iowa, some of that industry’s most prominent boosters showed up. Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, for instance, came to help cut the ribbon — and so did Senator Barack Obama.
Then running far behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in name recognition and in the polls, Mr. Obama was in the midst of a campaign swing through the state where he would eventually register his first caucus victory. And as befits a senator from Illinois, the country’s second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel.
Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.
(story continued)

Ethanol is one of those issues that people get drawn to, like moths to a flame, without reason or logic. They buy ethanol as a "green" and "renewable" source of energy that will lead to less carbon emissions and energy independence. That ethanol is a "clean" fuel is a canard, as witnessed by the EPA's raising the limits of air pollutants from ethanol plants from 100 tons per year (in attainment areas) to 250 tons per year. Meaning that they increased by 250% the amount of suspended particulates, VOCs, NOX and other pollutants that contribute to haze, smog and are respiratory irritants in parts of the country where there is little air pollution. The change in the law also states that the ethanol plant can maintain it's permission to exceed limits even if the area gets listed as non-attainment in the future. So even if the ethanol plants pollute the air around them the EPA cannot make them control their emissions as long as they maintain the permit.

But forgetting about the air pollution that the ethanol is supposed to save us, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that burning a fossil fuel (usually natural gas) to convert food into a less efficient fuel makes no sense. The US cannot afford to convert it's main food staple into fuel. And the countries that purchase US corn cannot afford it either. Corn prices effect meat, poultry and dairy prices as well, many of the same countries dependent on US corn are dependent on meat, poultry and dairy as well, or they use US feed corn stocks for those purposes.

These knee jerk policies, which will only be exacerbated by the recent flooding in the mid-West, are based on hopes and dreams and promises of a clean, green (and recently the debate has changed to include an energy independent) future, but are scientifically and economically unsound.

At first people pushed for corn ethanol as a clean, renewable fuel. Then it was hailed a a solution for energy independence. But the only thing it has resulted in is paying almost $5.00 for both a gallon of milk and a gallon of gasoline.

My new slogan: Corn is food, not fuel.

AFP posts pictures from embedded journalist

(originally posted June 10, 2008)

Agence France-Presse published a photo journal from an embedded journalist, Mohammed Abed.

However, true to form, Abed was embedded with Hamas terrorists who were targeting Israel with rockets.

http://www.daylife.com/search/photos/all/1?q=Palestinian+militants+take+position+June+10

Satellites Illuminate Pollution's Influence On Clouds

(originally posted June 6, 2008)

Those who have followed my various blogs for the last year and a half know that I often level charges that the Global Warming cultists have hijacked the environmental movement. While environmentlism is often associated with the left, those are the far left extremists, proper stewardship of our resources is also a conservative principle.

I often counter the arguements of the Cult of Global Warming by saying that it is unabated pollution that is causing the extreme temperature fluctuations and melting ice caps in Europe, glaciers in Greenland and contgributing to droughts. The last decade or so of growth in Asia has led to horrible pollution that is shortening the lives of their people, causing serious harm to their water and land resources, and is effecting the rest of the world.

Average global temperatures have been decreasing since 1997 as these countries have been pouring more and more unchecked emissions from their coal burning plants into the sky. This artilce from NASA, as published in Science News explains the phenomenon of how pollution is contributing to the changing weather and precipitation patterns.

Satellites Illuminate Pollution's Influence On Clouds

ScienceDaily (May 28, 2008) — Clouds have typically posed a problem to scientists using satellites to observe the lowest part of the atmosphere, where humans live and breathe, because they block the satellite's ability to capture a clear, unobstructed view of Earth's surface. It turns out, however, that these "obstructions" are worth a closer look, as clouds and their characteristics actually serve a valuable role in Earth's climate. That closer look is now available by satellites comprising the Afternoon Constellation, or A-Train.

"The A-Train is providing a new way to examine cloud types," said Mark Schoeberl, A-Train project scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

Using data from instruments in a constellation of NASA satellites, scientists have discovered that they can see deep inside of clouds. The satellites are taking first-of-a-kind measurements, shedding new light on the link between clouds, pollution and rainfall.

Jonathan Jiang of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and colleagues used these A-Train sensors to find that South American clouds infused with airborne pollution – classified as "polluted clouds" – tend to produce less rain than their "clean" counterparts during the region's dry season. Details of the findings will be presented May 27 at the American Geophysical Union's 2008 Joint Assembly in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Discovery of the link between rain and pollution was possible due to near-simultaneous measurements from multiple satellites making up the string of satellites in the Afternoon Constellation, more commonly called the A-Train. "Typically, it is very hard to get a sense of how important the effect of pollution on clouds is," said Anne Douglass, deputy project scientist at Goddard for NASA’s Aura satellite. "With the A-Train, we can see the clouds every day and we're getting confirmation on a global scale that we have an issue here."

Jiang's team used the Microwave Limb Sounder on the A-Train's Aura satellite to measure the level of carbon monoxide in clouds. The presence of carbon monoxide implies the presence of smoke and other aerosols, which usually come from the same emission source, such a power plant or agricultural fire.

With the ability to distinguish between polluted and clean clouds, the team next used Aqua's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer to study how ice particle sizes change when aerosol pollution is present in the clouds. The team also used NASA's Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission satellite to measure the amount of precipitation falling from the polluted and clean clouds. All three measurements together show the relationship between pollution, clouds and precipitation.

The team found that polluted clouds suppressed rainfall during the June-to-October dry season in South America, which is also a period of increased agricultural burning. During that period it was more difficult for the measurably smaller ice particles in aerosol polluted clouds to grow large enough to fall as rain.

This trend turned up seasonal and regional differences, however, and aerosol pollution was found, on average, to be less of a factor during the wet monsoon seasons in South America and in South Asia. Other physical effects, such as large-scale dynamics and rainy conditions that clear the air of aerosol particles, might also be at play, the researchers suggest.

The story doesn't need embellishing

(originally posted June 5, 2008)

How Obama Did It

How did he do it? How did Obama become the first Democratic insurgent in a generation or more to knock off the party's Establishment front runner?

This sentence above is part of the teaser Yahoo used to to get people to read the article, it is about 1/2 through it. They have lots of meaningless trivia and fill the story with lots of platitudes in order to make it a full length article.
This story is also engaging in the rewriting of history. In the last 26 years the Democrats have almost exclusively had candidates that knocked off the party's Establishment front runner.

1972: George McGovern (his nomination gave birth to the super-delegate system)

1976: Jimmy Carter

1984: Walter Mondale (in fairness there was no real favorite, it was a given loss)

1988: Mike Dukakis

1992: William Jefferson Clinton

and if you want to skip back you can include John F Kennedy in 1960.

None of these men were the party favorites prior to the primaries.

The AP hacks who wrote the story are just fawning over Obama needlessly and trying to look for reasons to do so. There is nothing spectacular about the Democrat candidate being the underdog prior to the election.

Intellectual Pogroms

(originally posted June 4, 2008)

Today, the Universities and Colleges Union is discussing whether universities should single out Israeli and Jewish scholars for active discrimination.

Yes, you read that correctly. The UCU is debating a motion which not only raises the spectre yet again of an academic boycott of Israel but demands of Jewish and Israeli academics that they explain their politics as a pre-condition to normal academic contact. The motion asks colleagues
to consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institutions, and to discuss the occupation with individuals and institutions concerned, including Israeli colleagues with whom they are collaborating... the testimonies will be used to promote a wide discussion by colleagues of the appropriateness of continued educational links with Israeli academic institutions... Ariel College, an explicitly colonising institution in the West Bank, be investigated under the formal Greylisting Procedure.

The implication is that, if they don’t condemn Israel for the ‘occupation’, or practising ‘apartheid’, ‘genocide’ or any of the other manufactured crimes laid at Israel’s door by the Palestinian/Islamist/neonazi/leftwing axis, they won’t be able to work. Their continued employment will depend on their holding views which are permitted. The views they are being bludgeoned into expressing as a condition of their employment are based on lies, distortion, propaganda, gross historical ignorance, blood libels and prejudice. And this in the universities, supposedly the custodians of free thought and inquiry in the service of dispassionate scholarship.
(continued)

Surprisingly this is not Saudi Arabia but the UK where the University and Colleges Union is suggesting a purge and screening to prevent current and future Professors from teaching without first denouncing Israel.

I wonder if any of these asshats remember that in 1948 it was Great Britain that coughed up one of its protectorates, refered to as The British Mandate for Palestine, to the UN as a homeland for the Jews since it was their ancestoral homeland (as established by the League of Nations post WW1). Sounds like more leftard historical revision.

So that is why they are such assholes!

(originally posted June 4, 2008)

So that's why they are such assholes!

France was the economic juggernaut of Europe (read the world) during the time preceding King Louis XIV. Until around 1800 France was the most populous country in all of Europe, they were accustomed to a lifestyle filled with what at the time were considered luxuries. This meant France, who had a dearth of natural resources, was forced to import much of the raw materials. In pre-colonial era that meant importing a lot. Since France also maintained much of Europe’s largest banking institutions they were aware of the toll their deficit spending was taking on their economy. So the King’s economic advisor ordered that the economy would be a national priority, industry would be developed to free France of the burden of imports and make the economic leader of the world. This decree established an economic policy that would span 300 years, one that continues to drive France’s foreign and domestic policies today.

Due to a lack of natural resources this led France to begin expanding by colonizing much of Africa. 125 years later, 40 years after the last of the colonies were “freed”; France continues to pillage African natural resources. Supporting the faction that promises them the most spoils for their effort. The French Foreign Legion is alive and well and supporting “freedom fighters” or fighting “rebels” depending on the value of that government’s trade agreement.

Other modern events have pitted France against the US solely based upon money. France opposed the Iraq war because they had agreements for TOTAL, the state run oil company, to expand and modernize some of Iraq’s oil production facilities. In the meantime they were happy to be one of the largest purchaser of legal Iraqi oil through the Food-For-Oil program, a/k/a the Koffi Annan retirement fund, while at the same time purchasing illegal embargoed oil through Syria.

Since the 1960’s France has engaged in state supported industrial espionage. The DGSE, France’s secret service, has a department called Service Seven, which is their industrial espionage branch. France claims to be laissez faire when it comes to business but they are most definitely not. The information collected by the DGSE is shared not only among the fully or partially state owned corporations but also with other key privately owned industries.

France, of course, was the driving force behind the European Economic Union. The reasons behind it, trade between member states, traveling though Europe without visas and border stops, common currency, and others based around the premise it was designed to create increased trade. The truth is the EU was formed behind France and Germany to create an “economy” that surpassed the US. France, a country slightly smaller than Texas, has an obsession with being superior to the US and having a larger economy. So against the common good of the Union they allowed the last group of impoverished eastern European countries to join, although (besides Poland) they have nothing to offer the rest of the EU. Except of course the population needed to surpass the US and the GDPs that when added to the rest of the EU surpass the US. (Added benefit: they are so poor and have such high unemployment rates it takes the heat off France where the average income is shrinking due to resorting to 35 hour work weeks in order to create jobs to obscure the 10.5% unemployment rate.

“Why,” I can hear you asking yourselves, “do you hate France so much?”

I don’t hate France. As a matter of fact, once you understand that every decision made by France has to do with their economy it puts their irrational jealousy of the US and 125 years of atrocities in Africa into perspective.

Take for example the 2003 heat wave. 15,000 deaths were officially attached to the heat wave (another 10,000 deaths were termed “incidental” and not related). Some people would be outraged that 25,000 people perished, almost exclusively the elderly, with many of those deaths occurring in hospitals and nursing homes. But think about it, that is 25,000 fewer pensions the cash-strapped government has to pay, and 25,000 of those most likely to need public medicine around to use it. When you look at it in those terms the loss of a mere one-tenth of a percent of the population resulted in an economic windfall, with the added bonus that since most of the deaths were pensioners who weren’t earning wages the average income of the country went up with each death.

Viva le France!

If Global Warming is really that bad why use the subterfuge

(originally posted June 02, 2008)

Awoke today to see this article on Yahoo...

Senate to take up climate bill

The article is typical for AP, a vacuous piece that says a lot but does little to inform people. Instead it sets up an us vs. them with the Democrats and Republicans. But what caught my eye was the picture AP chose to link to, a file photo which when clicked on displays this caption:

In this July 10, 2007 file photos, the coal-fired Plant Schereris in operation at Juliette, Ga. Plant Scherer has for several years been the nation's single largest source of carbon dioxide, which most scientists believe contributes to global warming. The economic cost of confronting global warming - from higher electricity bills to more expensive gasoline - is driving the debate as climate change takes center stage in Congress. The Senate begins considering legislation Monday that for the first time would mandate a reduction in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from power plants, refineries, factories and transportation, in hopes of cutting heat-trapping pollution by two-thirds by mid-century.

Now the reason the photo caught my eye was the picture of the plant "in operation" show two giant smoke stacks in the background with no visible emissions. Instead the picture is focused on the four cooling towers which are spewing out water vapor.

Once again, when trying to convince people that A) global warming exists, and B) how horrible it is the global warming cultists have to use subterfuge to get their point across. Why don't they just use scientific fact instead of transparently false propaganda?

It's a swing and a miss

(originally posted June 1, 2008)

AP IMPACT: Hurricane season outlooks of little use

In another AP hit job on Professor William Gray the AP questions the importance of long range hurricane forecasts, and for proof of their assertion they interviewed OEM's along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, all of them who unilaterally agreed that long term hurricane forecasts are of little use... to them.

But there is a large global community that relies heavily on these forecasts. That is the group Congressional Democrats and other ill informed persons like to refer to as "Big Oil." Trans-Atlantic shipping, cross-Gulf shipping, off-shore oil and gas rigs, and a good portion of refineries are all potentially affected by hurricanes. So predictions of high hurricanes traditionally impact crude future prices.

Accurrate long range prediction data, not influenced by the Cult of Global Warming is essential, unless you like paying more for gas.

(Some may note the passive-agressive reporting that AP and the New York Times is adopting. On the surface it appears as though they are fair, but in reading the article does it becomes obvious that after calling Gray a wizard they try to punch holes in his work that these hack reporters have no concept of so they cannot fairly critique or for that matter report on.)