Car Commercial Spoof
PussyMagnet 6009 - A Car Commercial by Mato Atom - "Air" (on a G-string) by Johann S. Bach Shot in Nevada
The Difference Between A Terrorist And A Freedom Fighter ~by Dhruva Aliman
I have often heard the utterly obtuse slogan- "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
This is so dumb it's breathtaking.
A true freedom fighter seeks to MINIMIZE civilian casualties. A terrorist seeks to MAXIMIZE civilian casualties. Also, Terrorists are defined by using aggression to get an oppressive political outcome. Freedom fighters use self defense to stop aggression and/or achieve a non-oppressive political outcome.
That is how you tell the difference between them, anytime, anywhere.
However, I've heard a statement that is even dumber than the above which is- "All war is terrorism." If that were true, then there would be no such thing as Self Defense. Both freedom fighters and terrorists use bombs and guns. With the exception of who they are targeting, their methods and tactics are the same. What is different about them is their INTENT. Intent defines a freedom fighter as well as defines a terrorist.
Also, an attack should never be defined as terrorism unless it includes unarmed civilians as the target. If a Jihadist attacks American soldiers without intending to kill unarmed civilians, that is NOT a terrorist attack. When the U.S. uses drones to kill Jihadists in the wilderness of Pakistan, do we in the U.S. call ourselves terrorists, even if we accidentally kill civilians in the process? Of course not, and therefore there should not be any double standard when a Jihadist targets our soldiers in any way, shape or form. We are at war, and the enemy is doing exactly what we would do. When Nazis killed our soldiers, we called them the enemy, Germans, whatever, but we did not call them terrorists. It may be true that all Jihadists are terrorists if they all would like to attack unarmed civilians. But we should not define a person as a terrorist unless that person intends to attack unarmed civilians or actually did.
Violence against civilians is such a demented act it deserves a category purely its own, and the category is called "Terrorism". Military attacks should never be confused or equated with Terrorism.
If a Jihadist attacks unarmed civilians he is a terrorist. If he attacks just our soldiers alone (no matter if they are off duty), he is just a Jihadist enemy.
Some far left nut job might say Hamas is fighting to free the Palestinians and get their land back. Forget about land rights for a moment. Lets say Hamas succeeds. They would then establish their form of Sharia law. Would the Palestinians have civil rights? Would they have free elections? Would they have freedom of speech? Would they have freedom of assembly? Hell no. Forget about European Jews. What about the millions of Middle Eastern Jews that have roots in that land thousands of years before Islam existed? Would they be free? Definitely not, because Hamas members are not freedom fighters. They are not interested in freedom.
Now, our hypothetical far left nut might say its okay that the Palestinians are not free because that's their culture, their religion, that's how they like it, and who are we to judge them (this is the point where I have to refrain from strangling the nut job). The nut job is implying that it is the population's choice to be under the heel of the latest strongmen that rule that area, because they are of the same religion and culture. Moreover, the fact that this has been going on for so long somehow makes it right or even a sacred way of existence that westerners would be criminal to interfere with it.
Former Palestinian terrorist Wallid Shoebat (who is now pro-Israel) said it best-
"Can I go to Ramallah, stand on a street corner, and have a pamphlet saying suicide bombing is wrong? I will be executed within seconds."
The only reason the Palestinians are not free is because of their terrorist leaders.
The only reason there are Israeli checkpoints and walls is because of violent Arabs.
There are many Palestinian Arabs that are citizens of Israel with representation in the Parliament that live far better in Israel than they would anywhere in the Muslim world. Why? Because they aren't attacking Israel.
Former Israeli Prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu said-
"When Arabs put down the weapons, there will be no more war.
When Israel puts down the weapons, there will be no more Israel."
The common Arab's problem is not with Israelis or the west. Their problem is that they are not allowed by their rulers to think for themselves, research their own information and come to their own conclusions on what is fair or right. Should they dare think outside the paradigm that their clerics and strongmen have established for them, they face prison or death. Just like a thought contagion spread across Nazi Germany, the Arabs have their own thought contagion drilled into them since birth.
Throughout history, Arabs never had a choice who their leaders would be, except once, when Bush ousted Saddam and liberated millions of Iraqi Arabs. The Islamic death cult, like the Jim Jones cult or Heaven's Gate cult here in America, or like Nazism, cannot exist without heavy indoctrination. The real humanitarian crisis is the programming of Arabs who are so afraid to resist it that it becomes the only reality they know and must except, in order to survive their ruler's wrath. This is true terrorism. Not to mention the fact that young men and women are segregated, and in many areas they cannot drink alcohol. Can you think of a better recipe to create terrorists than that?
Former Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Meir said “We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”
There are some people that actually believe that the Palestinians have no other option but to teach their children to become suicide bombers. The British occupied India. Did Gandhi use suicide bombers? Before Palestinian terrorists started strapping bombs onto kids, did they ever once try Gandhi's method? No, because they are terrorists. If the Jews were faced with choice of turning their kids into suicide bombers or leaving the Middle East, the Jews would leave in a heartbeat. This is the difference of intent and psychology between Israelis and Palestinians. A free culture versus an imprisoned culture.
A majority of Palestinians have been imported to the West bank from other Arab countries over the past 60 years and have built twice as many settlements as the Jews. Would the Palestinian Authority agree to stop importing Arabs if the Jews stopped their settlements on the West Bank? Of course not. In fact, the settlements provide work for Palestinians, and Arabs come to Palestine because they can make a better living there than in other Arab countries. The Jews are not trying to rid the West Bank of Arabs. Yet, Arab leaders have been trying to rid the entire area of Jews since the 1800's when the Turks invited European Jews to live there.
The world standard for defining what entity is or is not terroristic should be based not on how much violence an entity uses, but by the entity's intent and rationale for using violence. Self Defense or Aggression. For example: Some say Israel's 2006 retaliation against Hezbollah was disproportionate and therefore terroristic. But almost every war throughout history has been won because one side applied greater force against the other and forced a submission. In World War II, the Allies used a greater force against the Nazis and Japan, and won the war. Does that make the Allies ethically equivalent or morally inferior to the Nazis or imperialist Japan? If 10 guys attack your house and kill one of your family, but in the battle you kill 6 of them, are you an unethical person because you killed 5 more of them than they killed on your side? According to the Muslim world and far left nut jobs, YES, when it comes to Israelis defending themselves against terrorists who almost always hide behind human shields.
Hezbollah's Charter unequivocally states it's purpose is to dominate the Middle East region and beyond, which means the destruction of the state of Israel and absorption of it's territory. This is aggression, and actions based on this intent and rationale clearly qualify as terrorism. Conversely, Israel has no such stated purpose towards it neighbors. Israel uses violence to protect itself from it's hostile neighbors when threatened and attacked. This is pure self defense. The goal of self defense is to preserve not subjugate. Self defense does not qualify as terrorism as defined in any dictionary. When defining who is terroristic or not, how much force is used to preserve or defend is irrelevant, and how much force is used to dominate or terrorize irrelevant. Force is either used for self defense or aggression, depending on intent. Intent is the root of all ethical or unethical actions. Intent defines the issue, not the amount of force. The ethical fighter always tries to avoid excessive force. The unethical fighter does not.
The Oxford dictionary defines a terrorist as the following: A person who uses or favors violent or intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.
The problem with that is one could say that about George Bush and America's war against the Taliban. Which would hardly be fair since it seems to be a clear cut case of self defense in our best understanding of the concept of self defense. People that argue, "all war is terrorism" will say: What was Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What was the bombing of Berlin in WW2? To terrify the Germans no doubt. So what is terrorism, what is self defense, and is there such a thing as a noble, ethical, violent act? Yes.
A clear definition of terrorism is as follows: Self defense is when one is in threat of death, injury or loss of liberty and has no other options but to use force to spare oneself. Terrorism is when one is not in mortal peril, threat of injury or loss of liberty, and/or has options to rectify one's problem without force but uses force anyway. This one uses force as a method to resolve their issue or uses force to achieve an objective not as self defense. Very simply put, Terrorism is any violent or intimidating act that is not Self Defense. Example: Palestinians are not in mortal peril, threat of injury or loss of liberty when they decide to send suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians. Palestinians will not die if they don't send their suicide bombers. Palestinians also have other options to resolve their problems. Moreover, their liberty is in the hands of their leaders, not the Israelis.
However, it is certainly true that Israelis will die if terrorists are not dispatched with force. Israelis are in constant mortal peril, and force has been the only deterrence, not only of Palestinian aggression, but the only thing that has kept the entire Arab world from pushing the Jews into the sea. One might argue that the Israelis do have an option. That is to remove the settlements and and return to the 67 borders. This would stop the Arab violence. However, everyone knows that terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah have declared openly and often that their goal is the total destruction of the state of Israel. So even if Israel were to fall back to the 67 borders, Israelis would still be targets of Arab violence. Since the Israeli pull out of Gaza, they have received unrelenting rocket attacks from the area they pulled out of.
Also, people seem to forget three other important things.
1. Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbors before, and in 1967. Therefore Israel has put settlements up in the West Bank to minimize the strangulation of itself by attackers. A non-violent self defense measure. Without the settlements, the middle of Israel is only 9 miles wide from the sea to the West Bank. They could be cut in half by an invading Arab force. Settlements are a non-violent way to create a buffer zone between her and her enemies. As well as a way to create room for the hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern Jews that were expunged from Muslim territories over the years along with European immigrants.
2. Arafat founded the Palestine liberation organization in 1964. This is before Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories in 1967. So what did Arafat want to liberate? All of Israel.
3. Before 1967, the Palestinian territories were under Arab control so why didn't the Arabs give the Palestinians their statehood? Because the Palestinians are used as pawns to destroy Israel.
These actions of the Arabs or lack thereof, demonstrate an attitude of aggression toward Israel. Yet Israel has negotiated throughout all of this, and it was Israel herself, who was first to suggest the Palestinians have a state of their own (not the Arabs) and initiated talks at Oslo. Still, the all the talks could not stop the Arabs including Arafat from conducting violence against Israel, even though the Palestinians would not be in mortal peril if they didn't attack Israelis. Of course, they always put themselves in mortal peril when they do attack Israel.
So what was Hiroshima? Was that terrorism or self defense?
Well in 1945, tens of thousands of American troops where poised to storm the beaches of Japanese controlled areas in order to end the war. America knew that tens of thousands of her troops could lose their lives, and many had already died since Japan started the war in the first place.
However, America got the bomb, and now didn't have to lose thousands more on top of the ones she already lost. America had to fight, or be attacked again. So the bomb would be a self defense measure. Although, did she have to use the bomb twice, and on highly populated civilian targets where the loss of life might be disproportionate to the potential American loss? At that time Japan was starting to put jets into production that could have wiped out the U.S. Air Force. They had already killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese with weaponized plague, and had a nuclear dirty bomb program. The Japanese were actively planning to strike western U.S. cities. The U.S. was compelled to strike decisively. If the U.S. had not, more people may have died than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One might argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki may be a case where self defense and terrorism overlap. However, the outcome is the desired outcome of a freedom fighter, a free Japan for over 60 years and counting. The goal was to stop a war, not to indefinitely control or completely destroy Japan. That, of course, would be the intent of a terrorist.
-Dhruva Aliman
This is so dumb it's breathtaking.
A true freedom fighter seeks to MINIMIZE civilian casualties. A terrorist seeks to MAXIMIZE civilian casualties. Also, Terrorists are defined by using aggression to get an oppressive political outcome. Freedom fighters use self defense to stop aggression and/or achieve a non-oppressive political outcome.
That is how you tell the difference between them, anytime, anywhere.
However, I've heard a statement that is even dumber than the above which is- "All war is terrorism." If that were true, then there would be no such thing as Self Defense. Both freedom fighters and terrorists use bombs and guns. With the exception of who they are targeting, their methods and tactics are the same. What is different about them is their INTENT. Intent defines a freedom fighter as well as defines a terrorist.
Also, an attack should never be defined as terrorism unless it includes unarmed civilians as the target. If a Jihadist attacks American soldiers without intending to kill unarmed civilians, that is NOT a terrorist attack. When the U.S. uses drones to kill Jihadists in the wilderness of Pakistan, do we in the U.S. call ourselves terrorists, even if we accidentally kill civilians in the process? Of course not, and therefore there should not be any double standard when a Jihadist targets our soldiers in any way, shape or form. We are at war, and the enemy is doing exactly what we would do. When Nazis killed our soldiers, we called them the enemy, Germans, whatever, but we did not call them terrorists. It may be true that all Jihadists are terrorists if they all would like to attack unarmed civilians. But we should not define a person as a terrorist unless that person intends to attack unarmed civilians or actually did.
Violence against civilians is such a demented act it deserves a category purely its own, and the category is called "Terrorism". Military attacks should never be confused or equated with Terrorism.
If a Jihadist attacks unarmed civilians he is a terrorist. If he attacks just our soldiers alone (no matter if they are off duty), he is just a Jihadist enemy.
Some far left nut job might say Hamas is fighting to free the Palestinians and get their land back. Forget about land rights for a moment. Lets say Hamas succeeds. They would then establish their form of Sharia law. Would the Palestinians have civil rights? Would they have free elections? Would they have freedom of speech? Would they have freedom of assembly? Hell no. Forget about European Jews. What about the millions of Middle Eastern Jews that have roots in that land thousands of years before Islam existed? Would they be free? Definitely not, because Hamas members are not freedom fighters. They are not interested in freedom.
Now, our hypothetical far left nut might say its okay that the Palestinians are not free because that's their culture, their religion, that's how they like it, and who are we to judge them (this is the point where I have to refrain from strangling the nut job). The nut job is implying that it is the population's choice to be under the heel of the latest strongmen that rule that area, because they are of the same religion and culture. Moreover, the fact that this has been going on for so long somehow makes it right or even a sacred way of existence that westerners would be criminal to interfere with it.
Former Palestinian terrorist Wallid Shoebat (who is now pro-Israel) said it best-
"Can I go to Ramallah, stand on a street corner, and have a pamphlet saying suicide bombing is wrong? I will be executed within seconds."
The only reason the Palestinians are not free is because of their terrorist leaders.
The only reason there are Israeli checkpoints and walls is because of violent Arabs.
There are many Palestinian Arabs that are citizens of Israel with representation in the Parliament that live far better in Israel than they would anywhere in the Muslim world. Why? Because they aren't attacking Israel.
Former Israeli Prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu said-
"When Arabs put down the weapons, there will be no more war.
When Israel puts down the weapons, there will be no more Israel."
The common Arab's problem is not with Israelis or the west. Their problem is that they are not allowed by their rulers to think for themselves, research their own information and come to their own conclusions on what is fair or right. Should they dare think outside the paradigm that their clerics and strongmen have established for them, they face prison or death. Just like a thought contagion spread across Nazi Germany, the Arabs have their own thought contagion drilled into them since birth.
Throughout history, Arabs never had a choice who their leaders would be, except once, when Bush ousted Saddam and liberated millions of Iraqi Arabs. The Islamic death cult, like the Jim Jones cult or Heaven's Gate cult here in America, or like Nazism, cannot exist without heavy indoctrination. The real humanitarian crisis is the programming of Arabs who are so afraid to resist it that it becomes the only reality they know and must except, in order to survive their ruler's wrath. This is true terrorism. Not to mention the fact that young men and women are segregated, and in many areas they cannot drink alcohol. Can you think of a better recipe to create terrorists than that?
Former Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Meir said “We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”
There are some people that actually believe that the Palestinians have no other option but to teach their children to become suicide bombers. The British occupied India. Did Gandhi use suicide bombers? Before Palestinian terrorists started strapping bombs onto kids, did they ever once try Gandhi's method? No, because they are terrorists. If the Jews were faced with choice of turning their kids into suicide bombers or leaving the Middle East, the Jews would leave in a heartbeat. This is the difference of intent and psychology between Israelis and Palestinians. A free culture versus an imprisoned culture.
A majority of Palestinians have been imported to the West bank from other Arab countries over the past 60 years and have built twice as many settlements as the Jews. Would the Palestinian Authority agree to stop importing Arabs if the Jews stopped their settlements on the West Bank? Of course not. In fact, the settlements provide work for Palestinians, and Arabs come to Palestine because they can make a better living there than in other Arab countries. The Jews are not trying to rid the West Bank of Arabs. Yet, Arab leaders have been trying to rid the entire area of Jews since the 1800's when the Turks invited European Jews to live there.
The world standard for defining what entity is or is not terroristic should be based not on how much violence an entity uses, but by the entity's intent and rationale for using violence. Self Defense or Aggression. For example: Some say Israel's 2006 retaliation against Hezbollah was disproportionate and therefore terroristic. But almost every war throughout history has been won because one side applied greater force against the other and forced a submission. In World War II, the Allies used a greater force against the Nazis and Japan, and won the war. Does that make the Allies ethically equivalent or morally inferior to the Nazis or imperialist Japan? If 10 guys attack your house and kill one of your family, but in the battle you kill 6 of them, are you an unethical person because you killed 5 more of them than they killed on your side? According to the Muslim world and far left nut jobs, YES, when it comes to Israelis defending themselves against terrorists who almost always hide behind human shields.
Hezbollah's Charter unequivocally states it's purpose is to dominate the Middle East region and beyond, which means the destruction of the state of Israel and absorption of it's territory. This is aggression, and actions based on this intent and rationale clearly qualify as terrorism. Conversely, Israel has no such stated purpose towards it neighbors. Israel uses violence to protect itself from it's hostile neighbors when threatened and attacked. This is pure self defense. The goal of self defense is to preserve not subjugate. Self defense does not qualify as terrorism as defined in any dictionary. When defining who is terroristic or not, how much force is used to preserve or defend is irrelevant, and how much force is used to dominate or terrorize irrelevant. Force is either used for self defense or aggression, depending on intent. Intent is the root of all ethical or unethical actions. Intent defines the issue, not the amount of force. The ethical fighter always tries to avoid excessive force. The unethical fighter does not.
The Oxford dictionary defines a terrorist as the following: A person who uses or favors violent or intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.
The problem with that is one could say that about George Bush and America's war against the Taliban. Which would hardly be fair since it seems to be a clear cut case of self defense in our best understanding of the concept of self defense. People that argue, "all war is terrorism" will say: What was Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What was the bombing of Berlin in WW2? To terrify the Germans no doubt. So what is terrorism, what is self defense, and is there such a thing as a noble, ethical, violent act? Yes.
A clear definition of terrorism is as follows: Self defense is when one is in threat of death, injury or loss of liberty and has no other options but to use force to spare oneself. Terrorism is when one is not in mortal peril, threat of injury or loss of liberty, and/or has options to rectify one's problem without force but uses force anyway. This one uses force as a method to resolve their issue or uses force to achieve an objective not as self defense. Very simply put, Terrorism is any violent or intimidating act that is not Self Defense. Example: Palestinians are not in mortal peril, threat of injury or loss of liberty when they decide to send suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians. Palestinians will not die if they don't send their suicide bombers. Palestinians also have other options to resolve their problems. Moreover, their liberty is in the hands of their leaders, not the Israelis.
However, it is certainly true that Israelis will die if terrorists are not dispatched with force. Israelis are in constant mortal peril, and force has been the only deterrence, not only of Palestinian aggression, but the only thing that has kept the entire Arab world from pushing the Jews into the sea. One might argue that the Israelis do have an option. That is to remove the settlements and and return to the 67 borders. This would stop the Arab violence. However, everyone knows that terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah have declared openly and often that their goal is the total destruction of the state of Israel. So even if Israel were to fall back to the 67 borders, Israelis would still be targets of Arab violence. Since the Israeli pull out of Gaza, they have received unrelenting rocket attacks from the area they pulled out of.
Also, people seem to forget three other important things.
1. Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbors before, and in 1967. Therefore Israel has put settlements up in the West Bank to minimize the strangulation of itself by attackers. A non-violent self defense measure. Without the settlements, the middle of Israel is only 9 miles wide from the sea to the West Bank. They could be cut in half by an invading Arab force. Settlements are a non-violent way to create a buffer zone between her and her enemies. As well as a way to create room for the hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern Jews that were expunged from Muslim territories over the years along with European immigrants.
2. Arafat founded the Palestine liberation organization in 1964. This is before Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories in 1967. So what did Arafat want to liberate? All of Israel.
3. Before 1967, the Palestinian territories were under Arab control so why didn't the Arabs give the Palestinians their statehood? Because the Palestinians are used as pawns to destroy Israel.
These actions of the Arabs or lack thereof, demonstrate an attitude of aggression toward Israel. Yet Israel has negotiated throughout all of this, and it was Israel herself, who was first to suggest the Palestinians have a state of their own (not the Arabs) and initiated talks at Oslo. Still, the all the talks could not stop the Arabs including Arafat from conducting violence against Israel, even though the Palestinians would not be in mortal peril if they didn't attack Israelis. Of course, they always put themselves in mortal peril when they do attack Israel.
So what was Hiroshima? Was that terrorism or self defense?
Well in 1945, tens of thousands of American troops where poised to storm the beaches of Japanese controlled areas in order to end the war. America knew that tens of thousands of her troops could lose their lives, and many had already died since Japan started the war in the first place.
However, America got the bomb, and now didn't have to lose thousands more on top of the ones she already lost. America had to fight, or be attacked again. So the bomb would be a self defense measure. Although, did she have to use the bomb twice, and on highly populated civilian targets where the loss of life might be disproportionate to the potential American loss? At that time Japan was starting to put jets into production that could have wiped out the U.S. Air Force. They had already killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese with weaponized plague, and had a nuclear dirty bomb program. The Japanese were actively planning to strike western U.S. cities. The U.S. was compelled to strike decisively. If the U.S. had not, more people may have died than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One might argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki may be a case where self defense and terrorism overlap. However, the outcome is the desired outcome of a freedom fighter, a free Japan for over 60 years and counting. The goal was to stop a war, not to indefinitely control or completely destroy Japan. That, of course, would be the intent of a terrorist.
-Dhruva Aliman
The difference between the Israeli military and Palestinian terrorists
A true freedom fighter seeks to minimize civilian casualties. A terrorist seeks to maximize civilian casualties.
That is how you tell the difference between them.
“We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us”.
~Golda Meir, Former Prime Minister of Israel.
That is how you tell the difference between them.
“We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us”.
~Golda Meir, Former Prime Minister of Israel.
Super Crazy Juggling
Even though I know he's not gonna drop the balls, I always get a little nervous watching this.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali & Islamophobia
Ayaan crushes this far left moron with her wisdom and perspective. She really demonstrates how naive, spoiled, and sophomoric the far left is. And she does it with classy, incisive elegance. I usually like to stay composed when I'm blogging and not call people names like "moron" but this time I can't help it. This idiot interviewer whines about America like spoiled brat teenagers whine about their parents. He has no conception of what true freedom is. He says, only people with money can obtain power in this country. Was Barack Obama born rich? Or Condi Rice? Or Sonia Sotomayor? Or Alberto Gonzales? Immigrants, like Ayaan, really understand how great America is, unlike the spoiled, whiny, far left ingrates that live here.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Radical Islam and the American Left
Somali-born author, feminist and former Dutch Parliament Member.
Kumbh Mela - 2007 Largest Gathering In Human History
The estimated 70 million attendees could be seen from space as well as a prior Kumbh Mela was seen in 2001.
Elephants Can Paint
If you watch the second video you will be impressed.
Supposedly, the money from painting sales goes to support the 2,500 elephants left in Thailand, many of which are reduced to performing tricks and begging to survive. At one time, there was about 100,000 domestic elephants in the country.
Supposedly, the money from painting sales goes to support the 2,500 elephants left in Thailand, many of which are reduced to performing tricks and begging to survive. At one time, there was about 100,000 domestic elephants in the country.
Did JFK get shot in the front of the head when Oswald was supposed to have shot him from behind?
Looks like a front shot to me. What does it look like to you?
Imagining The Tenth Dimension
A great visual conceptualization that helps you understand the nature of other dimensions.
Obamageddon
From Gerald Celente's website-
"Years before Starbucks was a household name, Celente forecast the popularity of gourmet coffee and decades before Pepsi and Coke got into the water business he predicted the "Big Boom in Bottled Water.
On the geopolitical and economic fronts, Celente and The Trends Research Institute are credited with forecasting many major trends, including the "Panic of '08," the collapse of the Soviet Union, the last two recessions, the dot-com meltdown, the 1997 Asian currency crisis, the 1987 world stock market crash, increased terrorism against America, "Crusades 2000," and the quagmire in Iraq … before war began.
Gerald Celente has also accurately forecast many real estate trends, including the big move to vacation spots and small towns, the growth in the second home market, a real estate "fizz" in 2005 ... plus hundreds of other social, business, fashion, consumer and entertainment trends."
"Years before Starbucks was a household name, Celente forecast the popularity of gourmet coffee and decades before Pepsi and Coke got into the water business he predicted the "Big Boom in Bottled Water.
On the geopolitical and economic fronts, Celente and The Trends Research Institute are credited with forecasting many major trends, including the "Panic of '08," the collapse of the Soviet Union, the last two recessions, the dot-com meltdown, the 1997 Asian currency crisis, the 1987 world stock market crash, increased terrorism against America, "Crusades 2000," and the quagmire in Iraq … before war began.
Gerald Celente has also accurately forecast many real estate trends, including the big move to vacation spots and small towns, the growth in the second home market, a real estate "fizz" in 2005 ... plus hundreds of other social, business, fashion, consumer and entertainment trends."
EPA surpresses report disproving global warming
Dr. Alan Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA was told by his boss to shut up.
Carlin was ordered not to “have any direct communication” with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change. His Boss, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward… and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”
Carlin says, “I was told for probably the first time in I don’t know how many years exactly what I was to work on...And it was not to work on climate change.” One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.
Carlin was ordered not to “have any direct communication” with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change. His Boss, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward… and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”
Carlin says, “I was told for probably the first time in I don’t know how many years exactly what I was to work on...And it was not to work on climate change.” One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.
The Debate Is Not Over. Man Made Global Warming Is Bogus.
Mark Twain said, "A lie can get half way around the world while the truth is still putting on it's shoes."
Now tens of thousands of scientists all over the world are saying Global Warming is not Man Made. It is a natural cycle. The British High Court recently announced that Gore's movie cannot be shown in schools without a disclaimer because it has major flaws.
2,000 years ago the Romans wrote that it was so warm outside that they could grow very nice wine grapes in England. Then it got colder for many centuries until Medieval times when they started to write again about growing grapes in England. This is called the Medieval Warm Period. Then it got colder again for several centuries until now. With the help of hybrids (genetic modification) we are just starting to grow grapes again in England. But it's still not as warm as it was back in those days when the Vikings settled Greenland and called it "Greenland" because there was much less ice there (they either meant it was green or a good place to live). It was warmer than it is now, but it got much colder centuries later, and the Vikings could not survive there any longer. Back in those warm periods there were no video cameras to show Polar Bears standing on little icebergs, and there was no Al Gore to hype up things up for political gain. Back then the hype was religion. Now, Global Warming has become a new religion.
Pollution IS bad, we are creating synthetic molecules that have never existed before and some of it is screwing up our ecosystem. Mercury poisoning in the sea and the plastic in the sea are REAL problems that seriously deserve the amount of attention that the man made global warming hoax is getting, but very few people are talking about those real problems.
For the past decade the ice on Mars has been steadily melting. There are no factories or SUVs on Mars, so why is the ice melting? Because the Sun is heating it up. That is the same sun that heats the earth. It's the Sun that causes warming on Mars and on Earth, not pollutants. And those Polar Bears that Gore showed you are only 2 of 19 different populations of Polar Bears, the other 17 are actually at optimum levels or expanding in growth. There are Climatologists all over the world that say the only thing causing global warming besides the Sun, is Gore's hot air. Gore, by the way, has made over 100 million off the global warming industry and stands to make 100's of millions more off carbon offsets.
Watch The Great Global Warming Swindle
FROM: U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT-
Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming
October 07, 2009 04:15 PM ET |
By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers
A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for the Earth and don't cause global warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill
that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels.
"I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he says. "We are tilting at windmills." He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week.
Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.
Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity.
In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.
Steward is part of a nonprofit group called Plants Need CO2 that is funding pro-CO2 ads in two states represented by two key lawmakers involved in the energy debate: Montana's Sen. Max Baucus and New Mexico's Sen. Jeff Bingaman.
Blog: Science Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Michael Asher (Blog) - August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'
'No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise'
Update: March 16, 2009: Prominent Scientsits Continue to Join Report:
Now More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Link to Intro and full updated report:
POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]
Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…
A hint of what the upcoming report contains:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #
In addition, the report will feature new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a heavy dose of inconvenient climate developments. (See Below: Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History')
The Senate Minority Report is an update of 2007’s blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report of over 400 dissenting scientists. See here: This new report will contain the names, quotes and analyses of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears in just 2008 alone. The chorus of scientific voices skeptical grow louder as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses and real world data challenge the UN and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." The original 2007 U.S. Senate report is available here: Full Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…
Meanwhile, while the UN climate conference is in session here in Poznan, the bad scientific news for promoters of man-made climate alarm just keeps rolling in. Below is a very small sampling of very inconvenient developments for Gore, the United Nations, and their promoters in the mainstream media. Peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute climate fears. The data presented below is just from the past week.
#
Peer-reviewed study: Half of recent warming was solar! - December 10, 2008 - Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl's Website
Excerpt: In this dose of peer-reviewed skeptical climatological literature, we follow Climate Research News. The blog was intrigued by a new article in Geophysical Research Letters that was accepted on Friday, December 5th. Eichler, A., S. Olivier, K. Henderson, A. Laube, J. Beer, T. Papina, H. W. Gäggeler, and M. Schwikowski: Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing - Recall that the Siberian Altai Mountains are found at the intersection of Russia, China, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan. The authors looked at 750 years worth of the local ice core, especially the oxygen isotope. They claim to have found a very strong correlation between the concentration of this isotope (i.e. temperature) on one side and the known solar activity in the epoch 1250-1850. Their data seem to be precise enough to determine the lag, about 10-30 years. It takes some time for the climate to respond to the solar changes. It seems that they also have data to claim that the correlation gets less precise after 1850. They attribute the deviation to CO2 and by comparing the magnitude of the forcings, they conclude that "Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta et al., 2007] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun." Well, the word "only" is somewhat cute in comparison with the "mainstream" fashionable ideology. The IPCC said that they saw a 90% probability that "most" of the recent warming was man-made. The present paper would reduce this figure, 90%, to less than 50% because the Sun itself is responsible for 1/2 of the warming and not the whole 50% of the warming could have been caused by CO2 because there are other effects, too. Note that if 0.3 °C or 0.4 °C of warming in the 20th century was due to the increasing CO2 levels, the climate sensitivity is decisively smaller than 1 °C. At any rate, the expected 21st century warming due to CO2 would be another 0.3-0.4 °C, and this time, if the solar activity contributes with the opposite sign, these two effects could cancel. Even if you try to stretch these numbers a little bit - but not unrealistically - you have to become sure that the participants of the Poznan conference are lunatics.
Flashback: New scientific analysis shows Sun “could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature” (LINK) & (LINK)
Dr. Bruce West, A U.S Army Chief Scientist, Says Sun, Not Man, Is Driving Climate Change – June 3, 2008 – (LINK)
21 spotless days and solar magnetic field still in a funk – Meteorologist Anthony Watts Excerpt: We are now at 21 days with no sunspots, it will be interesting to see if we reach a spotless 30 day period and then perhaps a spotless month of December.
New Arctic ice analysis reveals ‘No clear evidence of a delay in the start of the later summer/early fall freeze up or the start of the late winter/early spring melt’ – Excerpt: Based on analysis by William Chapman, author of The Cryosphere Today website, graciously prepared an analysis of the dates of the minimum and maximum Arctic sea ice coverage since 1979.
Oscillation Rules as the Pacific Cools – December 9, 2008 Excerpt: A cool wedge of lower-than-normal sea-surface heights continues to dominate the tropical Pacific, ringed by a horseshoe of warmer waters. The continuation of this long-term cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation stacks the odds against a wetter-than-average winter/spring in the southwestern United States. The latest image of sea-surface height measurements from the U.S./French Jason-1 oceanography satellite shows the Pacific Ocean remains locked in a strong, cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a large, long-lived pattern of climate variability in the Pacific associated with a general cooling of Pacific waters. […] Sea-surface temperature satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration mirror Jason sea-surface height measurements, clearly showing a cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation pattern, as seen at: http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.anom.gif . "This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation 'cool' trend can cause La Niña-like impacts around the Pacific basin," said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. […] This cool phase will likely persist this winter and, perhaps, beyond.
Report: Sea Level rise 'has stumbled since 2005' – Meteorologist Anthony Watts – December 5, 2008 Excerpt: We’ve been waiting for the UC web page to be updated with the most recent sea level data. It finally has been updated for 2008. It looks like the steady upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005. The 60 day line in blue tells the story. From the University of Colorado web page: “Long-term mean sea level change is a variable of considerable interest in the studies of global climate change. The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Long term sea level variations are primarily determined with two different methods.” - Yes, I would agree, it is indeed a variable of considerable interest. The question now is, how is it linked to global climate change (aka global warming) if CO2 continues to increase, and sea level does not?
Update: 'No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise' says Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute – December 12, 2008 Excerpt: In an op-ed piece in the December 11 issue of NRC/Handelsblad, Wilco Hazeleger, a senior scientist in the global climate research group at KNMI, writes: “In the past century the sea level has risen twenty centimeters. There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise. It is my opinion that there is no need for drastic measures. It is wise to adopt a flexible, step-by-step adaptation strategy. By all means, let us not respond precipitously.”
Peer-Reviewed Study: Recent worldwide land warming' NOT 'a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land' - WorldClimateReport.com – December 3, 2008 ‘Rethinking Observed Warming?’ Key quote: “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.”
Alert: 2008 will be coolest year of the decade!- December 5, 2008 Excerpt: This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07. [Note: For evidence of the panic apparently gripping the promoters of man-made climate fear, read the quotes in the article from the warming partisans absolutely assuring everyone that cool temperatures are “absolutely not" evidence that global warming is on the wane. Those same voices are usually absent when it comes to linking heat waves to global warming. ]
Flashback: Global Cooling? - 'Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof' - National Post – October 20, 2008
Report: NASA’s James Hansen "adjusts" a cooling trend into a warming trend - December 9, 2008 Excerpt: "[H]ere is what the data looks like before and after NASA GISS adjusts it. These are the USHCN “raw” and “homogenized” data plots from the GISTEMP website. The before and after is quite something to behold. ... What was down, is now up." "How not to measure temperature, part 79"
Geophysist: ‘It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history’ – ‘Alarmists are in denial and running for cover'- Washington Times
By Geophysicist Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles. Excerpt: Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and running for cover. Their rationale for continuing a lost cause is that weather events in the short term are not necessarily related to long-term climatic trends. But these are the same people who screamed at us each year that ordinary weather events such as high temperatures or hurricanes were undeniable evidence of imminent doom. Now that global warming is over, politicians are finally ready to enact dubious solutions to a non-existent problem. […] To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over. It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history, next to Aristotelean physics, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, phlogiston, and a plethora of other incorrect scientific theories, all of which had vocal and dogmatic supporters who cited incontrovertible evidence. Weather and climate change are natural processes beyond human control. To argue otherwise is to deny the factual evidence.
Climate Chancellor' No More – Der Spiegel Excerpt: Angela Merkel is facing withering criticism for remarks she made on Monday that seemed to back away from her earlier commitment to tackling climate change.
Alert: Under the Weather: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008
Excerpt: As more than 10,000 delegates and observers gather in Poznan, Poland, to discuss the next phase in the battle against "climate change," a U.N. agency at the center of that hoopla badly needs to do some in-house weather-proofing. […] But the WMO, the $80 million U.N. front-line agency in the climate change struggle, and the source for much of the world's information in the global atmosphere and water supply, has serious management problems of its own, despite its rapidly expanding global ambitions. The international agency has been sharply criticized by a U.N. inspection unit in a confidential report obtained by FOX News, for, among other things, haphazard budget practices, deeply flawed organizational procedures, and no effective oversight by the 188 nations that formally make up its membership and dole out its funds. The inspection was carried out by a member of the United Nations Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), a small, independent branch of the U.N. that reports to the General Assembly and is mandated to improve the organization's efficiency and coordination through its inspection process. […] WMO did not respond to a series of questions from FOX News regarding its future programs, sent on the eve of the Poznan meeting.
16-year-old suggests sheep dung can help save planet Card business has really dung good - Daily Post North WalesExcerpt: The company makes its products at the Twll Golau Papermill in Aberllefenni Slate Quarry using sustainable fuel and materials. Every sheet of paper is made from recycled materials, including sheep dung, waste paper and discarded rags, using processes designed to affect the natural environment as little as possible. […] Katie 16, from Tal-y-Bont, Conwy, was appointed to help spread the word on how Wales can reduce its carbon footprint and is urging other North Wales businesses to follow Creative Paper Wales’ example and adopt innovative approaches to the design and manufacture of products and the delivery of services.
Lord Christopher Monckton: 'Companies could be sued over climate change' Excerpt: The alarmist faction knows that, if it were to bring a case against a corporation whose executives were not minded merely to believe in the extremist presentation of "global warming" just because it is temporarily in fashion, they would lose. The case of Dimmock v. Secretaries of State for Education and for the Environment in the UK in 2007 was a very clear warning. The UK Government threw all of the resources of the taxpayer and of the Meteorological Office at the case, attempting to defend Al Gore's sci-fi comedy horror movie against the plaintiff's allegation that it was serially and seriously inaccurate. The Government failed and was humiliated. The judge, having heard both sides, said bluntly of Al Gore, and particularly of his unscientific allegation that sea level was about to rise by 20 feet, that "the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view". A few more judgments like that and the "global warming" fantasy would rapidly collapse. End of scare.
OOPS, We Forgot Siberia! (M4GW) - Weather Stations in Coldest parts No Longer Reporting
Excerpt: The thing that these skewed chart never take into account is that when the Soviet Union fell in 1990 the number of reporting weather stations went form a high of 15,000 in 1970 to 5,000 in 2000. This takes some of the coldest places on the planet out of the equation like Siberia. # #
Now tens of thousands of scientists all over the world are saying Global Warming is not Man Made. It is a natural cycle. The British High Court recently announced that Gore's movie cannot be shown in schools without a disclaimer because it has major flaws.
2,000 years ago the Romans wrote that it was so warm outside that they could grow very nice wine grapes in England. Then it got colder for many centuries until Medieval times when they started to write again about growing grapes in England. This is called the Medieval Warm Period. Then it got colder again for several centuries until now. With the help of hybrids (genetic modification) we are just starting to grow grapes again in England. But it's still not as warm as it was back in those days when the Vikings settled Greenland and called it "Greenland" because there was much less ice there (they either meant it was green or a good place to live). It was warmer than it is now, but it got much colder centuries later, and the Vikings could not survive there any longer. Back in those warm periods there were no video cameras to show Polar Bears standing on little icebergs, and there was no Al Gore to hype up things up for political gain. Back then the hype was religion. Now, Global Warming has become a new religion.
Pollution IS bad, we are creating synthetic molecules that have never existed before and some of it is screwing up our ecosystem. Mercury poisoning in the sea and the plastic in the sea are REAL problems that seriously deserve the amount of attention that the man made global warming hoax is getting, but very few people are talking about those real problems.
For the past decade the ice on Mars has been steadily melting. There are no factories or SUVs on Mars, so why is the ice melting? Because the Sun is heating it up. That is the same sun that heats the earth. It's the Sun that causes warming on Mars and on Earth, not pollutants. And those Polar Bears that Gore showed you are only 2 of 19 different populations of Polar Bears, the other 17 are actually at optimum levels or expanding in growth. There are Climatologists all over the world that say the only thing causing global warming besides the Sun, is Gore's hot air. Gore, by the way, has made over 100 million off the global warming industry and stands to make 100's of millions more off carbon offsets.
Watch The Great Global Warming Swindle
FROM: U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT-
Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming
October 07, 2009 04:15 PM ET |
By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers
A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for the Earth and don't cause global warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill
that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels.
"I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he says. "We are tilting at windmills." He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week.
Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.
Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity.
In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.
Steward is part of a nonprofit group called Plants Need CO2 that is funding pro-CO2 ads in two states represented by two key lawmakers involved in the energy debate: Montana's Sen. Max Baucus and New Mexico's Sen. Jeff Bingaman.
Blog: Science Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Michael Asher (Blog) - August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'
'No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise'
Update: March 16, 2009: Prominent Scientsits Continue to Join Report:
Now More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Link to Intro and full updated report:
POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]
Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…
A hint of what the upcoming report contains:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #
In addition, the report will feature new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a heavy dose of inconvenient climate developments. (See Below: Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History')
The Senate Minority Report is an update of 2007’s blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report of over 400 dissenting scientists. See here: This new report will contain the names, quotes and analyses of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears in just 2008 alone. The chorus of scientific voices skeptical grow louder as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses and real world data challenge the UN and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." The original 2007 U.S. Senate report is available here: Full Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…
Meanwhile, while the UN climate conference is in session here in Poznan, the bad scientific news for promoters of man-made climate alarm just keeps rolling in. Below is a very small sampling of very inconvenient developments for Gore, the United Nations, and their promoters in the mainstream media. Peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute climate fears. The data presented below is just from the past week.
#
Peer-reviewed study: Half of recent warming was solar! - December 10, 2008 - Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl's Website
Excerpt: In this dose of peer-reviewed skeptical climatological literature, we follow Climate Research News. The blog was intrigued by a new article in Geophysical Research Letters that was accepted on Friday, December 5th. Eichler, A., S. Olivier, K. Henderson, A. Laube, J. Beer, T. Papina, H. W. Gäggeler, and M. Schwikowski: Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing - Recall that the Siberian Altai Mountains are found at the intersection of Russia, China, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan. The authors looked at 750 years worth of the local ice core, especially the oxygen isotope. They claim to have found a very strong correlation between the concentration of this isotope (i.e. temperature) on one side and the known solar activity in the epoch 1250-1850. Their data seem to be precise enough to determine the lag, about 10-30 years. It takes some time for the climate to respond to the solar changes. It seems that they also have data to claim that the correlation gets less precise after 1850. They attribute the deviation to CO2 and by comparing the magnitude of the forcings, they conclude that "Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta et al., 2007] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun." Well, the word "only" is somewhat cute in comparison with the "mainstream" fashionable ideology. The IPCC said that they saw a 90% probability that "most" of the recent warming was man-made. The present paper would reduce this figure, 90%, to less than 50% because the Sun itself is responsible for 1/2 of the warming and not the whole 50% of the warming could have been caused by CO2 because there are other effects, too. Note that if 0.3 °C or 0.4 °C of warming in the 20th century was due to the increasing CO2 levels, the climate sensitivity is decisively smaller than 1 °C. At any rate, the expected 21st century warming due to CO2 would be another 0.3-0.4 °C, and this time, if the solar activity contributes with the opposite sign, these two effects could cancel. Even if you try to stretch these numbers a little bit - but not unrealistically - you have to become sure that the participants of the Poznan conference are lunatics.
Flashback: New scientific analysis shows Sun “could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature” (LINK) & (LINK)
Dr. Bruce West, A U.S Army Chief Scientist, Says Sun, Not Man, Is Driving Climate Change – June 3, 2008 – (LINK)
21 spotless days and solar magnetic field still in a funk – Meteorologist Anthony Watts Excerpt: We are now at 21 days with no sunspots, it will be interesting to see if we reach a spotless 30 day period and then perhaps a spotless month of December.
New Arctic ice analysis reveals ‘No clear evidence of a delay in the start of the later summer/early fall freeze up or the start of the late winter/early spring melt’ – Excerpt: Based on analysis by William Chapman, author of The Cryosphere Today website, graciously prepared an analysis of the dates of the minimum and maximum Arctic sea ice coverage since 1979.
Oscillation Rules as the Pacific Cools – December 9, 2008 Excerpt: A cool wedge of lower-than-normal sea-surface heights continues to dominate the tropical Pacific, ringed by a horseshoe of warmer waters. The continuation of this long-term cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation stacks the odds against a wetter-than-average winter/spring in the southwestern United States. The latest image of sea-surface height measurements from the U.S./French Jason-1 oceanography satellite shows the Pacific Ocean remains locked in a strong, cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a large, long-lived pattern of climate variability in the Pacific associated with a general cooling of Pacific waters. […] Sea-surface temperature satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration mirror Jason sea-surface height measurements, clearly showing a cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation pattern, as seen at: http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.anom.gif . "This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation 'cool' trend can cause La Niña-like impacts around the Pacific basin," said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. […] This cool phase will likely persist this winter and, perhaps, beyond.
Report: Sea Level rise 'has stumbled since 2005' – Meteorologist Anthony Watts – December 5, 2008 Excerpt: We’ve been waiting for the UC web page to be updated with the most recent sea level data. It finally has been updated for 2008. It looks like the steady upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005. The 60 day line in blue tells the story. From the University of Colorado web page: “Long-term mean sea level change is a variable of considerable interest in the studies of global climate change. The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Long term sea level variations are primarily determined with two different methods.” - Yes, I would agree, it is indeed a variable of considerable interest. The question now is, how is it linked to global climate change (aka global warming) if CO2 continues to increase, and sea level does not?
Update: 'No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise' says Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute – December 12, 2008 Excerpt: In an op-ed piece in the December 11 issue of NRC/Handelsblad, Wilco Hazeleger, a senior scientist in the global climate research group at KNMI, writes: “In the past century the sea level has risen twenty centimeters. There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise. It is my opinion that there is no need for drastic measures. It is wise to adopt a flexible, step-by-step adaptation strategy. By all means, let us not respond precipitously.”
Peer-Reviewed Study: Recent worldwide land warming' NOT 'a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land' - WorldClimateReport.com – December 3, 2008 ‘Rethinking Observed Warming?’ Key quote: “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.”
Alert: 2008 will be coolest year of the decade!- December 5, 2008 Excerpt: This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07. [Note: For evidence of the panic apparently gripping the promoters of man-made climate fear, read the quotes in the article from the warming partisans absolutely assuring everyone that cool temperatures are “absolutely not" evidence that global warming is on the wane. Those same voices are usually absent when it comes to linking heat waves to global warming. ]
Flashback: Global Cooling? - 'Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof' - National Post – October 20, 2008
Report: NASA’s James Hansen "adjusts" a cooling trend into a warming trend - December 9, 2008 Excerpt: "[H]ere is what the data looks like before and after NASA GISS adjusts it. These are the USHCN “raw” and “homogenized” data plots from the GISTEMP website. The before and after is quite something to behold. ... What was down, is now up." "How not to measure temperature, part 79"
Geophysist: ‘It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history’ – ‘Alarmists are in denial and running for cover'- Washington Times
By Geophysicist Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles. Excerpt: Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and running for cover. Their rationale for continuing a lost cause is that weather events in the short term are not necessarily related to long-term climatic trends. But these are the same people who screamed at us each year that ordinary weather events such as high temperatures or hurricanes were undeniable evidence of imminent doom. Now that global warming is over, politicians are finally ready to enact dubious solutions to a non-existent problem. […] To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over. It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history, next to Aristotelean physics, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, phlogiston, and a plethora of other incorrect scientific theories, all of which had vocal and dogmatic supporters who cited incontrovertible evidence. Weather and climate change are natural processes beyond human control. To argue otherwise is to deny the factual evidence.
Climate Chancellor' No More – Der Spiegel Excerpt: Angela Merkel is facing withering criticism for remarks she made on Monday that seemed to back away from her earlier commitment to tackling climate change.
Alert: Under the Weather: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008
Excerpt: As more than 10,000 delegates and observers gather in Poznan, Poland, to discuss the next phase in the battle against "climate change," a U.N. agency at the center of that hoopla badly needs to do some in-house weather-proofing. […] But the WMO, the $80 million U.N. front-line agency in the climate change struggle, and the source for much of the world's information in the global atmosphere and water supply, has serious management problems of its own, despite its rapidly expanding global ambitions. The international agency has been sharply criticized by a U.N. inspection unit in a confidential report obtained by FOX News, for, among other things, haphazard budget practices, deeply flawed organizational procedures, and no effective oversight by the 188 nations that formally make up its membership and dole out its funds. The inspection was carried out by a member of the United Nations Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), a small, independent branch of the U.N. that reports to the General Assembly and is mandated to improve the organization's efficiency and coordination through its inspection process. […] WMO did not respond to a series of questions from FOX News regarding its future programs, sent on the eve of the Poznan meeting.
16-year-old suggests sheep dung can help save planet Card business has really dung good - Daily Post North WalesExcerpt: The company makes its products at the Twll Golau Papermill in Aberllefenni Slate Quarry using sustainable fuel and materials. Every sheet of paper is made from recycled materials, including sheep dung, waste paper and discarded rags, using processes designed to affect the natural environment as little as possible. […] Katie 16, from Tal-y-Bont, Conwy, was appointed to help spread the word on how Wales can reduce its carbon footprint and is urging other North Wales businesses to follow Creative Paper Wales’ example and adopt innovative approaches to the design and manufacture of products and the delivery of services.
Lord Christopher Monckton: 'Companies could be sued over climate change' Excerpt: The alarmist faction knows that, if it were to bring a case against a corporation whose executives were not minded merely to believe in the extremist presentation of "global warming" just because it is temporarily in fashion, they would lose. The case of Dimmock v. Secretaries of State for Education and for the Environment in the UK in 2007 was a very clear warning. The UK Government threw all of the resources of the taxpayer and of the Meteorological Office at the case, attempting to defend Al Gore's sci-fi comedy horror movie against the plaintiff's allegation that it was serially and seriously inaccurate. The Government failed and was humiliated. The judge, having heard both sides, said bluntly of Al Gore, and particularly of his unscientific allegation that sea level was about to rise by 20 feet, that "the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view". A few more judgments like that and the "global warming" fantasy would rapidly collapse. End of scare.
OOPS, We Forgot Siberia! (M4GW) - Weather Stations in Coldest parts No Longer Reporting
Excerpt: The thing that these skewed chart never take into account is that when the Soviet Union fell in 1990 the number of reporting weather stations went form a high of 15,000 in 1970 to 5,000 in 2000. This takes some of the coldest places on the planet out of the equation like Siberia. # #
Ben Frankin's influence on the U.S. Constitution
Nice little re-enactment of how Ben Franklin replaced "Sacred" with "Self-Evident" keeping the church out of government.
Is Obama A Sociopath?
Like a cough, a sociopathic mindset, cannot be hid. "If
you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care
plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." That's what President Obama said over
and over again in one form or another. He said this well beyond the 2010 meeting with Republicans (which is on video) where he agreed with Congressman Eric Cantor that millions would lose their plans. He intentionally deceived
millions of Americans on a matter of critical importance to them, their
health. Like a con-man, he lied to get what he wanted with reckless
disregard of the consequences for millions of Americans. Obama also knows that his healthcare website is a goldmine for hackers. Security experts emphatically tell congress it is not secure. Yet, Obama continues to implore millions of citizens, that he has sworn an oath to protect, that they should sign up...That is sociopathic.As the brave, yet horribly ill-equipped Kurds meet ISIS on the battlefield with only 6 bullets to each Kurdish man and woman fighter, Obama plays golf and enjoys lavish fundraisers. Why should we be surprised that he won't give the Kurds what they need to properly defeat ISIS's genocidal campaign, when Obama won't even keep his promise to call the Armenian genocide a genocide?
He just doesn't care. Indifference is the essence of a sociopath.
In this article you will see example after example of a callus disregard for people that only a sociopath could have. You will see a complete, pathological indifference to truth, life and even reason.
During the government shutdown President Obama had armed guards barring veterans from their open air war memorials (in fact, it cost the government more to close these memorials and parks, like Mt. Rushmore, than it did to keep them open). Yet, Obama did not care to post enough guards to protect our murdered ambassador in Libya, even after Ambassador Stevens repeatedly begged the Obama administration for more protection. Obama was simply not concerned.
In Bob Woodward’s book "Obama’s Wars", Obama is quoted: "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever...we absorbed it and we are stronger." Apparently, Obama thinks it's acceptable for Americans to die because we as a nation can take it, and we will get over it. Being able to absorb an attack is not the point to people who aren't sociopaths. Never having an attack is the focus. That was Bush's focus. He said we can't afford to make a mistake because the terrorists only have to be right once, like the Boston Marathon attack. That day, Obama did not call it terrorism, he called it a "Tragedy". Accidents are tragedies, not premeditated attacks. You don't put a murderer on trial for committing a "tragedy". That kind of disconnect from the true nature of these murderous events belies a mindset that denies rationality and reality. It disregards what's actually going on.
The number one priority of the President of the United States is the safety of the citizenry. For a man to become Commander and Chief and yet be so emotionally disengaged from saving the lives he is charged to protect...that is the mark of a Sociopath. This makes a lot of sense when the man steps in front of the press to address the Fort Hood Massacre (12 dead, 37 injured), and before saying a single word about it, he spends three minutes giving "Shout Outs", praising his people and pushing his agenda. Not exactly connecting to the graveness of this event. However, you are only a sociopath if there is a pattern, and there is quite a pattern with Obama. Before the long list of dictators, radicals and scum bags that Obama has accommodated gets trotted out, there is something else quite disconcerting about Obama, and Iraq...
Any reasonable, intelligent and ethical person would agree that, whether or not we should have invaded Iraq, once we were there, we had an obligation to leave it a better place. We should not just remove a tyrannical government and then leave a vacuum for chaos to fill it. That's what led to the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan. So any reasonable, intelligent, and ethical person would have to agree that staying the course in Iraq was, and is, the right thing to do for all humanity concerned. Right?...Well, not Obama. Only after becoming president did reality force him to act somewhat ethically.
During the most darkest days of the Iraq war, when violence was at an all time high, and the entire country was on the brink of collapse and all out civil war, the only thing standing between the vicious insurgents and the helpless, innocent Iraqis was the U.S. military...That's when Obama wanted to pull out. He knew full well, that if we abandoned this nation, which was already looking like a Mad Max movie, it would have crumbled into genocide. Millions could have been killed and displaced. Al Queda would have taken over central Iraq, Iran would have taken the south, and Iraq would have become a far greater problem than Afghanistan is. But Obama just didn't care. Seemingly, his insane rational was, we shouldn't have gone in, therefore we should pull out as fast as possible. That's like saying, if a cancer patient gets a cancer removed surgically (like Saddam's regime was removed), but then an infection sets in (the insurgency), you should NOT treat the patient with antibiotics (the U.S. surge) and close up the wound (reconciliation). We should just leave the gaping infected wound open to rot and let the contagion go airborne infecting the whole hospital (the free world) because it's just too much of a hassle to fix it and there's this other patient, Mr. Afghanistan. Fortunately, Bush got this patient to a more healthy place and walking on it's own. We know Obama is not stupid, so why would he suggest something so obtuse, unless...he just didn't care. That is the mark of a sociopath. His own feelings and agenda must be satisfied above ethics and reason.
In 2007, when the troop surge was only halfway implemented, our soldiers were fighting in the 112 degree heat, getting wounded, watching their comrades die in constant heavy contact with the enemy. They would come back to their bases after a long day of fighting and what would they see on their T.V. screens? Obama, giving loud, fervent speeches about how the surge would never work and was doomed to failure. This, when it was only halfway manned and implemented. It hadn't even fully begun yet, and Obama was already out there demoralizing our troops and giving aid and comfort to the enemy at the same time. This is an astonishing act of betrayal. Obama always talks about his admiration and love of Lincoln. Well, Lincoln would have had Obama (and Harry Reid) shot or jailed for treason for doing what they did. "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damages morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, quickly tried and hanged!"-ABRAHAM LINCOLN. While Obama was out there barking that General Petraeus was going to come back to Washington to tell us what a failure Bush's surge was...Old Abe was rolling in his grave. The policies Lincoln had in place to maintain support for his war effort made the Patriot Act look the Magna Carta or the charter for the ACLU.It's one thing, to wait a couple weeks to see if a fully implemented strategy is working, and if it isn't, to then criticize it. Or, as well, to quietly, behind the scenes explain your objections and concerns. But to jeopardize a critical operation by demoralizing our own troops, obfuscating facts, and emboldening our enemies, for mere political gain, is selfish beyond the pale. Again, this is the mark of a sociopath. We now know Obama was flat wrong about the surge, but I wonder if he ever stopped once to think about how his actions might make things harder for our soldiers and the Iraqi people. At the same time, Obama stated that he would negotiate unconditionally with holocaust denier Ahmadinejad, President of Iran. Did Obama stop to think how that would effect the morale and efforts of the reformers in that country?
Then what happens next? Russia invades Georgia. It is clear cut case of baseless aggression of one police state attacking a healthy democracy. So what does Obama do? While McCain immediately condemns Russia and rallies in support of Georgia. Obama stands back and simply says, both sides need to cease hostilities, as if there was some moral equivalence between the actions of the de facto dictator Putin, and the fledgling democracy of Georgia. Obama showed no empathy for the savaged Georgia until days later when it became politically expedient for him to follow McCain's lead in condemnation of Russia. When Obama makes no moral distinction between Georgia and Russia, this accommodates Putin, a tyrant who kills and jails his political opponents and reporters that criticize him. As well as shuts down free media.
This is the exact same behavior Obama had to the ongoing revolts in Iran. At first, he had no harsh words for the tyrannical Iranian regime that was killing protestors in the streets. He said we don't want to be perceived as meddling in Iran's affairs (as if we were getting these protesters started). This is an incredibly cynical statement. After all, the protestors know this is a grass roots rebellion, and the Iranian government knows it's a grass roots rebellion, so who the hell is Obama worried about perceiving us as meddling if we voice our support for the reformers? Since when is encouraging freedom not a good policy? Regan said to Gorbechev "Tear down this wall". Those four words galvanized the Eastern Berliners to do just that. The Iranian reformers don't think we're meddling, only the bad guys do. No matter what we do, the Iranian government is going to do whatever it wants to, so why not help the reformers change things? Again, Obama just doesn't seem to care enough. Obama's weak, even nonexistent support for the protestors only accommodates the totalitarian Iranian government. These protestors, by the way, were holding up signs in English, which is a clear indication that they are asking for the support (not the meddling) of the U.S. and the west. Obama, however, left them high and dry because, again, his own political fantasy and ego trip of thinking he can sweet talk the Mullahs into an agreement to give up nukes supersedes ethics and reason. The Iranian zealots can't even stick to their own election laws and Obama thinks they are going to stick to an agreement they make with the black infidel? Not only is Obama a sociopath, but he is seriously deluded.
Let's look at who else Obama has decided to accommodate. He gladly shook hands with Hugo Chavez who is trying to control all media, violently remove his opponents, and make himself President of Venezuela for life. Just before their meeting, Chavez called Obama a "poor ignoramus". Surely that deserves a handshake. Obama gave legitimacy to this thug in front of the cameras while accepting an anti-American book from him. The sales of the book hit the roof. It went from 54,295th on Amazon's bestseller list to # 2. In one televised moment Obama was used and owned by this Latin American strong man. Bill Maher used to call Bush a "rube" on the world scene. Well Bush would never let himself get punked by any dictator,and he was smart enough to know that "unconditional" negotiations with Iran would never work, unlike Obama, so who is the real rube here? If Obama had real empathy for the Venezuelans that want true freedom, he would not have been caught dead in a smiling, hand clasp with this dictator. But Obama, again, doesn't care about the morale of the reformers in Venezuela. Just like he didn't care about sitting through an hour long Anti-American diatribe by socialist Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega (friend of Putin, Castro and Chavez), accommodating him as well. And why on Earth would Obama befriend and support Raila Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya who made a pact with Kenyan Muslims to institute sharia law, named his first son after Fidel Castro, and who let his tribal followers go on murderous rampages to install him in power?
On top of all that, Obama supported ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. This guy, like Chavez, was trying to extend term limits to be president. Both the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress said this was illegal. So they kicked him out, and Obama called it a coup. A coup is usually done by some strong arm military dictator against the will of the people. In this case however, it is the people's own representatives, the congress, unified with the supreme court that ousted the guy. But Obama is not on the side of the people's representatives, no, he's on the side of the guy who is trying to become a dictator and claims that “Israeli mercenaries” are torturing him with high-frequency radiation as well as toxic gases. Obama wants this nut job back in power. Zelaya is also buddies with Chavez and Castro. Are you starting to see a pattern here? President Bush met publicly with the Dalai Lama and gave him the Congressional Gold Medal. Obama is the first president to snub the Dalai Lama since 1991. Obama has delayed meeting His Holiness in order to appease the Chinese. Again, siding with the oppressor, not with the oppressed.
Yet one of the most startling accommodations of human rights violators was the accommodation that no one seemed to notice. When Obama gave his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, he said the United States will never torture. This drew mass applause, but because Obama cares more about his personal popularity and adoration than doing the right thing, he didn't take the great opportunity to say, "Oh, I see you are applauding against torture, that's fantastic. Now can I get another round of applause for all the Muslim governments in the world to stop the torture in their prisons"? Which of course, is far beyond any kind of torture the American government would ever conceive of doing. Obama could have then said to the stunned crowd, "Or is it only America that should not torture human beings, but the Muslims can go on doing what they're doing"? But Obama didn't say that. Why? Because he just doesn't care enough. And for not mentioning the horrific torture of the other countries he is trying to accommodate, what does he get? The Nobel Peace Prize, of course. By the way, Obama supports RENDITION. The U.S. sends our prisoners to other countries so that they can be interrogated without our rules. In effect, they are tortured far worse than anything America has done during Bush. Only a sociopath can be so hypocritical while not caring who he accommodates at the same time. And speaking of hypocrisy...
Oprah said he was the "One". The "One" what? The one to break the most campaign promises in the fastest amount of time? One of the tell tale signs of a sociopath is the broken promises, lies, deception, and hypocrisy.
As senator, Obama opposed raising the Debt Ceiling. As President, he is all for raising it, even though as senator he said- "Raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure".
Campaign Obama said he would use public financing like McCain, then as soon as he realized he could make more money privately he broke his campaign finance pledge.
Campaign Obama said he would go line by line and veto earmarks...then as president he immediately passes a bill with 9,000 earmarks.
Campaign Obama said he would not hire lobbyists and attacked McCain for it...then President Obama fills his administration with lobbyists.
Campaign Obama said he would televise the Health Care Bill making process on C-Span, then, a completely partisan bill was done with shady deals behind closed doors.
Campaign Obama said he would protect Net Neutrality, then, his own appointed head of the FCC imposes regulations to censor the internet.
Campaign Obama said if he were president, he'd be walking the picket lines in solidarity with union workers...then as president he is nowhere to be found during the huge union battle with the Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.
Campaign Obama said he would clamp down on government spending, now, in the words of The Wall Street Journal, “The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined." To add insult to injury, he's breaking his promise to not raise taxes on those making less than $250,000. His own administration says Obamacare's mandate for every citizen to buy health insurance is a TAX. And so did the Supreme Court!
Campaign Obama said, "...number 43 [George W. Bush] added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child, That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic,” As of August 2011, President Obama has increased the national debt by $4 trillion and every man, woman and child owes 47,000 dollars and Obama wants to spend more. It's as if Obama 's own words meant absolutely nothing to him. That's sociopathic.
Campaign Obama criticised the Patriot Act as too invasive where Bush allowed the NSA collection of U.S. phone number information IF one of the numbers that connected to a U.S. number was from an overseas flagged number. Yet, as President Obama expanded the Patriot Act so that the NSA could collect ALL phone numbers of Americans, irregardless of an overseas connection.
By the end of his first term Obama increased the debt by over 5 trillion. The national debt is now almost 17 trillion. All politicians break their promises, but to break a promise by over 5 trillion in the opposite direction, that's sociopathic. And according to this con man's own logic, Obama is now over 5 trillion more dollars more unpatriotic than Bush.
President Obama criticised the "Stand Your Ground" law in a full blown press conference after the Zimmerman verdict. Yet as a state senator he voted for the expansion of the "Stand Your Ground" law in his own state of Illinois.
As Senator, Obama was absolutely against the Senate's "Nuclear Option". Now that he's President, he's all in.
President Obama said, "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." Then, even before Obamacare trotted out it's wretched website, millions of people lost the plans they liked.
He's even breaking the promises that the Republicans want him to break like not pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan as fast as he said he would, not closing GITMO, bringing back military tribunals for terror suspects, extending the Bush tax cuts, etc., etc. All politicians break promises. However, when "one" breaks promises faster than you can redecorate the West Wing, that may be the mark of a sociopath. Obama will promise anything to advance his agenda with a silver tongue. During his January 2011 State of the Union speech Obama said we would cut 400 billion in ten years when the debt in just 2011 alone is projected to be 1.5 Trillion. Again, we know Obama is not stupid, so why would he say such an incredibly, nonsensical thing, unless he just didn't care. A sociopath doesn't care. They will say anything to forward their agenda. Obama also didn't care about the ethics of accommodating anyone that the Chicago political machine wanted him to accommodate. Whether it was campaigning hard for "Pay to play" Blagoyachich for governor, which Obama dutifully did, or fund-raising in unrepentant, murderer and terrorist Bill Ayer's living room and co-chaired a foundation with him. They claim they barely associated with each other yet everybody in Chicago knew Ayer's past. For Obama to play dumb about Ayers is almost as ridiculous as saying he didn't know the views and teachings of his Pastor for 20 years, the radical Rev. Wright. Obama would rather have his own daughters be indoctrinated with ideas like, our government created AIDS to kill black people and purposefully gets them hooked on drugs so it can throw them in prison, or, the USA deserved 9/11, etc.,etc., he'd rather have his own daughters listen to that, than confront the pastor on his teachings. It was more important to stay cool with the black community in order to move up the ranks politically than to take a stand on what is right, even at his daughter's expense. Maybe that shouldn't be a surprise since he doesn't even give his daughters birthday and Christmas presents (according to his interview with People magazine), his child rearing is eccentric. However, his ability to lie with such ease about his knowledge of Rev. Wright, Ayers, and even convicted crook Tony Rezko (partner of Blagoyavich), which Obama had business dealings with, is definitely the mark of a sociopath.
Obama, himself, takes on the trappings of a fascist dictator. Besides taking control of the banks and auto industry, his administration can't resist trying to control the media. Obama's much publicized “Town Hall” on health care turned out to have been, for all intensive purposes, just an infomercial with a tightly controlled audience and a tightly controlled list of White-House-approved questions. No dissenting views or questions could get past the screeners. Right out of the dictator playbook. The Liberal, 40-year White House Press Correspondent Helen Thomas, one of the most far left people out there said, "We have never had that in the White House." And "It’s shocking. It’s really shocking." When someone that liberal dresses down a democratic administration, it adds significant color to the writing on the wall. The fact that Thomas would be the one to scold the Obama administration on how obviously and blatantly it has sought to manipulate the media just goes to shows the level of indifference Obama has to transparency. Especially, when he later tries to exclude Fox News from the White House Press Pool. And his White House communications director Anita Dunn says to the world Fox News is not a real news organization but a wing of the Republican party. Sounds like something Hugo Chavez would say.
Quotes from 2013-
"This is the most closed, control freak administration I've ever covered."
~David E. Sanger, veteran chief Washington correspondent of the New York Times,
"The Obama administration is far worse than the Bush administration."
~Ellen Weiss, Washington bureau chief for E.W. Scripps
The Obama White House is "...the most manipulative and secretive administration I've covered."
~Bob Schieffer, a CBS veteran
After "Obamacare" was passed into Law, Obama, like a King, arbitrarily made changes to it to suit his political needs. That is unconstitutional. The President is the enforcer of the law, not the maker of laws under the United States form of government. As a Constitutional law expert from Harvard, you'd think he'd know that, or at least care. But he doesn't care, because he is a sociopath.
Perhaps, Oprah left Obama's Church because it was distasteful and she didn't need to be obsequious to that community in order to succeed, or maybe she left for some other reason. However, when your pastor of 20 years goes to visit terrorist dictator Col. Qadhafi of Libya with his buddy, radical, extreme racist, and hater Louis Farrakhan (who was given a lifetime achievement award by said pastor), and you still say you weren't aware of your pastor's world view, the lie is becoming comically absurd. Yet, the doozies keep coming. One of the most amusing lies is attached to one of the most poignant revelations of Obama's own world view....his bow to the Saudi King. This is really interesting, not so much because he so readily broke a 200 year old tradition of U.S. presidents not bowing to Monarchs, a core principle upon which this country was founded, but because of his choice of Monarch to which he decided to bow to. Obama nodded as he shook Queen Elizabeth's hand but made an almost 90 degree angle with his body as he took the King's hand. The Saudi King, is the leader of one of the most misogynistic nations on earth. Why does Obama NOT bow to Queen Elizabeth, an empowered woman and stronger ally of the U.S. but deeply bows to an oppressor of women and weaker ally to the U.S.? Even though the Bush family has close ties to the Royal Family, the closest Bush ever came to a bow was ducking his head as a medallion was placed around his neck, not an act of submission.
The funny part is how Obama had his staff lie about it by saying he was just reaching for the king's hand, when Queen Elizabeth is shorter than the Saudi King. Some people like to speculate his bowing to the King is because his father was Muslim and a devotion to the customs of Islam (which includes submission to Islamic rulers) are ingrained in him, if that's true, that explains Obama's very curious body language as he reflexively bows, in an almost uncontrollable, knee jerk response at the very moment he encounters the King. That would also explain the no presents for his kids at Christmas time. However, the no presents for birthdays, while may not be sociopathic, it's something deep seated for sure.
Obama's values are amorphous and hard to grasp. However, you can judge a man by his associations. Any one of Obama's radical connections by themselves is insignificant. However, when you put them all together you have to recognize the Emperor is not wearing clothes. Other connections Obama has are: Islamic black supremacist, Dr. Khalid Al-Mansour. 9/11 truther, self proclaimed communist and advisor to Obama, Van Jones. Socialist and friend to Farrakhan, Cornel West. Radical Socialist, mentor to Obama, Gregory Galluzzo. Race baiter, Henry Louis Gates. Obama was a lawyer for ACORN which is being investigated for all kinds of criminal activities. And Obama was influenced by "Rules for Radicals" author, Saul Alinsky. A very cynical guide on how to manipulate the masses. When has an American president ever had so many dubious connections?
Another tell tale sign of a sociopath is NARCISSISM. When Obama was a senator he wrote 2 memoirs about himself without authoring his own major legislation on the federal level and not doing much on the state level either. When he was campaigning to be president he changed the seal of the president to his own design. Now, the Narcissist-In-Chief, has mentioned himself 1,200 times in 41 speeches. The New York Times Caucus blog reported: “As of his seven-month in office mark in August, he had done 114 interviews, compared to 37 by former President George W. Bush and 41 by former president Bill Clinton.” Before going on David Letterman he gave a speech at the U.N. where he essentially said to the world now that I am president you can stop bashing America. Why is it that Obama talked to David Letterman more than General McCrystal, commander of the entire Afghanistan war? Because Obama just doesn't care enough. Promoting himself is more important, just like it was with Iraq. He thought with his amazing charm he could get the Europeans to pitch in stimulus money, HE FAILED. He tried to get our allies to put more troops in Afghanistan, HE FAILED. He thought he could get our world friends to give us the Olympics, HE FAILED MISERABLY. However, all of that is not as dangerous as thinking he can charm our ENEMIES, like Mahmoud 'Iwantajihad' to give up nukes. Narcissism can be very dangerous, and like a cough, cannot be hid. He said he didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Well, he could have turned it down, to pass it on to someone more worthy, but he just couldn't resist taking it. Now Obama is letting his VP Biden and Press Secretary claim that the success in Iraq is due to Obama's leadership. Even though, the Status of Forces agreement to schedule a troop draw down was signed by Bush after a successful surge which both Obama opposed, and Biden rejected as ineffective. The self-inflation is breathtaking.
Obama supporters like to praise Obama's intellect and eloquence as if they were virtues.
Hitler was extremely eloquent and Carl Marx was quite an intellectual, but that didn't make them right or ethical.
Because in the end, knowing what's right, doing the good thing, doesn't come from the brain, it comes from the soul, the heart, and you feel it in your gut. Obama has a brain, but Bush has guts, McCain has guts and Democrat Joe Lieberman has guts, as well as heartiness. Lieberman risked his whole career because of what he felt was right. Bush always used the words "freedom" and "democracy" when talking about Iraq. Yet Obama, on the day our troops pulled out of Iraqi cities (because Bush's surge created enough security and stability to enable that), Obama had no use for those ideals. As the brilliant columnist Charles Krauthammer, said about Obama's comments on this historic day, "He referred to what we've achieved as a sovereign, stable, self-reliant Iraq. He left out one word, and he left it out because it was a George Bush word, 'Democracy'. That was a Bush idea, to implant a democracy in Iraq. If we wanted to have merely a sovereign, stable, self-reliant Iraq, we could have chosen a Saddamist general to succeed Saddam after the war, and gotten out."
Obama is an expert at parsing words to suit his agenda, after all he was president of the Harvard Law Review. He's eloquent because all lawyers are trained to be eloquent, but what good is a brain without a spine to hold it up? A spine that doesn't bend 90 degrees in the face of monarchs, dictators and thugs. One thing I think the lawyer Obama doesn't understand is that dealing with dictators is not like a court with rules. Thugs don't respect rules or honor agreements, and while he can comprehend that intellectually, he doesn't get in deep inside, in his gut, or in his heart. Knowing the surge would work is not a brain thing, it's a gut thing, and a heart thing. Siding with the oppressed instead of the oppressors, is a gut thing and a heart thing. The inner moral compass is not in the brain, it resides in the soul. Hopefully, Obama is not too stuck in his head to do some soul searching before his time is up.
CLICK ON PICTURE TO MAKE LARGER--
~By Dhruva Aliman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
