Global Warming Update: Britain Faces Mini-Ice Age, Ice Cap Having Major Growth Spurt

Poor Al Gore, just when he was trying to become more relevant with a 24 hour global warming filibuster on his Current TV, more bad news about global warming is released.  Great Britain, which just went through two record cold winters is in store for some more.  Scientists are predicting that Britain may be facing a mini-ice age that may last for decades.

It's partly the fault of the La Nina weather pattern, and for those living here in the US,  La Nina is also linked to extreme winter weather in America, so people on both sides of the "pond" should be purchasing warm clothes before the season starts.

The real cause for this prediction is the Sun. It has been emitting few ultra violet rays (not that you would know by looking at Snooki).


The Ice Age prediction comes from Britain's Met Office. They indicate that nation could be facing a repeat of the “little ice age” that gripped the country 300 years ago, causing decades of harsh winters.

The prediction, to be published in Nature magazine, is based on observations of a slight fall in the sun’s emissions of ultraviolet radiation, which may, over a long period, trigger Arctic conditions for many years.

Although a connection between La Nina and conditions in Europe is scientifically uncertain, ministers have warned transport organisations and emergency services not to take any chances. Forecasts suggest the country could be shivering in a big freeze as severe and sustained as last winter from as early as the end of this month.

The British news is not the only climate forecast that will "bum-out" the former VP's second chakra, the news about the arctic ice cap may be just as depressing.

So far it has been very cold in the arctic this fall, in fact it has been coldest autumn the arctic has seen in over a decade.  Because of this cold the arctic has added a Manhattan-sized chunk of ice to the ice cap every 30 Seconds For The Last 30 Days (the data can be found at Real-Science by clicking here). For those of you who live in the mid-west part of the United States and were praying for water-front property, sadly you will have to move to a coast because the coast isn't coming to you.

As our President, the EPA and many other progressives work to slow down the economy with crippling regulations to reduce "greenhouse gasses," it seems that mother earth does not want to cooperate.  Its time for the global warming Hoaxers wake up and smell the snowstorm, their climate change theory does not work when you move away from computer models and look out the window.

Climate Change Stupidity: The Psychological Reasons Why White Males Are Skeptics

Who Knew? I always assumed that my skepticism about climate change was due to the studies I read which talked about things such as ocean currents, sun spots, typical patterns as the Earth approaches another Ice Age amongst many, many others.  But today the NY Times showed me the error of my ways. You see the real reason I am skeptical about global warming is the fact that I am a conservative white male with deep seeded repressed feelings.

McCright's study, "Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States," was published online in July and printed in the October 2011 issue of Global Environmental Change, which ranks first out of 77 journals on environmental studies.

See there is a bright side, it has been a very long time since I was called a "cool dude."

But from McCright's perspective it was important to find out to what extent the sharp debate over climate change at the elite level had trickled down into the general public in recent decades. "Within the ranks of elites, climate change denialists are overwhelmingly conservative white males," reads the report, pointing to figures like talk show host Rush Limbaugh and Marshall Institute CEO, William O'Keefe. "Does a similar pattern exist in the American public?"

McCright and Dunlap's analysis used polling data on climate change denial from 10 Gallup surveys from 2001 to 2010. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 72.4 percent of the American population reported as white in 2010, and 77.1 percent in the year 2000. This majority made it difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between other races and climate change, said McCright, because the Gallup survey sample size was so small.

Holy Cow, ten years of data? Heck not only have attitudes regarding climate change significantly changed since 2001, it wasn't even called that back then, it was called global warming.  Since then the "Al Gore types" changed the name because the Earth was getting colder instead of warming.

To test for the trend amongst conservative white males, the researchers compared the demographic to "all other adults." Results showed, for instance, that 29.6 percent of conservative white males believe the effects of global warming will never happen, versus 7.4 percent of other adults. In holding for "confident" conservative white males, the study showed 48.4 percent believe global warming won't happen, versus 8.6 percent of other adults.

My disagreement with their methodology is not as important to the Times story as the reason conservative white guys like me are climate skeptics.

• We are "the man." The white male effect could stem from the notion that, historically, white males have faced fewer obstacles in life, said McCright. But another school of thought sees the adoption of risk tied to personal values. "It has to do with their identity as an in-group," he said. "Something that would challenge the status quo is something [conservative white males] want to shun."

• We Don't deal well with change. According to the literature on "identity protective cognition," people believe messages coming from the people they identify with most and ignore messages that are contrarian, Dunlap said. While all groups have a tendency to do this, he said, in the case the climate change, conservative white males are especially likely to exhibit this self-protecting characteristic. 

• Everybody does it.  In the Yale Law School "Second National Risk & Culture Study" researchers found that despite expert opinions espousing the relative safety of certain forms of nuclear energy, progressives are still concerned about it. Values shape factual beliefs across an array of phenomenon, he said. "If it's conservative white males on global warming, pick a different issue and you'll find another group that has trouble thinking in a way that agrees with experts."

• Conservative media mind control.  In 2000, climate change beliefs held predominantly by conservative white elites started to spread. "Conservative think tanks, conservative media, corporations, and industry associations (especially for the fossil fuels industry) -- domains dominated by conservative white males -- have spearheaded the attacks on climate science and policy from the late 1980s to the present," McCright and Dunlap concluded in their study. "The results presented here show that conservative white males in the general public have become a very receptive audience for these efforts."

Here's the information the study doesn't discuss, the flip side.  Who are the climate change believers?  Why liberal white males. The authors are just making an assumption as to who is right and who (if any) has deep psychological reasons why they believe what they believe. 

This study reminds me of one of my all-time favorite Saturday Night Live routines, a discussion between Sigmund Freud (Dan Aykroyd) and Anna Freud (Laraine Newman)

Sigmund Freud: Hello, Anna. How did you sleep, Liebchen?

Anna Freud: Oh, I slept very well, Papa. You know, I had the strangest dream, though. I dreamt about a man who looked just like you.

Sigmund Freud: [sipping tea] Mm hm.

Anna Freud: He had a beard just like yours. And he was old enough to be my father.

Sigmund Freud: Ya.

Anna Freud: I couldn't figure it out. And then, he was sitting on your bed, Papa.

Sigmund Freud: Uh huh.

Anna Freud: Along with all my male cousins. And they were all bound and gagged except for one arm. And everybody was bare naked.

Sigmund Freud: [gets increasingly "turned on" as she proceeds] Mm hm.

Anna Freud: And they had bowls of fruit in their laps, you know?

Sigmund Freud: Mm hm.

Anna Freud: And everybody kept offering me a banana. I was not hungry for a banana, though, you know? Except when the man with the beard offered me the biggest and ripest banana. [Sigmund shifts uncomfortably and sets down his tea cup] Oooh, Papa, that was the only banana I ate. Oooh, and then the bed turned into a train, Papa.

Sigmund Freud: Ya?

Anna Freud: And it went through a tunnel. And we came out of the tunnel [Sigmund holds up his trembling hand as if he is about to grab Anna's torso] and then I fell and I fell and I fell and the man with the beard fell and fell and fell. [abruptly] And then we both smoked a cigarette. [Sigmund lowers his hand and cools off considerably] Papa, what did that dream mean?

Sigmund Freud: It doesn't mean anything, Anna. It's only a dream. Sometimes a banana is just a banana. Anna?

Anna Freud: Yes, Papa?

Sigmund Freud: Please don't mention this to Mama.

Anna Freud: [toys with his necktie] Oh, I won't. [They give each other a hug.]

 The global warming hoaxers are desperately trying to explain why the free-thinking public are beginning to doubt their story, their latest gambit is we must be crazy a strategy which is doomed to fail.  After all you don't need to be a psychologist to know sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Chris Matthews is Right- Maybe Its Time for Conservatives To Fess Up And Admit The Bad Things We're Going to Do

While speaking during his Hardball show earlier this week, Mr. Tinkle Down his legs, Chris Matthews waxed poetic about how wonderful the universe would be if only Barack Obama was re-elected in 2012.  Well almost, what he really said was how lousy things he would be if a Republican were elected. He warned

"Tea Partiers and neocons...celebrating the death penalty, elevating torture, ending environmental protection as we know it, breaking unions, punishing gays, starting more wars, and enacting one more giant tax cut for the rich – or worse"

Maybe Matthews has a point. While the list of horrors he mentioned are close to our agenda, Matthews is a bit off on every item he listed, but he has spurred me into thinking  maybe its time for the tea partying neo-cons like me to admit what we really have in store for this country should our people get elected in 2012. Since no one else is willing to do it...I guess it will be up to me to let the world know. Below is the secret Tea Partiers list of what we will get done in the first year after we take over, its very close to what Mr. Tinkle said above.

• The Death Penalty- Matthews is wrong, Conservatives celebrate life and those who believe in a death penalty feel it is a necessary evil.  That being said, we plan to add two crimes to the Capital Punishment list.

--Wearing too much perfume. You know those people who always plop down next to you on a train or bus, mostly women, who smell like they basted themselves is "aire de cheapo perfume?" Sorry ladies, but that is a crime against humanity.

--Cell phone abusers. You are on the 6 am train into Manhattan catching a precious few extra moments of sleep,  when suddenly two rows in front of you a guy rouses you out of your slumber by talking loudly into his cell phone about his "conquest" the night before. Under a GOP/Tea Party administration, US DHS Agents will be on each and every bus and train car with orders to shoot and kill the loud public phone talker.

• Elevating torture.  Again Matthews has the right idea but not in the way he thinks. We will not be torturing any al Qaeda terrorists, but we will be torturing people who's time has long passed, just to convince them to "go away."  I am speaking about people like Al Gore and Meghan McCain to name a few.  Also earning torture will be anybody who creates horrible nightmares, I am talking about the mental images that cause people to scream in their sleep forever.  This law is not meant to discourage film makers who create horror films.  We are talking about the real horror makers, people like Nancy Grace having a wardrobe malfunction on live TV, or 967-year-old Hugh Hefner talking about his sex life with 22-year-old playmates.

• Punishing Gays. OK, Matthew has us there, once the Tea Party-NeoCons take over we will be punishing Gays. We will also be punishing African-Americans, Latinos, Jews, women, Muslims, redheads, other conservatives and anybody else who breaks the law. We wont be punishing groups but individuals and unlike the progressives we will treat everyone equally, without political correctness or regards to their race, religion, hair color and/or what kind of pre-sweetened cereal they had for breakfast.

• Breaking Unions. There is one rule that the Neo-Tea Party types have which Mr. Matthews must be unaware of, "you break it, you fix it." No one wants to break anything.  In fact it is because of this rule that we do not support Barack Obama for re-election, he broke the economy and instead of trying to fix it, he wants to keep breaking it

• Starting More Wars. Mr. Tinkle must have read this one wrong.  The Neo-teas do not want to start wars, we want any President to get congressional approval before he starts any wars. Just like President Bush did before Afghanistan and Iraq, just as President Obama didn't before Libya.

• Tax Cuts For The Rich. Yep we can own up to that one also.  Those nasty conservatives do want tax cuts for the rich, they also want tax cuts for the middle class, and anybody else who fits into the 53% of Americans who pay income taxes.   I will let you in on a little secret that you cannot tell people where you heard it. Those Tea Party Neo-cons believe that the tax monies paid into the government is really the tax payers money so the government should be using less of it and returning as much as possible to its original owners.

• And Even Worse... Here's is something that even Chris Matthews doesn't know.  There is a Tea Party plan to force Crayola Crayons to get rid of some of their crayon colors because the names sound too subversive.  Among those slotted for elimination are:

-Atomic Tangerine (sounds too terroristy)
-Beaver (no sexual references)
-Cotton Candy (this recommendation came from Michelle Obama)
-Magic Mint (too druggy)
-Piggy Pink (sounds too much like Congressional earmarks)
-Tickle Me Pink (sounds too much like former Congressman Massa)

There you have it, the real agenda of the Neo-Cons and Tea Party movement. And to think if Chris Matthews didn't push the point, we never would have fessed up. No, we probably would have been hanging out looking for ways to live on the public dole, take other people's money, while looking for others to place blame.  You know....just like progressives.

Obama is Right, It is About Math (But His Math Stinks)

After hearing legitimate complaints that his tax and spend Jobs plan was nothing more than class warfare, the President responded that it wasn't about class warfare it was about math.  In the end both sides are right, the President's plan is about class warfare, and on top of that his math would get him an "F" in a 9th grade algebra class. The "F"  would probably be accompanied by a note that says

Let's start with his everyone paying their fair share shtick.  First of all there is not enough rich person income income to solve our massive debt problem over the short or long term. The top 3 percent of earners, those making $250,000 or more, have about $2.3 trillion in total annual income. So even if we took all their money it would only pay our bills for a bit over six months. it would only fund the government this year for just over six months. If you wanted to limit it a bit and only confiscate all the income of the 400 wealthiest Americans that would net only about $1.4 trillion, a pittance in the Obama budget. It would pay the federal government's bills for about Four and a half months, which means neither the government nor those wealthy 400 would have anything left to buy guacamole dip for their Super Bowl Party (nor pay the electric so they can watch the game on TV).

The President also makes the argument that the rich pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes. Maybe he never looked at the numbers. According to an AP report, this year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

There are other reasons why a tax increase doesn't make sense. In case the President didn't notice the economic situation in the US is even worse than his math skills.Consider the fact that is the Small Businesses that create most of the growth necessary to get us out of this economic pickle (small businesses account for roughly two-thirds of net new jobs).  Going after “the rich” means we are also going after those  small businesses which pay taxes at the top individual rates (50 percent of small-business profits are taxed at the top two individual tax rates). Raising taxes on small businesses is like putting a brick wall in front of economic growth and job creation. Or to paraphrase what Obama said just a few months ago, it is a really dumb idea to raise taxes in the middle of an economic slow-down.  As a possible reason for this presidential flip-flop maybe he tried all of his good ideas to help the economy and they didn't work, so now he is trying the dumb ones.  Sorry Mr. President, with all due respect, if it was a stupid idea before, it's probably still a stupid idea.

Keep in mind all of his extra taxes in the Presidential Not Class Warfare Jobs bill will be increased even further in 2013 thanks to the Presidential Redistribution of Healthcare Legislation passed last year.  In 2013, when economists tell us the unemployment rate will still be above 8.5% which is above the level the President said we would never reach if his Porkulus Act Designed To Recover Every Bad Progressive Idea was passed, the Administration’s tax policy would push the top effective tax rate to 44.8 percent from its current level of 35 percent. Not very conducive to recovery.

Here's some more lousy math written on stationary containing the Presidential Seal.  Based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections based on what they think the most likely government policy, spending is on pace to double within a generation, and will make up 75% percent of the entire economy later this century (talk about overdrawing ones bank account).

The good news is that we won't have to wait that long, the CBO also says the public debt overwhelm the entire economy within the decade (and if that happens we won't be able to make fun of Al Gore when the global warming sky doesn't fall).  Economists have said that the massive debt not only threatens the next generation, but severely impairs economic growth and job creation today.

Some of what the President describes as spending cuts, are simple gimmicks such as the return of the war spending gimmick. The proposal claims over $1 trillion from a planned reduction in war spending, taking advantage of a budget convention that inflates costs that were explicitly meant to be temporary. By claiming these savings against a projection that was never realistic, the President doubles the apparent size of the spending cuts in this proposal. Its that old political rule, 2x imagination makes your budget look good.  Its fine for politics but lousy math.

Then there is the good old, "looks like a cut but is really a tax increase" trick. Hidden in the President’s estimate of $257 billion of mandatory savings outside of health care are: $30 billion in higher taxes on the financial sector; $19 billion of savings from the off-budget Postal Service; and $7 billion of program integrity savings that CBO has determined do not save anywhere near the amounts claimed by the Administration. Once these gimmicks are stripped away, the President is proposing only $200 billion of savings from the over $5.6 trillion in mandatory spending planned over the next decade. Again it looks good politically but it is lousy math (and not very transparent).

Think about this for a second, the President's jobs bill costs $447 billion dollars, it consists mostly of similar spending programs to the failed Porkulus Act Designed To Recover Every Bad Progressive Idea Bill. He wants to pay for it with new taxes in the midst of the slowest economic recovery in recent memory, or as I like to call it the second part of a double-dip recession. It reminds me of the guy who on payday took his paycheck and spent it at the local pub during lunch then went back to work and asked his boss for more money.  Well we, the tax payers are the boss, and we need to stop giving our government more money until they stop blowing every paycheck at the local pub.

Here's the easiest way to show that the jobs plan is not about everyone having their fair share, but simply about class warfare and redistribution of income.  As described above, the President's campaign meme about the rich paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class is untrue.  There are however examples of some rich people and corporations that do not pay their fair share of taxes.  Warren Buffet says he is one of those with the low rates. GE run by presidential adviser Jeff Immelt is another they paid zero taxes.

If Barack Obama was simply trying to get everyone to pay their fair share, rather than increase the tax rate, he would propose real tax reform by lowering the overall tax rate combined with closing most tax loopholes and deductions. That kind of plan would ensure that everyone would be paying their fair share and would be revenue neutral.

But that is not the President's objective, his Presidential Not Class Warfare Jobs Bill, just like his Porkulus Act Designed To Recover Every Bad Progressive Idea Bill and the Presidential Redistribution of Healthcare Legislation also known as Obamacare is all about what he told Joe The Plumber three years ago; redistribution of income.

To say anything else would make the president as lousy at truth as he is with math.

Uh-Oh Now Global Warming Causes Robbery, Prostitution, and Drug Abuse

Once again, its time to add to the Official “Stupid Things Used To Fear Monger About Global Warming” List.  The new entry is armed robbery, prostitution, and drug abuse at least in Ghana. Since July 2009 global warming moonbats have blamed each of  the following on global warming, climate change or whatever they decided to call it these days:

Incredible shrinking sheep, Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean, Surge in fatal shark attack, Boy Scout tornado deaths, Global conflict, Beer tasting different, Suicide of farmers in Australia, Bigger tuna fish, longer days, shorter days, Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden, Cow infertility, UFO sightings in the UK, Rise in insurance premiums, Heroin addiction, Frigid Cold Winters in Great Britain, Cancer, Death from heart disease, diabetes, stroke, respiratory disease and even accidents, homicide, suicide, water -borne disease outbreaks, heavier, wetter snowstorms treacherous for travel and ambulation, Lyme disease, swarms of allergy-inducing, stinging insects, along with mosquitoes and devastating pine bark beetle infestations and the spread of forest and crop pests, 40,000 dead crabs , unrest in the Middle East. screwed-up love making, the Japanese earthquake-tsunami, horrible rash of tornadoes in southeast United States,The Arab Spring, extended severe allergy seasons, Lyme disease, malaria or dengue fever, trauma, depression, high blood pressure and heart disease,and increased threat of wars, violence and military action against the UK. migration of possibly rabid Vampire bats from Mexico.

According to an article on Modern Ghana.com called Climate Change and Social Impacts, global warming is causing all kinds of bad things. According to the article, global warming is ruining the farms in Ghana especially in the Ashaladja community.

The effects of climate change are increasingly threatening the sustainability of the environment. Evidently, it has provoked very serious and grievous social impacts. For instance, climate change effects have led to deepening unemployment. Ashaladja is a community in Ghana where agriculture which is the key source of livelihood of the inhabitants has been adversely affected the over 5,000 indigenes.

According to the article, climate change has caused floods ruining the Cassava, Yam, Cocoyam, and Plantain crops. Because of the ruined crops many youths have had nothing to do, and as the old saying goes, the idol brain is the devil's playground.

Thus the youth including young women have become jobless and are forced to engage in deviant behaviors such as armed robbery, prostitution, and drug abuse as means of survival.

Again, the influx of young people from the rural to the urban areas as an attempt to escape serious droughts has denied development in those rural areas. Indeed, if the able, talented, energetic and vibrant young people are hurriedly leaving for the city or urban centers, then how can development take place in those communities? This signal is posing a threat to the future of these communities thereby denying the possibility of eradicating poverty. The negative social impact of such development may not be quantified.

Holy Crap!  Prostitution and drugs, and Crime in Ghana just because of global warming. Will that move up to the Northern Hemisphere and the 48 states. After all, we Americans are exhaling CO2 and driving gas guzzlers. All Gore was right! We're all going to die, but who knew it would be from STDs, ODs and getting beaten by crooks . Unless of course this is just a little more global warming fear mongering.

New Report Suggests Warming is NOT Man-Made (And Things Were A Lot Hotter In Medieval Times)

So much for that climate change consensus nonsense. A new report co-produced by three non-profit research groups (Heartland Institute, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and Science and Environmental Policy Project) casts doubt on on many of the claims of the Al Gore set (the full report is embedded below).

 The major claim in this new report is that most of the warming recorded is a result of natural rather than man made causes. The authors say:

 “We are not saying anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) cannot produce some warming or have not in the past. Our conclusion is that the evidence shows they are not playing a substantial role.”

The report also shows that the famous "medieval period" was a lot warmer than it is today and both the planet and man survived.  The study also concludes that “the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife.

The other top-line conclusions are: 

• “We find evidence that the models over-estimate the amount of warming that occurred during the twentieth century and fail to incorporate chemical and biological processes that may be as important as the physical processes employed in the models.”

• “More CO2 promotes more plant growth both on land and throughout the surface waters of the world’s oceans, and this vast assemblage of plant life has the ability to affect Earth’s climate in several ways, almost all of them tending to counteract the heating effects of CO2’s thermal radiative forcing.”

• “The latest research on paleoclimatology and recent temperatures [finds] new evidence that the Medieval Warm Period of approximately 1,000 years ago, when there was about 28 percent less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is currently, was both global and warmer than today’s world.”

• “New research finds less melting of ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, and on mountaintops than previously feared, no sign of acceleration of sea-level rise in recent decades, no trend over the past 50 years in changes to the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (MOC), and no changes in precipitation patterns or river flows that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels.”

• “Amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, lizards, mammals, and even worms benefit from global warming and its myriad ecological effects.”

• “Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, by increasing crop yields, will play a major role in averting hunger and ecological destruction in the future.”

• “The latest research suggests corals and other forms of aquatic life have effective adaptive responses to climate change enabling them to flourish despite or even because of climate change.”

• “Global warming is more likely to improve rather than harm human health because rising temperatures lead to a greater reduction in winter deaths than the increase they cause in summer deaths.”

• “Even in worst-case scenarios, mankind will be much better off in the year 2100 than it is today, and therefore able to adapt to whatever challenges climate change presents.”

In the end, the report concludes that the climate change nonsense is overblown, not only in regards to the role of man kind but also the effect it will have on the earth and life on the earth.  Sorry Al!

The full executive summary is embedded below.

Front Matter

The Progressive Strategy: Hate, Fear, Stereotype, and Treat Diversity as Evil

by Barry Rubin


When one talks to supporters of President Barack Obama, one quickly learns that his actual policies and their relative success or failure are of no importance for many of them. Some have defected, many more are worried (even if they won’t admit it publicly) but might overcome their doubts and vote for him again.

The significant factor shaping their views is one of self-image. That’s why evidence and events have relatively little influence on them unless — which may be precisely what happens in America between now and November 2012 — these things become too big to ignore. “Too big to ignore!” Perhaps that should be a counter-slogan against “Too big to fail.”

To support Obama makes them smart, sophisticated, anti-racist, modern, members of an intellectual and social elite standing against the yahoos with the pitchforks out in the provinces. From the defenders of the downtrodden, the left has transformed itself into the well-financed aristocracy sneering at the peasantry.

That’s why the theme of portraying the opposition as greedy, rich, fat-cat, corporate chieftains and simultaneously hillbilly, gun-toting, religious fanatic racists who think Obama is a Muslim-born in Kenya and want to reinstitute slavery is so incredibly effective in shoring up its base of support.

Even the simplest points of fact — that the Tea Party is a group of people opposed to big government, high taxes, tight regulation, and large deficits — barely appear amidst the propaganda aimed at discrediting any opposition as illegitimate.

If you can persuade people that anyone is insane if they want to cut economically unproductive government spending and not raise taxes at a time of massive depression and growing deficits, then you have a pretty good propaganda machine.

The hardcore Obama supporter is not watching unemployment levels, the economy, the mess in Egypt and Libya, or the effectiveness of health care reform. His concern is that if he decides Obama is a terrible president it means he is one of “them.” This is a horror he can never accept. For the Jews among them — which explains their higher membership in this group — these factors are reinforced by the image of becoming the very Nazi Cossack Klu Klux Klan monster that is their worst nightmare.

The left isn’t doing this because it’s on the defensive or desperate. On the contrary, this is its main strategy. How else can you persuade about half the population, liberals and centrists, to support the most left-wing policy in American history? That’s why they need a strategy based on hate, fear, stereotyping, demonetization of the “other,” rejection of diversity, and all those other things that political correctness and multiculturalism supposedly oppose! What’s the response? I’m not going to tell you anything you don’t know, but it might be useful to have it all in one place:

1. Avoid playing into these stereotypes whenever possible. Once you lose your credibility by being too extreme or not being able to present facts, it is very hard to regain it in this atmosphere.

2. Word of mouth. Have the best arguments and point them out to people. Never doubt that no matter how confident many of these people appear to be they are having severe doubts about their policies and ideas working. Be able to argue on the other side’s own terms in order to show hypocrisy (see point in bold above).

3. Provide credible alternative sources of information. You’re reading one of the best ones, PJM, right now.

4. Don’t rant; don’t argue with those who cannot be persuaded; and don’t spend your time attacking people whose differences with you are relatively small. Focus on the large portion of the open-minded. Remember the purpose of communication is not to make yourself feel good but to make people on the other end feel that you’re right.

5. Don’t write off traditional liberals who are somewhere between being horrified and confused by the policies they are supporting. Point out that this is a leftist and not liberal program. This isn’t the platform of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, or even Bill Clinton. It is the worldview of the 1948 Progressive Party and the 1960s’ New Left.

6. The simple truth is — as expressed by such people as Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Harry Reid — that the far left argues that anyone who is an African-American, Hispanic-American, woman, or gay has no right to oppose Obama and his policies. If they do, they are a traitor to their “race” (or whatever) and should be treated with the utmost contempt and shut up as quickly as possible. So much for diversity.

7. Point out how this anti-democratic strategy is destroying America’s tradition of free and open debate, as well as the cherished institutions of universities, schools, and media. On issue after issue — climate change, the budget, revolutionary Islamism, Israel, etc. — the message is that there is only one proper stance and disagreement will not be tolerated. There’s nothing intellectually advanced or sophisticated about such behavior. It is the most reactionary approach possible. The left, disguised as liberals, takes an approach more akin to the Middle Ages or eighteenth-century conservatism than to historic liberalism. If Galileo Galilei said the earth goes around the sun, Al Gore would retort, in the style of a church inquisitor, that the science on that matter has already been permanently settled.

8. The basis of the left’s case is to deny things have changed. On the one hand, they need to fool people into thinking that America is still full of racists and bigots and big corporations still rule the land as they did many long decades ago. On the other hand, they need to fool people into thinking that we are still in the 1950-2000 era in which spending resources are unlimited, schools don’t indoctrinate kids, universities aren’t ideological institutes for producing intolerant left-wing activists, the media is still reasonably fair, and the United States has not yet passed the maximum burden of entitlements whose continued growth will destroy the country.

9. Point out that this isn’t exactly the best time to portray Western Europe as a model for the United States since Europe has cracked up very badly and following the same policies will produce the same result.

10. Direct experience and observation change people who are not blinded by ideology. And clearly Obama’s policies have failed at home and abroad, a point that will be regularly and increasingly obvious over the next 15 months. That should count for something and perhaps people will be ready to listen to why this has happened.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com    

The Inside Truth Behind "Journalistic Integrity"

A large chunk of my career (16 years) was spent in the world of advertising. I worked for various advertising agencies planning and negotiating and recommending the placement of media for many top advertisers.  Basically I spent money, but since it was other people's money I had to make sure the money was being spent in the right places and my clients were getting the best possible deal.  That "best possible deal" involved more than getting the best costs, but also getting the best editorial coverage.

Magazine editors and TV news people who talk about journalistic or editorial integrity always make me laugh. In most cases there is no such thing. One of my first projects in advertising was working for a pet food company. We negotiated with CNN to run pet care segments just to put adjacent to our advertising.  Years later working for a major toy advertiser, I negotiated with magazines to run stories on toys from said advertiser, though their readers expected a different editorial selection. When Bayer Aspirin started its campaign about aspirin and heart attacks, to get our ads, magazines ran stories about heart care to run opposite our advertising. News magazines such as Time and Newsweek would run special food sections just to accommodate my food advertisers, Forbes created an FYI section (which eventually became a stand-alone magazine) solely to be able to entice electronics advertisers.

Those giant Coke cups you see the American Idol judges with are simply another type of advertising paid for by Coke.  Product placement in movies and TV shows were a frequent strategy I also employed.  If you like game shows, well, sometimes the prizes used are actually paid placements by advertisers, even the famous "life time supply of Rice-a-roni."

It works the other way around also.  Trade publications are notorious for  reminding advertisers that the best way to receive positive press is to throw them a few ads. Clients of mine have run trade ads precisely for that reason.

And it still goes on, take a look at an entertainment magazine, count the movie ads from each movie studio and compare it to the coverage that studio's movies receive.  While I have never worked on a cosmetics or fashion account, I have sat next to people who have and seen them issue reports to major fashion magazines such as Vogue detailing the coverage their products have received and threatening to pull all advertising if that coverage wasn't increased. You better believe that the editors threw away "journalistic integrity" to maintain multi-million dollar accounts.

After leaving the ad agency side of the business I switched to the magazine side and was able to see the process from this other side. There is supposed to be a wall of separation between the advertising and editorial staff of the business, but that wall does not exist. For example, as marketing director for a magazine group, I would once a year take the projected ad schedule for the following year and sit down with the editor's to negotiate what kind of editorial we would need to make those advertisers happy the next year.  As publisher of a different magazine, I directed my marketing staff to write articles about advertisers and we would run them in the book next to their ads, with a little slug at the top saying advertisement (in the ad business it they are called advertorials). The trick was to make the advertorials look just like the regular articles in the magazine.

There are two reasons why this is important information in today's political world.

First, if the advertising sales part of a media company, even with its traditional strict separation from the editorial side, can influence the stories a magazine will publish, just imagine what the influence of a bias that originates from the editorial department.  Editors who toss off their "journalistic integrity" so a different department can make money, will easily toss it off to accommodate their own political bias.

The other reason behind this stories importance has to do with some of the criticism against conservative stances.  In many cases when a study is published which refutes a liberal stance, the liberal counter attack is never about the facts or the methodology of the study, its usually some big evil corporate group gave grants to the organization who commissioned the study.  Sometimes they even point to studies/articles in magazines that agree with the liberal stances as support for their position.

What they don't tell you is that those same magazines they used as support may be running advertising from sponsors who are demanding those stories be published, just as I did as a media director -- or those same "evil corporations" who provided the grants for conservative study may be running advertising in the news sources that oppose the study.  In other words, the corporations that the progressives deem as evil, are actually supporting both sides of the argument.

I ran across this on the Heartland site in an article called, Media Matters Lies About The Heartland Institute — Again:

....Wrote Shauna Theel for Media Matters:

The Heartland Institute is a libertarian think tank that hosts regular conferences disputing mainstream climate science and received $676,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006, including $90,000 specifically for ”General Operating Support — Climate Change.”

Media Matters, and other critics of Heartland, have been beating the dead horse named ”they get money from ExxonMobil” for years. Indeed, it’s the same tired “argument” the left uses against any group that questions anthropogenic global warming. But consider this: You can’t read the science journal Nature without being bombarded by ads by from oil companies. Is Nature bought and paid for by “Big Oil”? Is Media Matters tracking gifts from wind and solar companies to environmental advocacy groups? Why not? (That’s a rhetorical question. We all know the answer.)

....Doesn’t journalistic ethics require that these facts be acknowledged whenever the charge of undue corporate influence is made? Of course, journalistic ethics and Media Matters aren’t exactly frequent dance partners.

Truth be told, journalist ethics is an oxymoron not just for media matters but for most of the sources we approach for information. Whether it is AARP articles supporting Obamacare because they stand to make millions of dollars from sales of its licensed insurance products with the bill's passage or Al Gore's potential billions from his "green" investments should people actually believe what he pushes in his movie An"Inconvenient Truth." The only thing you should trust implicitly is the advice given during each episode of the "X-Files" Trust No One and make your own decisions.

Al Gore Has Apoplectic Fit, Literally Goes Bullsh*t In Front Of Colorado Audience

You had to figure it would happen eventually, not only has his marriage broken up, he had that embarrassing Chakra incident, and of course all the recent news about his man-made global warming scare being a hoax is costing former Vice President Al Gore billions of dollars. We were all waiting for the guy to lose it and he finally did. The poor guy literally went  bullsh*t in front a Colorado audience last week.

Gore dropped in on an Aspen Institute media forum called “Networks and Citizenship” last Thursday and went off on those corporate evildoers who put profit above society. By  big corporations who put profit over society, I wonder if the former VP was talking about his Generation Investment Management, or his  venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers both of which are expected to make billions should the hoax become accepted undisputed science.

Gore referenced the book “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, which tells of how petroleum, steel, autos, utilities and others enlisted lobbyists to cloud the climate debate.

Gore recalled how not long ago tobacco giants “succeeded in delaying the implementation of the surgeon general’s report for 40 years – 40 years! In every one of those 40 years the average number of Americans killed by cigarettes each year exceeded the total number of Americans killed in all of World War II: 450,000 per year. My sister was one of them. … It was evil, evil, evil.”

The model of media manipulation used then, Gore said, “was transported whole cloth into the climate debate. And some of the exact same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!” Gore exclaimed.

“When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again,” he continued. “There’s no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea! … It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the goddamn word climate. It is not acceptable. They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it.”

Gore lamented also whined about what he said was the the diminished role that reason and fact-based analysis play in modern U.S. politics.

“Mark my words on this: we became the greatest country on earth because we made better decisions than any other nation,” he continued. “And we made better decisions because we used shared consciousness, shared reality, rule of reason, best evidence, democratic discourse, free debate to figure out what’s more likely than not to be the best decision here. It didn’t always work, but it worked a hell of a lot better. Since we adopted this new system we are making catastrophic decisions that have massive consequences. The Iraq invasion. What just happened with macro-economic policy. It really is extremely difficult.”

Actually Mr. Gore this country became the greatest nation in the world because it allowed individual freedom, and your climate change hoax does nothing but work toward retarding those freedoms and of course making you lots of money.

If you would like to hear the VP going  crazy, click on the player below.

Will Al Gore Slam The Ice Caps for Not Disappearing?

A scare tactic of the global warming hoaxers is "man-made warming" will cause the polar ice caps to melt so drastically they will  pass some sort of "tipping point" and like my hair,  will never be able to regrow. Of course in my case it is nothing to worry about because I live at the coast, which according to the hoaxers, by the time the ice caps disappear, will be under water anyway. 

A new report detailed in the latest issue of the Journal of  Science, indicates that their probably isn't any "tipping point." They prove that as recently  as 6,000 years ago (that is recent in geologic time) polar ice caps were half the size they are today and have rebounded very nicely.

We present a sea-ice record from northern Greenland covering the past 10,000 years. Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position. The subsequent increase in multiyear sea ice culminated during the past 2500 years and is linked to an increase in ice export from the western Arctic and higher variability of ice-drift routes. When the ice was at its minimum in northern Greenland, it greatly increased at Ellesmere Island to the west. The lack of uniformity in past sea-ice changes, which is probably related to large-scale atmospheric anomalies such as the Arctic Oscillation, is not well reproduced in models. This needs to be further explored, as it is likely to have an impact on predictions of future sea-ice distribution.

Danish researchers analysed ancient driftwood in north Greenland which they feel is an accurate way to measure  ancient ice loss. The team found evidence that ice levels were about 50% lower 5,000 years ago.  Under the Global Warming hoax, that would have meant that the Ice Caps would have continued melting to the point that they would have dissipated forever (like wide ties and polyester leisure suits). Because the ice caps returned to full health the Danish scientists observe that a tipping point under current scenarios is unlikely.

... a Danish team believes it has found an indirect method that gives a clear picture of the ice loss dating back 11,000 years.

Dr Svend Funder from the Natural History Museum of Denmark led several expeditions to inhospitable regions of Northern Greenland. On these frozen shores the Danish team noticed several pieces of ancient driftwood. They concluded that it could be an important method of unlocking the secrets of the ancient ice.

"Driftwood cannot float across the water, it has to be ferried across the ocean on ice, and this voyage takes several years, which means that driftwood is actually a signal of multi-year sea ice in the ocean and it is this ice that is at risk at the moment" said Dr Funder.

Carbon dating was used to determine the age of the wood. And figuring out its origins also yielded important information.

"It's so lovely that drift wood from Siberia is mainly larch and from North America is mainly spruce. So if we see there was more larch or spruce we can see that the wind system had changed and in some periods there was little spruce and in other periods there was lots," he said.

Wind delay? As well as the driftwood, the scientists mapped beach ridges for 500km (310 miles) along the coast. This proved that at one time the waves had reached the shore unhindered by the ice.

Dr Funder and his team say their data shows a clear connection between temperature and the amount of sea ice. The researchers concluded that for about 3,000 years, during a period called the Holocene Climate Optimum, there was more open water and far less ice than today - probably less than 50% of the minimum Arctic sea ice recorded in 2007.

But the researcher says that even with a loss of this size, the sea ice will not reach a point of no return.

"I think we can say that with the loss of 50% of the current ice, the tipping point wasn't reached."

The idea of an Arctic tipping point has been highlighted by many scientists in recent years. They have argued that when enough ice is lost it could cause a runaway effect with disastrous consequences.

There is no word whether the inventor of the internet and Global Warming Grand Poo-bah,  Al Gore will call for the arrests of the scientists of filed the study or the ice caps themselves.  After all, he stands to make billions of dollars out of the climate change hoax he will do his best to make sure this latest news will not spread. Ultimately we will not know until he returns from his latest Antarctic vacation.

PROVEN! Congressman Gary Ackerman Has Proof That Global Warming is REAL!

Whew! That solves that. The debate is now over.  Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-NY) has proved that Global Warming is real! During a meeting of the House Foreign Affairs committee the Long Island liberal launched into a speech blasting the de-funding of the  global climate change initiative. Apparently the majority of the committee feel that man-made global warming is not real, citing the wealth of information such as the fact that temperatures have actually gone down in recent years, the fact that the famous hockey stick has been proven to be bogus, and the fact that during the medieval period, long before the industrial revolution temperatures were higher than they are today.

But that doesn't deter Ackerman, as you can see in the video below, he has proof that global warming is real, when he goes outside his glasses fog up, with the thousands of scientists working on the climate change issue why didn't they thing of that incredible test?

(if you cannot see video below click here)




Of course there is one flaw in Ackerman's new Global climate change theory, his glasses could also be fogging up because his head is usually deep up the President's arse.

Is NASA Climate-Change Guru's Outside Income Affecting His Reports?

James Hansen of NASA is not just any global warming Moonbat, he is Al Gore's global warming Moonbat. It was Hansen's data that was used in Gore's Oscar/Peace prize winning film. Hansen's work is ruled by one motto: "If God gives you rotten apples, tell everyone it's champagne. Let's just say that Hansen has been known to "fudge" the numbers to make his global warming message look better.

Why would the climate change guru of gurus risk his reputation by using funky numbers?  A new lawsuit seems to indicate that it was good old fashioned capitalism. The lawsuit claims Hansen privately profited from his public job in violation of federal ethics rules, and NASA allowed him to do it because of his influence in the media and celebrity status among environmental groups, which rewarded him handsomely the last four years.

 In 2007 Hansen was forced by reporter Stephen McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest year in history was not 1998 as he had claimed, but 1934.

Well It wasn't exactly a correction. He fought tooth and nail against correcting the numbers, mislead the press and in the end  Hansen didn't fully make the change.  Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request and gained access to all the NASA Documents related to the incorrect data, It showed that unlike an objective scientist, Hansen wasn't very anxious to correct his mistakes.

According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA's rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

These new documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), include internal GISS email correspondence as NASA scientists attempted to deal with the media firestorm resulting from the controversy. In one exchange GISS head James Hansen tells a reporter from Bloomberg that NASA had not previously published rankings with 1998 atop the list as the hottest year on record in the 20th century [not true].

In November of 2008, Hansen made the announcement that the previous month was the warmest Oct. in history. A few days later after all the doom and gloom headlines passed he announced "Oops, never mind, I was wrong." He only admitted the mistake after he was "outed" by other scientists. In reality, Oct. 08 was quite an average October. It Ranked 70th in the last 114 years.

Early this year Hansen announced "The 12-month running mean global temperature in the Goddard Space Institute analysis has reached a new record in 2010  The main factor is our estimated temperature change for the Arctic region." The GISS figures show that recent temperatures in the Arctic have been up to four degrees C warmer than the long-term mean.

Those arctic numbers that were so important to Hansen's announcement turned out to be a figment of his creative imagination.

Art Horn, at the Energy Tribune blog, has blown the whistle on Hansen and GISS. He points out that GISS has no thermometers in the Arctic! It has hardly thermometers that are even near the Arctic Circle. GISS estimates its arctic temperatures from land-based thermometers that supposedly each represent the temperatures over 1200 square kilometers. That's a pretty heroic assumption.

Meanwhile, the Danish Meteorological Institute is publishing sea-surface temperatures from the Arctic showing a cooling trend in the Arctic oceans during melt season since about 1993. Clearly, we have no accurate measure of the real temperatures and trends in the Arctic at this moment. Probably that's not very important. The Russians say that the Arctic has its own 70-year climate cycle. The files of the New York Times, in fact, are filled with stories from the 1920s and 1930s, clearly showing that the Arctic was as warm then as now.

But this is the moment when proposed energy taxes would start to scuttle 85 percent of the energy which powers the modern world and its lifestyles. Global climate alarmists, Hansen among them, are playing a desperate and short-sighted game of "pass the energy taxes."

In other word James Hansen is full of crap. He made the temperatures up...there were no thermometers in the Arctic to measure temperatures.



At least Hansen gets some extra money out of his creative use of numbers.

The NASA scientist who once claimed the Bush administration tried to "silence" his global warming claims is now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, D.C., a group claims NASA is withholding documents that show James Hansen failed to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding substantial compensation he earned outside his $180,000 taxpayer-paid position as director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.


"Hansen's office appears to be somewhat of a rogue operation. It's clearly a taxpayer-funded global warming advocacy organization," said Chris Horner, a co-founder of The American Tradition Institute, which filed the lawsuit. "The real issue here is, has Hansen been asking NASA in writing, in advance, for permission for these outside activities? We have reason to believe that has not been occurring."

Some of Hansen's extra cash came from:

• A shared $1 million prize from the Dan David Foundation for his "profound contribution to humanity." Hansen's cut ranged from $333,000 to $500,000, Horner said, adding that the precise amount is not known because Hansen's publicly available financial disclosure form only shows the prize was "an amount in excess of $5,000."

• The 2010 Blue Planet prize worth $550,000 from the Asahi Glass Foundation, which recognizes efforts to solve environmental issues.

•  The Sophie Prize for his "political activism," worth $100,000. The Sophie Prize is meant to "inspire people working towards a sustainable future."

• Speaking fees totaling $48,164 from a range of mostly environmental organizations.

•  A $15,000 participation fee, waived by the W.J. Clinton Foundation for its 2009 Waterkeeper Conference.

• $720,000 in legal advice and media consulting services provided by The George Soros Open Society Institute. Hansen said he did not take "direct" support from Soros but accepted "pro bono legal advice."

Federal rules prohibit government employees from receiving certain types of income outside their job without prior permission. Plus at the end of the year they are supposed to fill out a form which summarizes their outside income. 

The American Tradition Institute filed a Freedom of Information Act request for those two documents for Hansen. The lawsuit claims NASA has "repeatedly and unlawfully refused to produced the requested materials."

"Should the taxpayer know what's going on? Should, as FOIA intends, NASA disclose documents to shed light on its operations and its compliance within the law? We say yes. The law says yes. NASA says no," Horner said.

Mark Hess, chief of communications for the Goddard Space Center, sent Fox News NASA's response to Horner's FOIA request. It said in many cases the documents Horner requested did not exist. Horner claims they should, if Hansen was complying with the law.

We know that Hansen  has a history of fudging data, and we know that he has received outside income. America has the right to know and to investigate whether or not there is a conflict of interest behind the information supplied by the government, especially when the topic is something as controversial such as global warming. The fact that NASA is refusing to share this information makes Hansen's monetary ties more suspicious.

NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data---AGAIN!

One of the big threats from the global warming moonbat types is that a rise in temperature will melt the polar ice caps causing the oceans to rise, with the cataclysmic result of skyscrapers being under water.  Let's face it, if you think that the commute into Manhattan is bad now....just wait.

There is only one problem with this scenario,  Mother Nature isn't being cooperative.  You see it is true that sea level has risen during the 20th century and probably well before that.  Scientists estimate that sea level has increased by 7 inches during the 2oth century.

The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 2o feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet).


But Mother Nature was never good at computer science.  Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). What's even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006.  Now I know that some Democrats believe that Obama is a miracle worker, but even the the crazies at the Daily Kos would admit that controlling sea level is way above his pay grade. So the scientists at the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group did what any other self-respecting cult members would do, they fudged the numbers.  They simply added .3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. That way they could report that the sea level rise was accelerating, instead of  what was actually happening--decelerating.

The University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is coming to their rescue. The NASA-funded group claims glacial melt is removing weight that had been pressing down on land masses, which in turn is causing land mass to rise. This welcome news mitigates sea-level rise from melting glacial ice, meaning sea level will rise less than previously thought. However, it is very inconvenient for alarmist sea level predictions. Therefore, instead of reporting the amount by which sea level is rising in the real world, the Sea Level Research Group has begun adding 0.3 millimeters per year of fictitious sea level rise to “compensate” for rising land mass.

The extra 0.3 millimeters of fictitious sea level rise will add up to 1.2 inches over the course of the 21st century. While this is not monumental in and of itself, it will allow alarmists to paint a dramatically different picture of sea level rise than is occurring in the real world. For example, the current pace of 8 inches of sea level rise for the present century is essentially no different than the 7 inches of sea level rise that occurred last century. However, with an artificially enhanced 9.2 inches of sea level rise, alarmists can claim sea level is rising 31 percent faster than it did last century.

This isn't the first time NASA climate-change scientists have fudged data. James Hansen is famous for it.

James Hansen of NASA is not just any global warming Moonbat, he is Al Gore's global warming Moonbat. It was Hansen's data that was used in Gore's Oscar/Peace prize winning film. Hansen's work is ruled by one motto: "If God gives you rotten apples, tell everyone it's champagne.

In October of 2008, Hansen made the announcement that it was warmest Oct. in history. A few days later after all the doom and gloom headlines passed he announced "Oops, never mind, I was wrong." He only admitted the mistake after he was "outed" by other scientists. In reality, Oct. 08 was quite an average October. It Ranked 70th in the last 114 years.

 In 2007 Hansen was forced by reporter Stephen McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest year in history was not 1998 as he had claimed, but 1934.

Well It wasn't exactly a correction. He fought tooth and nail against correcting the numbers, mislead the press and in the end  Hansen didn't fully make the change.  Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request and gained access to all the NASA Documents related to the incorrect data, It showed that unlike an objective scientist, Hansen wasn't very anxious to correct his mistakes.

According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA's rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

These new documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), include internal GISS email correspondence as NASA scientists attempted to deal with the media firestorm resulting from the controversy. In one exchange GISS head James Hansen tells a reporter from Bloomberg that NASA had not previously published rankings with 1998 atop the list as the hottest year on record in the 20th century [not true].

Hansen announced recently that "The 12-month running mean global temperature in the Goddard Space Institute analysis has reached a new record in 2010  The main factor is our estimated temperature change for the Arctic region." The GISS figures show that recent temperatures in the Arctic have been up to four degrees C warmer than the long-term mean.

Those arctic numbers that  important to Hansen's announcement were a figment of his creative imagination.

Art Horn, at the Energy Tribune blog, has blown the whistle on Hansen and GISS. He points out that GISS has no thermometers in the Arctic! It has hardly thermometers that are even near the Arctic Circle. GISS estimates its arctic temperatures from land-based thermometers that supposedly each represent the temperatures over 1200 square kilometers. That's a pretty heroic assumption.

Meanwhile, the Danish Meteorological Institute is publishing sea-surface temperatures from the Arctic showing a cooling trend in the Arctic oceans during melt season since about 1993. Clearly, we have no accurate measure of the real temperatures and trends in the Arctic at this moment. Probably that's not very important. The Russians say that the Arctic has its own 70-year climate cycle. The files of the New York Times, in fact, are filled with stories from the 1920s and 1930s, clearly showing that the Arctic was as warm then as now.

But this is the moment when proposed energy taxes would start to scuttle 85 percent of the energy which powers the modern world and its lifestyles. Global climate alarmists, Hansen among them, are playing a desperate and short-sighted game of "pass the energy taxes."

Or in other word James Hansen is full of crap. He made the temperatures up...there were no thermometers in the Arctic to measure temperatures.

The global warming hoaxers have their backs against the wall, the longer it takes to get their job-killing regulations in place, more information will be discovered proving that their man-made-global warming theory is nonsense.

NASA funded scientists are just trying to speed up the process, by inventing data. Its no wonder that some people (not me) believe the moon landing was faked.

Newt's Support of Global Warming Goes WAY Beyond the Pelosi Commercial

Many conservatives point to the Newt Gingrich/Nancy Pelosi global warming commercial as a dent in the former speakers conservative credentials. In the (embedded below) Gingrich sits on a couch with Pelosi,  with the Capitol building as a background saying, that while they don't agree on many issues, "we do agree our country must take action to address climate change." The commercial was one in a series created and placed by Al Gore's Repower America Campaign.

If you cannot see video below click here




Newt makes no apologies for his support of the climate change myth, despite criticism from all over the right  including Rush Limbaugh, who argued on his radio show that the former Georgia congressman had been aiding the "enemy."

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Capitol Hill's most outspoken skeptic on global warming science, said he's keeping a close eye on the Republican candidates.

"Huckabee has been a little bit soft on the issue," he said. Of Gingrich, Inhofe noted, "He was on the stage with Nancy Pelosi at one time. I know he'd just assume people forget that, but at that point it appeared that side was going to win."

"I'd do a commercial with Al Gore," Newt said to Human Events last year, "My point is conservatives ought to be prepared to stand on the same stage and offer a conservative solution." Not offering the possibility that the man-made climate change story was not true, despite the growing evidence.

Indeed back in 2007 Gingrich was supposed to debate John Kerry on the issue of climate change, but the debate never happened.  Gingrich showed up, but he agreed with Kerry.

He [Kerry] tried, at first, to lure Gingrich into a confrontation. "The essence of what I just heard from Newt," he said, is that climate change is "not such a crisis that we have to respond quickly."

Gingrich protested this mischaracterization. "We're not arguing over whether it should be urgent," he said.

Kerry persisted: "We're arguing over the level of the urgency."  

"The question of urgency isn't what's being debated here," Gingrich repeated.

Finally, Kerry relented. "I'm excited to hear you talk about the urgency," he said. But "what would you say to Senator [Jim] Inhofe [R-Okla.] and to others in the Senate who are resisting even the science?"

Gingrich didn't hesitate. "My message," he said, "is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere." The pro-Kerry crowd applauded.

"And do it urgently?" the senator pressed.

"And do it urgently, yeah," the former speaker replied.

Allow me to be clear, Newt Gingrich is certainly entitled to his opinion, and if he truly has conservative green ideas, I would love to see them.  But first the entire man-made climate change theory must be proven.  At this point there is much science proving that it is nothing but a hoax. Newt is a very bright man, he certainly knows this, so his fondness for the climate change nonsense seems more like a way to expand his support base. That is not leadership, it's pandering.