Global Warming Alarmists Equate Base Hit With Home Run

The Global Warming Alarmists and their sycophants in the media continue to play their shell game when it comes to climate change. When one reads about or views media exchanges like a recent one with Miles O'Brien, you do not know whether to laugh at the lameness of their efforts or cry that such lameness is taken seriously by too many. If you look at this in terms of baseball, you see that the alarmist are treating a base hit with a Home Run. Anyone familiar with baseball knows this is ridiculous. Why do I draw an analogy to Baseball? It is clear when you review my five questions on global warming. These questions are:

1) Has it been proven that Global Warming is actually happening?
2) Has it been proven that Global Warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases?
3) Has it been proven that Global Warming will cause catastrophic conditions that will result in massive human casualties?
4) Has it been proven that if 1-3 are correct that it is possible for man to prevent #3 by reducing or eliminating their output in greenhouse gases?
5) Just because 2-4 are unproven and likely a crock, does this excuse man's irresponsible polluting of the earth?

I created these five questions when formulating the most time consuming post I have ever created which dealt with the fact that Global Warming is NOT a settled science. The first four questions are designed to tear the thinking person away from the shell game that Al Gore and his followers try to play with us. All four questions must be provably answered before we should even think of sinking trillions of dollars into "fixing". Yet those who play the shell game keep pointing to the only question close to being proven (yes the earth appears to have warmed ONE degree).

So if these first four questions are treated as bases in a baseball field, the best scientists have been able to do is get to first base and they maybe are rounding the corner toward second. Yet the alarmists are ready to change the scoreboard and add a point as if a Home Run has been scored. Instead, the Skeptics have a guy on first and another near second ready to trap and tag the runner between the two bases.

To illustrate my point, here are some quotes from Miles O'Brien (from transcript courtesy of Newsbusters):

"If you go through all of those statements, they, in sum, do not actually go after the central thesis of the film itself, which is that global warming is real and there is a human connection there."

Translation: So what if Gore got sloppy and had 9 major inaccuracies in his film. You can still trust the rest of it.

"So, clearly what we're talking about here is, there isn't much debate in the science. The judge didn't even say that."

Translation: According to Miles since the judge did not spoon-feed us by saying these 9 inaccuracies undermine the GW theory, it doesn't. We can still bury our head in the sand and claim the science is settled.

"And now 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by human beings. So there really isn't a scientific debate anymore on this, Heidi."

Translation: You can get tagged out 5 feet away from home, but it is still a Home Run in my book.

"Really, if you look at those inaccuracies and go through them point by point, they really boil down to exaggerations."

Translation: Exaggerations, but we can still trust our friend Al Gore.

"He [the judge] does say that in some cases Al Gore may have connected some dots that scientists are not ready to connect."

Translation: We are still at the level of unconnected dots, but the science is settled because a base hit equals a Home Run in my book.

Do these people actually listen to themselves? Do they actually think through this before they get on the air? Or do they simply go under the assumption that Al Gore has unquestionable moral authority because they think he should have won in 2000? If he had won in 2000, I do not think the Alarmists would have gained such a foothold that they have. In a final analogy, those of us who have had children know how doting a parent can be. During the baby stage, everything your baby does is cute, amazing, worthy of applause, etc. The same is with Al Gore. Because much of the world views Al Gore in terms of a clash between himself and Bush, they are choosing to dote upon Al Gore like they would a baby. Everything he does or says is wonderful. When he burps, they clap. When he messes his pants, they are spellbound. When trying to walk and he falls, they cheer and help him back up again. Kool-Aid drinking at its finest.

Another Fixed Award for Having the Same Agenda as the Awarding Committee

Yawn. Al Gore won the Nobel Politics Prize. This prize like Academy and Grammy Awards seems to orbit toward those with "approved" views and the vocalization of these views. What is difficult to stomach is the media's reaction to the news of winning as if the end result were ever in doubt. Ever since his nomination, it was a given that they would grant it to Al Gore. During the entertainment awards, while the conservative community goes to bed early knowing who will win, the rest of the gullible world watches with bated breath. Upon revelation, the "surprise" is celebrated with full vigor and the winner is crowned with both the award and "vindication" of their outspoken views.

So either the Nobel committee has either been sucked into the Global Warming illusion or they are part of the instigating group to begin with. Setting aside all concerns that global warming has nothing to do with world peace, this activist committee has selected their agenda du jour as the winning criteria. While the sheeple of this country are reacting to the news with discussion of launching another presidential run (and loss), the informed conservatives yawn.

Inhofe Sees Momentum Shift in Global Warming

In a recent long post on Global Warming I stated that each global warming post would begin with 5 critical questions:
1) Has it been proven that Global Warming is actually happening?
2) Has it been proven that Global Warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases?
3) Has it been proven that Global Warming will cause catastrophic conditions that will result in massive human casualties?
4) Has it been proven that if 1-3 are correct that it is possible for man to prevent #3 by reducing or eliminating their output in greenhouse gases?
5) Just because 2-4 are unproven and likely a crock, does this excuse man's irresponsible polluting of the earth?

Cybercast News Service recently produced a column about how Senator Inhofe is seeing a shift in the momentum of the global warming debate favoring skeptics. The column states:

Politicians who build campaigns around "alarmist" global warming claims are themselves becoming quite alarmed because of growing skepticism, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said.

Momentum is shifting away from scientific theories bolstering "anthropocentric" (human-centered) models of global warming and toward skeptics who do not see a link between human activity and rising temperatures, Inhofe told the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

It goes on to state that the momentum shift is so significant that we are seeing a migration in the scientific community toward skepticism:

"Politicians who are using this to run for office are panicking because the scientists have totally reversed themselves on this issue," he asserted.

Inhofe provided a handout giving examples of what he called "scientific reversals."

Recent organized efforts bolstored by scientific facts show that at the very least the issue is far from settled. With such high visibility and new theories surfacing, can it be that many scientists are realizing that their legacy is on the line and will be recorded for people to reference for centuries. The consensus bandwagon is starting to look less appealing.

Senator Inhofe continues to be a point guard against the global warming alarmists. Today he got a crack at Al Gore when the former VP testified to Congress on the issue. Inhofe had an opening statement prepared to give to Al Gore that can be read here. Here are a few highlights with my emphasis:

It is my perspective that your global warming alarmist pronouncements are now and have always been filled with inaccuracies and misleading statements. Many of the peer-reviewed studies published in such journals as Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, and Science are radically at odds with your claims. I do not have time to delve into each flaw with your movie, but I do want to touch on just 2.

First, you have claimed that there is a “strong, new emerging consensus” linking global warming to an increase in hurricane intensity and duration. Yet last year, the World Meteorological Organization very clearly rejected this assertion, and other scientists agree.

Secondly, you said that East Antarctica might melt and this could raise sea levels by 20 feet, so we’re all going to die. However, according to many scientists, Antarctica is gaining ice mass, not losing it. In a 2005 study published in Science a team of researchers led by Dr. Curt Davis found an overall gain in ice mass in Antarctica over a ten year period.

He referred to the some supporters hinting that Gore may be harming his own cause with his alarmism. Inhofe points out that it is no wonder Gore has refused to debate those who have challenged him including the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus and Lord Monckton of Benchley. Inhofe gives his reason for Gore's fear of debate:

When the debate is balanced, skeptics win, alarmists lose. In New York last week, for instance, a major debate took place to examine whether global warming is a crisis. Prior to the debate, the hand-wringers, the alarmists, in the audience outnumbered those who didn’t think it was a crisis 2 to 1. After the debate, the alarmists were outnumbered – a major turnaround in beliefs in a single night.

That shift mirrors a larger one taking place in the scientific community. Claude Allegre, a French geophysicist – Nir Shaviv, an Israeli astrophysicist – and meteorologist Reid Bryson have converted from alarmists to believing that climate variability is largely natural. In short, the ranks of converted scientists are skyrocketing.

Pretty impressive for a tough liberal New York crowd. Gore wants to whistle past the graveyard with his claims that the issue is "beyond dispute". We need more debates and we need them made public. My five questions would be a good structure for the debate. I doubt they will, though.

Choking Hypocrisy From Left

The high profile hypocrisy monitors never seem to focus on liberals / Democrats. Sure the conservative blogs and talk shows put the spotlight on them, but it is very hard to find elsewhere. The fact is that the hypocrisy on the left is so thick it has a choking effect to observe. We see jet-setter Al Gore hiding behind his Environmental Bulimia. We see the Dems different standard on perjury and pardons when you compare their treatment of Scooter Libby and Bill Clinton. Harry Reid is grandstanding and making a fool of himself demanding that Bush pledge not to pardon Libby.

There is a double standard on perjury between Libby and Tim Russert. According to Victory Toensing in National Review Online:

The court prevented the defense from impeaching Tim Russert: The NBC anchorman, who has a law degree, testified he did not know a lawyer could not accompany a witntess before the grand jury. The defense then exhumed three clips where Russert had said on the air that a lawyer cannot go into the grand jury with his client. The judge would not allow the jury to hear that other honorable people sometimes forget or misspeak when being grilled on the witness stand.

If this is the case, why is Russert still considered honorable and respected. Why no charges from Fitzgerald against the same kind of perjury that he accused Libby of? In fact there is more evidence of Russert perjury - video tape, than against Libby - witness testimony with demonstrable memory faults. I found it ironic that on CNN somebody stated that it was likely Russert's testimony and "high credibility" that tilted the decisions for the jury.

With such a mountain of examples to choose from, I will finish with John Edwards. Edwards is building his presidential campaing on class warfare and massive wealth transfers. To bolster his argument Edwards drops the name "Jesus" by stating:

I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs...I think he would be appalled, actually.

Of course nothing portrays "selfish short-term needs" like an 82,000 square foot house and a $2.6 million beach summer home. (photo courtesy of Rush Limbaugh). Rest assured if AP had been doing a similar story on a wealthy Republican, they would have squeezed in references to such excess.

The fact is that liberalism is loaded with hypocrisy. However, they bank on people being ignorant of the details. They count on the media keeping their dirty secrets from high profile exposure. They look to mitigate what is told by picturing conservative sources as angry and hateful instead of informative. Liberals have infested and infected every influential area of society: media, education, unions, science organizations, medical organizations, legal organizations, all levels and departments of government (including the Pentagon, State Department, the CIA, the FBI, the Justice Department), the entertainment world. At times it seems a nearly impossible battle to fight. Ignorance, deception and disinformation are a liberal's best friend.

Gold Standard of Environmentally Friendly House and the Gore Hypocrisy

Jason over at the Texas RainMaker blog has a very interesting post on the subject of the environmental hypocrisy of Al Gore. Recently Sean Hannity and the conservative think tank have been drawing attention to the massive carbon output of Al Gore's 4 houses. Hannity has also been pointing out Gore's many travels on private jets while preaching to the great unwashed about their greenhouse gases. Jason quotes a liberal blog to describe the house of "the 2000 Presidential Candidate":

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.

Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this “eco-friendly” dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

Wow, somebody really cares about the environment here. Why are they knocking Gore around so much with that house to wear as a green badge of honor. WAIT! That's not Gore's home. That is the OTHER 2000 presidential candidate's home - George W. Bush. Glad to see at least one liberal source is giving Bush a thumb's up on something.

But wait, Al Gore makes up for all of his waste with papal indulgences -I mean carbon offsets. When I first heard about the carbon offsets my first thought was "Wow, that sounds just like the papal indulgences of the 16th century Catholic Church. You could sin all week and buy forgiveness on the weekend. You could even buy forgiveness for dead relatives. I was going to post on the need for a modern day Martin Luther to post 95 theses denouncing the carbon indulgence offsets. I guess others have also thought about it and have been writing about it. In my delay it is no longer original. So I have come up with another analogy. It is like somebody with an eating disorder gourging themselves on food and then running to the toilet to stick their finger down their throat to make themselves throw up. I think I am the first to coin the term Environmental Bulimia to describe carbon offsets.

Next Jason points out that even with the carbon offsets, Al Gore is playing games. Guess who he buy the carbon offsets from - himself. He buys the offsets from an organization he helped found and has a personal stake in. Wow, what things these political "rock stars" can get away with. Is anybody on the left embarrassed of their champion yet? If not, they have some major blinders on.