Hear It Online

Global Warming - A Closer Look

Interviews of climate scientists and biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why the global warming alarmists are incorrect. In some cases, blatantly so. It also provides evidence that the global warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance. Hear from congressmen, experts and even well-known news broadcasters how global governance puts global institutions that are not accountable to the American people in control of every aspect of our economy.

The U.S. government is very close to making this a reality. Very close. Every American, every citizen of the world, needs to hear the other side of the global warming story.

Innovation Trumps Reason

A bold new approach to funding Climate Change was reported this morning on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition (02/04/2009) by Richard Harris, science reporter.

The spin word used was innovation, the innovator being interviewed being a Dr. Dan Sarewitz of Arizona State University who is the Director of the Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes.

While there are those who might consider circumventing the will of the taxpayer to spend gobs of money to promote a politically unpopular faux scientific agenda as unethical Harris sees the situation differently, describing Dr. Sarewitz as ‘One person pushing for an intellectual paradigm shift . . .’

So that’s what they call it now.

The strategy Dr Sarewitz unveiled is this:

‘The idea really is to take the political heat off of climate change and instead move this into the realm of policy wonkdom,’ he says, ‘where many many small decisions made across many agencies, many types of policies, many domains, set the conditions for moving in the right direction without demanding that people accept that this is the most important problem in the world.’

As of late public support for spending big money on Climate Change appears to be a political no go. Dr Sarewitz answers the question of how to side step the public and just spend lots of money. Skip the whole inconvenience of asking for permission and just implement through policy, the issue is just too important for the unwashed masses to chime in.

You have to love innovation.

Climate change is essentially irreversible ;)

Sadly I visited Slashdot and followed a link to a NPR article concerning Climate Change (the crisis formally known as Global Warming). Yes, I knew better.

The last paragraph demonstrates a complete departure from logic, or an exercise in Torus Logic ™. Torus Logic ™ is a close relative of Circular Logic but comes even less close to reason.

The paragraph reads:

“I guess if it’s irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it,” she says. “Because committing to something that you can’t back out of seems to me like a step that you’d want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse.”

This agonizingly pitiful argument for spending billions and billions of dollars is attributed to one Dr. Susan Solomon who, predictably, has much to gain by claiming there is a problem and would be homeless if there were none.

Please note the caption of the tragic photo of Lake Mead’s horrifically low waterline, a waterline that is at “its lowest level since the 1960s.” What climate crisis did we earthlings avert in the 60’s? How did we avert the crisis in the 60’s without spending billions of dollars?

Knock these idiots out, they don’t deserve the mercy shown a rabid dog.