Arguing With “Global Warming” Idiots

Canada Free Press

By Jim O’Neill  Sunday, December 13, 2009

“Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration [scam] in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.” Al Gore

“As public opposition continues to stall Congress’s cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.” Sarah Palin

GeoCraft posted a simple ten-question test online, concerning AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming).  If you familiarize yourself with the correct answers to this quiz, then you will have the “ammo” to deal with the deceitful criminals behind the global warming racket.

It’s your money—don’t let them continue to steal it.

For the sake of those who don’t have the time, or inclination, to take the quiz, I have supplied an abbreviated version of the test questions and answers below.

(1) Question True or False.  “Global warming” is a real phenomenon: Earth’s temperature is increasing.

Answer True.  “Global warming” is a real phenomenon: Earth’s temperature is increasing.  From a geological perspective, global warming is the normal state of our accustomed natural world. Technically, we are in an “interglacial phase,” or between ice ages. The question is not really if an ice age will return, but when.  If Global Warming stops, then you can start worrying!  It means our warm interglacial phase is over and we may be heading into another Ice Age.

(2) Question True or false.  The “Greenhouse Effect” is real and contributes to global warming.

Answer True.  The “Greenhouse Effect” is real.  The “greenhouse effect” helps to moderate temperatures—especially nighttime temperatures. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be -18 degrees C (around zero degrees Fahrenheit).

(3) Question Multiple choice.  The main cause of Global Warming is:

Answer Orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun’s output.  Global Warming occurs in cycles caused mainly by changes in the sun’s energy output, and the sun’s relative position to the earth.  [NOT industrial pollution, automobiles, airplanes, and CO2].

(4) Question Multiple choice:  The Greenhouse Effect is caused primarily by:

Answer Water vapor.  The world’s natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.  [That’s worth re-reading].

(5) Question Multiple choice.  Which most accurately describes the effects of Global Warming in the United States over the last 100 years?

Answer Temperatures have risen less then 1° C during the past 100 years.  During the period 1900 to 1940 temperatures were increasing. Then from 1940 to 1980 temperatures were decreasing. Currently, temperatures are increasing back to about where they were in the 1930’s.  Overall, the total average annual temperature increase in the U.S. in the last century is so slight the actual amount is uncertain—maybe 1/3° C

(6) Question Multiple choice.  How much carbon dioxide (CO2) is in Earth’s atmosphere today?

Answer Less than 1/10th of 1%.  Most CO2 comes from natural terrestrial and ocean biologic activity, and compared to former geologic times, Earth’s atmosphere today is arguably “CO2 impoverished.”  There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.

(7) Question True or false.  Carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants damages forests.

Answer False.  Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the principal gas that trees and other plants need to survive, just like oxygen (O2) is the principal gas that humans and other animals require.  Carbon dioxide is invisible.  The fat, curvy towers that look like they are belching white smoke are really only emitting pure water vapor. They are in effect making clouds.

(8) Question Multiple choice.  Which answer below provides the best explanation for the temperature record [over the past 1,000 years]?

Answer Natural variations in global temperatures may occur in roughly 500-year cycles.  The primary cause of variations in global temperature is due to the cycles of the sun and Earth’s orbit about the sun. In addition to 40-year cycles and 500-year cycles, other temperature cycles include:

  • 21,000 year cycle: Elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun
  • 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5 degree wobble in Earth’s orbit
  • 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit

(9) Question Multiple choice.  Which of the following is not true about an increasing greenhouse effect?

Answer The idea that most scientists think that “global warming” warrants drastic action—is false.  President Clinton and others [e.g. Al Gore—see above] cite a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10% of these “scientists” know anything about climate. Among the signers are: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine.

Over 17,000 [real] scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to express their view that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

(10) Question Which temperature measuring method most accurately measures global warming?

Answer Orbiting weather satellites provide the most accurate temperature measurements.  The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperatures in the middle of the troposphere, about 5 kilometers up.  Interestingly, in the 5 years leading up to 2007, the temperature of the mid troposphere actually decreased slightly and surface temperatures ceased warming—even as CO2 concentrations continued to increase. This should not have happened if CO2 increases to the atmosphere are the primary driver of global warming.

So there you have it.  You are now armed with sufficient knowledge to insulate yourself from The Big Lie, and defend yourself against its vociferous, duplicitous proponents.

Don’t expect them to back off, simply because intelligent, sane people prefer the truth to their b.s.  They will continue to lie—more stridently than ever—and their propaganda arm, the liberal press, will continue to trumpet their falsehoods.

But we are hip to the con.  Time to start suing yet?

Glenn Beck: Robert Creamer Strikes Back

Dec. 12, 2009

Glen Beck

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the left is lining up to support convicted felon Robert Creamer, the patron saint of progressivism, who was recently crowned a lifetime achievement award for his wonderful work pushing the progressive agenda.

The Huffington Post, where Creamer blogs, called me a loser while in the same breath saying that all Creamer did was “float checks to keep a great progressive public interest organization alive that he was running at the time.”

Oh, that’s it? He only stole $2.3 million from banks? Geez, why am I so upset that this guy attended the White House state dinner and wrote the book that David Axelrod says is the “blueprint” for progressives?

And yes, progressives, as much as you try to excuse it: Taking money from a bank that isn’t yours — even if you intend to someday pay it back or achieve social justice with it — is stealing.

Amazingly, this thief, who used his own trial as some kind of twisted PR campaign to glorify himself, now says this about me: “This is a man who lies about everything. He frames things in a conspiratorial, surreal light.”

Let’s get this straight: The man who swindled banks out of $2.3 million and cheated on his taxes says that I lie about everything?

What have I lied, about, Robert? Please, show me.

I’d love hear another explanation on the things we talk about. That’s why I have a phone line just for the White House — because I want them to call! Maybe I’ll give you the number and you can specify these “lies” of mine.

One of my big “lies” — according to the convicted felon whom the state of Illinois has deemed an official liar — is that influential people are being influenced by his book. Creamer doesn’t agree, calling the claim “laughable” and saying: “I wish I had that much influence over the White House, but I don’t.”

Laughable? Let’s see:

Creamer is married to a congresswoman from Illinois; he’s a powerful Democratic lobbyist and well-known Democratic consultant, including at one time for the George Soros’ funded Open Society Institute. He is so non-influential, his book gets rave marks as a “blueprint” for progressives from people with zero influence on American policy — including but not limited to:

• Senator Dick Durbin

• Senator Sherrod Brown

• John Podesta, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress

• Former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder

• Reverend Jesse Jackson

• Congressman Lloyd Doggett

• Congressman Jim McGovern

• Congressman John Lewis

• SEIU President Andy Stern

• Top Obama adviser, David Axelrod, who calls the book a “blueprint” for progressive victories

I am pretty sure Axelrod has the ear of the president. And isn’t Andy Stern leading the way in visits to the White House?

So clearly Creamer has no connections — none. He’s not so politically connected that even the judge in his trial considered recusing himself because he was well-connected in the Democratic Party in Illinois and his son-in-law worked for him.

No, Creamer is a regular Joe. So of course no one was paying attention when he laid out plans to achieve health care reform back in 2008.

Indiana Police go to Supreme Court against Obama’s theft at Chrysler

The Post & E-Mail

by John Charlton

The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C..The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C..

(Dec. 8, 2009) — On Friday of this week, the Supreme Court of the United States has scheduled a hearing conference for the petition made by the Indiana Police Pension Trust against the theft of their nearly $6.5 billion dollar investment in the Chrysler Corporation, which was perpetrated by the Obama regime earlier this summer.

The action, whereby the U.S. Treasury, without authorization by Congress, used TARP funding to force Chrysler LLC into a debtor-client relationship, and then in using that to practically control the corporation in bankruptcy pleadings has raised several constitutional and legal issues on the action.

The case’s official name is “Indiana Police Pension Trust et al. vs. Chrysler LLC et al.”  The official docket of the Case at the Supreme Court shows the progress of the case before the Supreme Court.

It  should be noted that a Conference Hearing is merely a preliminary, albeit necessary, step in the process of obtaining a hearing on the merits of the case.  A previous petition for a stay of the sale of Chrysler LLC was denied by the full court in July. This Friday the Court will consider whether to issue a Writ of Certiori, whereby it would notify the United States’ Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, of its intention to review the case.

In October, a brief of Amicus curiae was submitted by a group of leading constitutional scholars and advocacy groups, on behalf of the Plaintiffs in this case:  the Washington Legal Foundation, the Allied Educational Foundation, the Cato Institute and the legal scholar, Dr. Todd J Zwycki.  Dr. Zwycki’s participation indicates the high level of interest in the legal world in the issues raised by the case, as can be seen from the brief biography the Amicus curiae brief contains, regarding his credentials:

Todd J. Zywicki is George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, where he also serves as Senior Scholar of the Mercatus Center. He regularly teaches in the areas of bankruptcy law, consumer credit, and corporate lending. Editor of the Supreme Court Economic Review, Professor Zywicki is the author of more than 70 articles in leading law reviews and peerreviewed economic journals, including “Is Forum- Shopping Corrupting America’s Bankruptcy Courts?,” 94 GEORGETOWN L.J. 1141 (2006); “Institutions, Incentives, and Consumer Bankruptcy Reform,” 62 WASHINGTON & LEE L. REV. 1071 (2005); and “An Economic Analysis of the Consumer Bankruptcy Crisis,” 99 NORTHWESTERN L. REV. 1071 (2005).

The Amicus curiae brief is an excellent summary of the history and merits of the case. You can download a copy through this link (PDF 1.2 MB).

To steal the investment of the Indiana Policemen’s Pension Trust and give it to union workers, is a classic example of Marxist ideology in practice.  Karl Marx taught that the redistribution of wealth was the only way to redress injustice between the rich and poor.  By systematically destroying the financial investments and security of groups which Obama might consider threats to his power, and transferring that wealth to his political supporters, Obama and his regime is without doubt rebuilding the political power map of the nation to ensure his continued residency in the White House.

Such action is a dire indication that there will no longer be free and open elections in the country, a fact confirmed by the recent, massive election fraud in the New York 23rd Congressional District special election.

By such actions the Obama regime has marked itself out as the greatest threat to the American republic in the history of our nation.

This case and the Amicus curiae brief in its support, are, however, in the opinion of The Post & Email, fatally flawed; since once one concedes that a constitutionally ineligible person can lawfully exercise the authority of the supreme executive officer, one has in fact already conceded that the Constitution is no longer the Supreme Law of the land, and that the Supreme Court of the United States is no longer bound to defend the rights of the Plaintiffs in accord with that Law, or according to any written law, for that fact.