Whenever there is a huge snowstorm (and we had quite a few of those this year) the sane part of the population (those who do not believe in man-made global warming) make comments about global warming and how it must not be real. When we discuss these things and other events we are quickly told by the global warming alarmists that these events are just weather and there is a difference between weather and climate.
The Holy Father of global warming did the exact same thing at a global warming conference when he said that recent weather events were consistent with global warming.
But Gore had a specific example in mind. He explained this recent soaking in the Northeastern United States was “consistent” with what global warming alarmists were projecting. Business and Media Institute
We had several blizzards this year and this is not consistent with what the alarmists have said. Some of them lamented about winters without snow blah blah.
The snow runs contrary to what they have told us even as they claim that the snow is a sign of global warming.
But are the alarmists who routinely mock people as ignorant for not knowing the difference between climate and weather going to call out Gore for his lack of understanding of the issue?
If the snowstorms are not evidence that global warming is not a problem because they are weather events then all the soaking rains we had are not evidence because they too are weather events.
Would one of you self righteous alarmists contact Mr. Gore and inform him of his egregious error?
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.
You won’t want to miss tonight’s Rick Moran Show, one of the most popular conservative talk shows on Blog Talk Radio.
Tonight, we’ll stretch the show to two hours and bring in some of the smartest bloggers and writers out there. Rich Baehr and Ed Lasky of the American Thinker, Stephen Green of Vodkapundit, and Monica [...]
That Obama and crew are again being shown to have lied while campaigning, or the muted and low-key reporting by the few MSM outlets to carry the story that Obama’s team is more secretive than the Bush team ever was? Their actions are finally giving meaning to what they meant when they told us they were about “hope and change”, I guess.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal agencies haven’t lived up to President Barack Obama’s promise of a more open government, increasing their use of legal exemptions to keep records secret during his first year in office. An Associated Press review of Freedom of Information Act reports filed by 17 major agencies found that the use of nearly every one of the law’s nine exemptions to withhold information from the public rose in fiscal year 2009, which ended last October. Among the most frequently used exemptions: one that lets the government hide records that detail its internal decision-making. Obama specifically directed agencies to stop using that exemption so frequently, but that directive appears to have been widely ignored. Major agencies cited that exemption at least 70,779 times during the 2009 budget year, up from 47,395 times during President George W. Bush’s final full budget year, according to annual FOIA reports filed by federal agencies. Obama was president for nine months in the 2009 period.
Right!!!! Obama told them not to, but they then went ahead and used it with such frequency - it’s almost double the number - that they set a new record! Either that means they think Obama a weakling moron and simply don’t care what he has ordered them to do, which is bad thing for the country in general because it projects the image that the executive has no control over it’s own government agencies, or the more likely truth, that Obama was saying this stuff during the campaign, but didn’t mean it at all, and the MSM, as they are wont to, is giving him cover with this kind of stupid writing in this article, which IMO is a much worse thing. My bet is - and this is based on the other promises not kept so far - that it is a combination of both, with the later being the bigger driver. And before you claim that these exemptions are happening for national security or military reasons, look at this:
In all, major agencies cited that or other FOIA exemptions to refuse information at least 466,872 times in budget year 2009, compared with 312,683 times the previous year, the review found. Agencies often cite more than one exemption when withholding part or all of the material sought in an open-records request. The AP examined the 2008 and 2009 budget year FOIA reports from the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Federal Reserve Board. Other FOIA exemptions cover information on national defense and foreign relations, internal agency rules and practices, trade secrets, personal privacy, law enforcement proceedings, supervision of financial institutions and geological information on wells.
Now, before you rabid libs get all mad at me and say I am inconsistent or did not call the Bush administration out when they did the some of the same, know that I have no problem with the government’s legitimate use of exemptions to FOIA. I am writing this to point out how differently the MSM reports a much broader and intensive use by government of the FOIA exemption depending on who is running the government. Even more important, I am writing it to point out that Obama and the demcorats, yet again, lied to us during their campaigning. If anything, this government is more secretive, and less concerned with your freedoms, than the one BDS infected liberals accused of being fascists, and yet, we now get tepid articles that actually defend the same practices that a year or two ago sent these morons into a frenzy.
Much of the Obama administration’s early effort on FOIA seems to have been aimed at clearing out a backlog of old cases: The number of requests still sitting around past the time limits spelled out in the open-records law fell from 124,019 in budget year 2008 to 67,764 at the end of the most recent budget year over the 17 agencies, the AP’s review found. There is no way to tell whether those whose old cases that were closed ultimately received the information they sought.
I wonder how many of these back-log items were filed by liberals when they thought they could use it to hurt the Bush Administration, but now would if revealed would be inconvenient to them since they are the ones in charge. Nice when it hurts and hampers the fascist Bush administration, bad if we have to live by the same standards and rules we hoped to use against them. If anything, that should make you wonder how seriously these people take our security when they so callously and easily play political games with information that when someone else was running the country they wanted disclosed, even if it endangered us, but now that they are in charge, feel should no longer be disclosed. Keep that in mind the next time you hear a democrat tell you how much worse others are and especially when they promise you something.
Big payoffs to unions, free healthcare to illegal aliens, death panels for Americans, limits and rationing to Americans… it’s ALL in the bill (HR 3200).
And remember, folks. We get taxed immediately but none of these wonderful “benefits” actually kick in for FOUR YEARS! So even if you liked this communist paradise you won’t get it for almost half the decade. It makes you wonder… how many dead people will Democrats be responsible for since this bill doesn’t kick in for so long, eh?
These are the things that Democrats want in a nationalized healthcare bill. These are the things that WILL end up passed if ANY part of Obamacare is passed.
This will materially alter the relationship between citizen and government and will put a tombstone over what was the United States of America. If Obamcare passes, the U.S.A. is dead.
Here’s one from a few days ago I ran across, which already has garnered over 840 comments, most of them seemingly taking the writer, Peter Gleick, to task for his climahysterical article. Let’s see, shall we?
Here is the best argument against global warming:
. . . .
Oh, right. There isn’t one.
There is no good argument against global warming. In all the brouhaha about tiny errors recently found in the massive IPCC report, the posturing by global climate deniers, including some elected officials, leaked emails, and media reports, here is one fact that seems to have been overlooked:
First, it is not an argument against global warming. It is against man caused (anthropogenic, man induced, whatever you want to term it) global warming, or, as you folks call it, climate change, since you, in such a self-described scientific manner, link everything into it. Hot, cold, wet, dry, snow, tornadoes, hurricanes or lack thereof, frogs dying, species being found, allergies, etc and so on. Second, it is not incumbent upon us “deniers” to prove our theory, based on 4 billion years of history. You have to prove yours.
Third, those “tiny” errors are not actually tiny. Many of them are primary points within the UN IPCC, used to “prove” their whole position.
Those who deny that humans are causing unprecedented climate change have never, ever produced an alternative scientific argument that comes close to explaining the evidence we see around the world that the climate is changing.
I’ll leave that to the professionals at this moment, but, I did notice something, Pete. Do you mind if I call you Pete? Nowhere in you article do you provide a scientific argument that explains how the current warming period is caused “most likely,” to us, in the IPCC vernacular, by Mankind. Sucks to be you. Oh, hey, can you explain the “no statistical warming over the last 15 years,” or that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, as told by Phil Jones? How about all the “missing” data? Or that temperature upticks precede CO2? Or…..well, we all know the reality. Can we move Peter from stage 1 of the 5 stages of grief?
Here is the way scientists think science works: Ideas and theories are proposed to explain the scientific principles we understand, the evidence we see all around us, and the mathematical models we use to test theories. Alternative theories compete.
Gore, the self-anointed climate change alarmist-in-chief, told supporters on a March 15 conference call that severe weather in certain regions of the country could be attributed to carbon in the atmosphere – including the recent rash of rainy weather.
There’s your “scientific” theory, Pete. If everything can be blamed on global warming, it is no longer science, it is tautology.
Scientists are used to debating facts with each other, with the best evidence and theory winning. Well, this is a bar fight, where the facts are irrelevant, and apparently, the rules and tools of science are too. But who wins bar fights? As the Simpsons cartoon so brilliantly showed, bullies. Not always the guy who is right.
Al Gore is not a scientist, Pete. Nor is Barack Obama, nor are the Democrats (and Lindsay Graham) who are pushing this. Nor are a good chunk of those who wrote the IPCC. Hmmph. Strange, huh?
