Leftist Denial Intensifying

It seems that the public’s continued lowering opinion of the media, Congress, and the president has had an effect on leftist denial, but it has been to increase it rather than decrease it. The hardcore left is doubling down instead of backing off.

Unconditional, and irrational, adoration of Obama broke new ground with Sports Illustrated naming president Obama as one of the 50 most powerful people in sports. Sounding like a Saturday Night Live skit (or a North Korean news story about their leader), SI considers Obama’s off-handed and un-presidential remarks about various sports as powerful influences.

Nancy Pelosi continues to make senseless statements intended to elicit unconditional acceptance of the administration’s agenda. She redefined tax cuts as spending, adding that we should cut spending by ending tax cuts. Furthering her distance from reality, she also said that Obama has been very bipartisan.

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, arguing for gun control, asserted that “…it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines”. Perhaps in Feinstein’s personal Bizarro world this may be true, but it makes her sound battier than Pelosi – a difficult thing to do.

Refusing to bow to the pressure of reality, the Associate Press continues spin for Obama by lauding a recent drop of .2% in the unemployment rate, adding: “The American job market isn’t just growing. It’s accelerating”. Chris Matthews certainly agreed, wondering when Obama would get “credit for this amazing economy that’s coming back”. For those who have given up looking for a job or forced to settle for a part-time job, this job market is far from having an amazing acceleration.

With reports of global temperatures remaining stable for the past decade, one would think Al “global warming” Gore would take his fortune along with his panic and just go away. Instead, he continues to present himself as a science expert with a new book, “The Future”, expecting his credibility to be intact. It isn’t, but many caught up in political inertia still buy his act.

Perhaps it is true that a good offense is the best defense, but leftist denial propaganda is stale, overexposed, and seemly. It is time to give up that ghost.

David J. Hentosh

Cooling Down on Global Warming

Al Gore is taking one last stab at fear-mongering with his latest book, “The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change”, but his credibility is dying as is the panic over global warming. New data continues to show that not only is the sky no longer falling, it may not have been falling at all.

A recent Norwegian climate research project shows that the earth’s mean temperature rise which occurred throughout the 1990’s has leveled off nearly completely at its 2000 level. In other words, there has been no global warming for well over a decade. Another report coming soon from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.

Every change in climate patterns has been labeled ‘anthropomorphic global warming’ by progressives. Unfortunately, this has resulted in “climate change” becoming synonymous with “global warming” for those on both sides of the political aisle. The distinction is crucial for rational discourse, but that distinction has long been lost.

Since dire global warming predictions have failed dramatically, scientists are looking into reasons for changes in climate patterns and are finding many. The sun with its flares, not surprisingly, contributes much to changes in climate patterns. Rising heat from large cities also affects these patterns and, yes, the burning of fossil fuels contributes its share. However, the exact extent of each contributor is not yet scientifically discernible.

In an interview with Jeffrey Kluger, TIME magazine’s science editor, global warming was confused with climate change as Kluger likened disbelievers to flat-earthers, stating that the “scientific knowledge” was too overwhelming for disbelief. This alludes to a so-called “consensus” among scientists that simply does not exist. There are thousands of scientists who dispute this PC-created global warming “consensus”, and confusion with climate change further clouds the issue.

For ideological believers, there is no data persuasive enough to shatter idealistic notions. For Al Gore, being wrong doesn’t matter as long as his bank account continues to grow. Science, however, will take years to gain back some of the credibility it lost by allowing politics to taint research.

David J. Hentosh

Blind Media Stunned by Debate

The infallibility of Obama was created, sustained, and fully invested in by the media, so to see him on stage looking foolish, stuttering instead of filling the airwaves with imperious rhetoric, was an enormous shock.

To those with no blinders, Obama performed like…well…Obama. His answers were the same type of answers he always gives and there was just as little substance in them as always. To believers, though, it was a slap in the face.

The difference was the environment and ego, or lack of. There was no teleprompter to supply answers to questions rarely asked of him, no cheering audience inflating his ego, and no way out. Obama was on his own, challenged by one doubting his superior intelligence and prepared to rip down the protective media curtain hiding his inadequacies.

Fear of that exposure stifled Obama, and the debate moderator, surprisingly, made no effort to save him. Having no achievements to blunt Romney’s tacit accusations, Obama’s inferior understanding of business and economic issues was evident. He didn’t even have his usual flip answers prepared. Perhaps that’s because he was conditioned by the media to believe he would never be challenged.

Well, live by the media, die by the media – and Obama died, at least for one night. That doesn’t mean, however, that the media won’t recover. It certainly was bad enough to turn Chris Matthew’s leg tingle into a nervous tic, but the spin has already begun. Desperate excuses for Obama’s poor showing abound, the dumbest coming from Al Gore who blamed the high altitude of Denver. That’s better than blaming global warming, but not by much.

Before hopes begin that the media has seen the light, one must recognize the reason for its disappointment. It was not the substance of Obama’s responses, or lack of, that caused panic. It was his failure of delivery, style, and command or, in other words, his façade. Substance was never an issue for the media concerning Obama. It never has been and never will be.

David J. Hentosh

Al Gore’s Infamous Legacy

Al Gore may be laughing all the way to the bank, but the controversy he spawned over global warming has become one of the most polarizing issues in the world. Had Gore not been a politician, the attention he brought to the issue of global climate could have produced a much better result. Having already been mired in political partisanship, however, Gore’s myopic obsession produced a poisonous mixture of politics and science.

Climate change can no longer be discussed rationally or objectively and far too many climatologists have allowed politics to sway their research. The most egregious result is that “climate change” has become synonymous with “global warming” which has become synonymous with “anthropogenic (man-made) global warming”. They are not the same and that confusion permeates the media, politics, and public understanding.

Exaggerated and panic-stricken predictions about global warming have taken a tremendous economical toll. Hastily going “green” has put us in the red. The government invested heavily in the production of inefficient products that are shunned by consumers. This premature marketing effort shifted focus from research to production, stunting efforts to increase efficiency and losing vast amounts of taxpayer money. Far too many government “green” policies were rashly implemented and proving to be very costly with very little ‘bang for the buck’.

Many dire climate predictions have already proved false and much of the early data has been shown to be in error. The science of the issue is not “settled” as Gore would have everyone believe and the complexity involved causes climate models and data interpretation to continually change. Announcements of scientific proof of global warming are followed by scientific disclaimers – all from reputable scientists. How can one call this “settled”? Until the panic, or the planet, cools down, there can be no settlement.

The media’s knee-jerk reaction, sound bite philosophy, and political leaning to Gore fanned the flames. They did the same in the 70’s with predictions of a coming Ice Age based, again, on premature data. The idea of a man-made catastrophe appealed strongly to the misanthropic far-left and they jumped on Gore’s bandwagon. The rest is history, and Gore’s place in that history may very well prove to be one of infamy.

David J. Hentosh

Obama’s Gas Prices

Obama is now scrambling to find someone to blame for the high gas prices that are currently settling in for the coming summer. However, those prices were just one of the energy goals he proudly set when elected. His weak stance on Iran, combined with an idealistic push for a “green” everything, set the stage for rising gas prices that are coming at a time when the economy is strained.

From Victor Davis Hanson at NRO

Suddenly the administration seems to think that high energy prices are bad and, in fact, that it has done a lot to lower them…the fact that gas prices have doubled since January 2009 suggests that whatever the current Obama policy is, it has not worked…

Our departure from Iraq has had nothing to do with calming oil prices…Here at home we have increased oil production despite, not because, of Obama’s policies…(the administration) has discouraged new efforts in the Gulf, off-shore, in Alaska, and in the west — and was quite proud that it had…blocking the Keystone pipeline hardly encourages Middle East producers to make up the slack…

…why is there an administration worry about soon-to-be $5 gas, given that such European levels are necessary to make Solyndra- and Volt-like projects economically viable? When soon-to-be energy secretary Steven Chu declared…that “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” and when a soon-to-be President Obama warned that under his agenda cutbacks on domestic coal production would mean “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” the message was clear…higher energy prices, less consumption, less global warming, more subsidized wind and solar, high-speed rail, and “millions of green jobs…So what’s the problem?

Read the rest here:  Victor Davis Hanson

DJH

Unrealistic Climate Summit

The World Climate Summit (better titled “Occupy the World”) being held in Durban, South Africa has not been getting much media coverage even though it is full of progressive ideology. Perhaps that is because many of the ideas being floated there are so ridiculous they embarrass serious progressives.

The science chairman of the UN’s climate panel admitted that no one has been talking about climate science at this climate conference. Attempts at understanding the science would just be a detriment to the UN’s real goal of establishing a world government run by….you guessed it….the UN.

There is no chance of any agreement between nations at this conference, especially since Third World countries are immune from proposed regulations that would devastate Western economies. Therefore, the behind-the-scenes draft of further goals is little more than a wish list, but it reveals how far from reality these climate jockeys are – and how dangerous they can be.

Christopher Monckton, a renowned climate skeptic, summarized the goals “clearly” spelled out in the draft. Some of the main points he found were: An international climate court (with power only over Western nations); Establishment of rights of Mother Earth and “some parties” threatened by climate change; War and defense forces to cease because they contribute to climate change; Reduction of “more than 100%” in emissions by 2050 (Western countries only); A CO2 concentration target that ends up dangerous to plant life; Demands of $100 billion a year from Western countries – starting now (not a penny from third-world countries).

Highlighting the asininity of these demands, Christopher Monckton informs us that reducing emissions “more than 100%” (which, of course, is impossible) in the next 8 years would mean no more gas-run cars, trains, or airplanes and no more coal or gas-fired power stations. It would also mean no carbon-emitting fires in the caves we would all eventually end up living in.  Only windmills, solar power, and other “renewable” sources would be acceptable.

Of course, the UN’s world government would remain as the ultimate power source, deciding which third-world country would receive the benefits and spoils from each Western country forced to fail under the onerous regulations. That would turn the UN into the evil 1%.

David J. Hentosh

Collision of Science and Politics

The latest round of leaked e-mails of climate scientists proves, once again, that science and politics don’t mix well. No matter how you “interpret” the e-mails or “take them out of context” as some have accused, reading them leaves little doubt that politics is a factor in the scientists’ evaluations. That is enough to taint the credibility of anything they report.

The “consensus” that the media continually tells us exists in the scientific community concerning climate is always challenged by members of that same community. Some have expressed the difficulty they have in doing so because it goes against the grain of the far-left agenda found in many of the places they work. Agenda-driven science is meaningless.

The release of the latest e-mails was carefully timed to coincide with this year’s UN climate summit. This, too, is politically motivated and suffers the consequence of appearing as nothing more than a political stunt. The entire climate issue has become a subject of public scorn, negating any facts that emerge from scientific studies.

The mixing of politics and science was the catalyst for the Solyndra scandal. The administration’s “green” agenda idealistically tried to force new, expensive technology onto a public unwilling to pay the price. Convinced of its own scientific savvy and bolstered by political opposition to it, the administration backed this failure to the tune of a half billion taxpayer dollars.

The Chevy Volt, another administration-backed technological solution, is now having problems with fires. The government agency due to investigate said it “…continues to believe that electric vehicles have incredible potential to save consumers money at the pump, help protect the environment, create jobs and strengthen national security by reducing our dependence on oil”. After expressing that much faith and belief in the Volt, can anyone really expect this agency to objectively investigate?

Government grants have historically been a boon to science, but politics has now become the fly in the ointment. Unless this stops, scientific research will become just another slice of American excellence found only in history books.

David J. Hentosh

Science On Trial in Italy – Dangerous Precedent

Several Italian scientists are now on trial for manslaughter for failing to predict a 2009 earthquake that killed more than 300 people. They met six days prior to the earthquake to analyze data of tremors and concluded that the tremors were not a prelude to a major earthquake. They were wrong and are now being prosecuted.

Criminalizing a wrong “prediction” sets a dangerous and far-reaching precedent. Scientists, certainly, will feel the brunt of such a legal maneuver and will quickly learn to keep findings of any value to themselves. This would slow technical progress and reduce the benefits to society that science has been delivering for years.  More dangerous, however, is the impact this could have on society as a whole.

How long would it be before weathermen are sued for not predicting a thunderstorm, tornado, or flash flood? The very act of being a weatherman would be cause for a lawsuit because it entails predicting the weather. Weather channels would consist only of a TV camera pointed outside for you to make up your own mind about the weather.

Al Gore should certainly be shaking in his boots over this. He has been predicting climate doom for years now and the fact that NY City is not under water is cause for prosecution of him along with many other climate alarmists. Even polar bears would have a case to make (with help from PETA lawyers) for having had to re-locate ahead of predicted melting ice caps.

Investment counselors would be no more and Wall Street would change dramatically. Crystal balls and Tarot cards would be considered illegal paraphernalia and horoscopes would disappear from newspapers. Even the clergy would have sermons vetted to remove promises they cannot deliver. Mothers would be subject to legal action for telling children their noses will grow if they tell lies. Waiting for Santa Claus would have children calling lawyers in the morning. The impact of this foolishness knows no bounds.

Perhaps, though, there is a silver lining in this ominous cloud. Politicians would be forced to tell the truth and not make promises they can’t keep. Wouldn’t that be something?

David J. Hentosh

Shocking News: The Sun Drives Earth’s Climate

According to CERN, one of the world’s most respected centers for scientific research, the sun is the primary driver of climate change on earth. This is sure to shock those who firmly believe man is the most powerful (and most evil) force in our solar system – that is, of course, if this scientific finding gets reported by the mainstream media.

In a project labeled “CLOUD”, scientists demonstrated that cosmic rays grow seed clouds inside earth’s atmosphere and since the sun’s magnetic field shields the earth from cosmic rays, fluctuations in the sun’s magnetic field determines the amount of those cosmic rays and, therefore, heavily influences the temperature of the earth. Perhaps that explains why the earth has had many cooling and heating periods in bygone years long before evil man created the internal combustion engine.

Fearing PC repercussions, the director of CERN, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, said: “I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them,” that would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate.” It is, of course, a scientist’s job to interpret scientific data, but that would intrude upon Al Gore’s self-imposed duty to force data to conform to his economically advantageous agenda.

The most common retort against anyone refuting man-made climate change is to insult their intelligence and call them “deniers”. It will be interesting to see if the scientists at CERN are called ignorant dummies. Then, again, it is more probable that this scientific finding will be ignored and Al Gore will get more face time on TV to help convince non-believers. After all, who could possibly believe that an enormous hot ball, 109 times the size of the earth, could have any effect on the temperature of the earth?

David J. Hentosh

2012 GOP Guide to the Climate Debate

From The Washington Times:

If you’re thinking of becoming a Republican presidential candidate – and who isn’t these days – you can plan on being pressed on the climate issue. In the wake of last week’s new report from a panel of the National Research Council (NRC) reiterating its old talking points on climate, The Washington Post editorialized that all (read “Republican”) candidates for political office should be quizzed about whether they agree with the “scientific consensus of America’s premier scientific advisory group.”

Although this threat is intended to intimidate Republicans who tend toward queasiness when confronted with environmental issues, the attack is easy to parry and then even to counterattack – that’s why Al Gore and his enviros duck debating so-called “climate skeptics.”

Read the rest here.