The general consensus seems to be that Mitt Romney won the debate with Barack Obama last Thursday night in Denver, CO. I frankly disagree with this consensus. Romney did not win; Obama lost. There was little in Romney’s performance that was praiseworthy, but there was nothing that was so in Obama’s performance.
The First Romney v. Obama Debate
After watching this political kabuki play, reading the transcripts of it, and subjecting myself to the lamestream media’s analysis of it, I’m left with the conclusion that Romney “won” only because Obama did even manage “Present” on that night.
The Obama that America’s domestic enemies rallied behind in 2008 was not in attendance at that debate. Only, a tired, stilted, stuttering man who was obviously in over his head and trying to defend a lack of job performance that would and should land any normal person without a job.
Al Gore, the Hierophant of Global Warming, is getting angrier and angrier about his descent into irrelevance. This is unsurprising since he’s lost a great deal of money with the ongoing collapse of the AGW cult’s political power and stands to lose even more.
It’s truly hilarious to watch this ineffectual sociopath decompensate and become more and more unhinged.
Gore™ AGW Kool Aid – It’s Not Selling Anymore
At an Aspen Institute media forum titled “Networks and Citizenship” Gore came unhinged and started railing against just about every segment of American industry.
The model of media manipulation used then, Gore said, “was transported whole cloth into the climate debate. And some of the exact same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!” Gore exclaimed.
Even leaving the profanity and utter gracelessness of Gore’s rantings aside, this was a pathetic display by a deeply morally bankrupt individual, hell-bent on trying to revive his doomsday cult for his own profit despite the growing weight of findings that shatter their myths.
“They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message…” After all the fraud, shoddy and slanted methodology, subornation of the peer review process, and outright corruption displayed by the IPCC, Al Gore, The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, and horde of other Warmists, it’s safe to say that Gore’s claim fits him and them far better than those that he railed against.
Al Gore’s cultists, The Warmists still wail, rant and rave about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) – or whatever they’ve rebranded it as this month – and still monomaniacally fixate on man-made CO2 emissions as the cause of their looked-for apocalypse. This they, in their religious fervor, do despite a plethora of contrary evidence as to CO2’s primary and secondary effects upon our planet’s climate.
Sadly for them, their eschatology runs afoul of Chaos Theory and, even leaving the falsity of much of their data aside, it’s patently ridiculous for supposed scientists to believe that they can come up with the correctly weighted causative factors behind systemic changes when the system in question is as large and poorly understood as Earth’s climate.
Perhaps they should have read more about Professor Edward Norton Lorenz’ “Butterfly Effect” – i.e., sensitive dependence on initial conditions in nonlinear systems
Alas that could never happen. Lorenz was a meteorologist as well as a mathematician and we know the disdain and contempt that the Warmists feel towards meteorologists.
Still, the issue is potentially important and deserved study. After some research I found a pattern of events and actions that seems to near-perfectly fit their warming models. I may have actually stumbled upon the real culprit behind AGW – the United States Postal Service.
Chart 1 – US Postal Charges vs. Global Mean Temperatures
(Click to Enlarge)
The Warmists should really look into this. Global mean temperatures track much closer to US Postal rates than to atmospheric CO2 levels. Doing so shouldn’t bother them much either, if they can get past their slavish devotion to their dogma. It fits the facts in evidence, is still anthropogenic in nature, and would make AGW entirely America’s fault. Hence it doesn’t violate anything in the Warmists’ core doctrine. 😛
Despite it being based upon a postulate that has been deprecated as largely false and entirely unproven, I could almost respect the people who made this video. It shows a firm commitment by its creators to a cause and refusal to turn a blind eye to unpopular or politically incorrect solutions.
Want To Slow Global Warming? Stop Immigration!
If both everything and only that which the Warmists claim were true, then this video would be, by and large, true. Halting or greatly reducing and restricting immigration to America from the Third World would slow the rate of Anthropogenic Climate Change.
It’s grim and scary fact that the US Census Bureau’s middle and most likely projection is that the US will add 120 million people to the population of the U.S. by 2050 and that 67% of this population explosion will be due to immigration and the progeny of immigrants.
Each and every one of those immigrants and their broods are going to expect to live somewhat akin as to how Americans live, an admittedly wildly resource consuming lifestyle. The slightly over 80 million immigrants and children of immigrants will require America to produce, expend, and/or consume:
Even to the majority of people, those who haven’t bought into Al Gore’s doomsday cult of AGW, have to see that these numbers are not sustainable. If the US Census Bureau’s projections are close to accurate, America has a future measured in years and not very many of those.
Whether true or not, this video and the intent behind it is stupid. It’s farcical to think for a moment that Greens, Liberals, and Progressives who make up the Warmists would ever entertain any thought that was not expressly and actively pro-immigration and/or pro-minority. Those sorts would never consider advocating such things as limiting immigration from Third World areas.
Irrespective of whatever they’ve ever stated about the problem of Global Warming, their chosen solutions have always had far more to do with wealth distribution than with combating Climate Change.
At the most fundamental level, if that wasn’t the case, then they wouldn’t have mono-focused on CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. They would have also looked at CO2 emission levels from biofuel / biomass production and that of charcoal, which is a primary fuel for much of the Third World. They also might have – still adhering to their postulate of Anthropogenic Global Warming of course – done some serious research into the climatic effects of the levels of deforestation both these processes cause.
But such things are not and never will be part of any Green’s, Liberal’s, or Progressives’ agenda. No matter what their current cause célèbre is, their “solutions” are all the same and do not include anything resembling the ideas in this video.
It’s stupid to believe that the Green’s, Liberal’s, or Progressives’ have the capability or will to understand or to change their ways.
It seems many of the Liberals are outraged that President Obama included Professor Jonathon I. Katz in his “dream team” of scientists, mostly leading physicists and engineers, who’ve been charged with going to the Gulf of Mexico to work with BP to stop the oil leak that’s contaminating the Gulf waters.
What is most telling is not that the Left is outraged but what specifically they’re outraged over in this matter.
What should be able to be considered strangely, the issue isn’t with Prof. Katz’s admitted lack of usefulness in dealing with the spill or its cleanup.
I was honored to be invited and enjoyed the experience. Did I have anything much to contribute? I think I have some ideas for how to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future, but I don’t have anything very specific to offer on the present problems. It is very much in the hands of the real pros.
If Prof. Katz’ lack of qualifications to deal with British Petroleum’s catastrophic failure was the reason for the Liberal’s outrage I would take no issue with it. From the above quote I would guess that Prof. Katz himself would not gainsay their opinions. But the Liberals’ wrath and condemnation is not about Katz’s credentials or skills; it’s about his ideology and the fact that it doesn’t match their own.