…is evil beer making the seas tip islands over, you might just be a Warmist

Read: If All You See… »
Anyone think the NFL is taking extreme notice of this and will quash it down for halftime? (via the NJ.com Giants forum)
(NY Daily News) MADONNA is “bringing gay to the Super Bowl.” That’s what we overheard one of her dancers say at the premiere party for Her Madgesty’s “W.E.” at Top of the Standard on Monday night.
On the bright side, could it possibly be worse than last year’s Black Eyed Peas fiasco? The NFL is not going to want another big halftime controversy. If they wanted to get a band that’s been around for awhile, why not a group who is going to rock the house, like Iron Maiden? Jimmy Buffett? Or a band that is somewhat new, like Evanescence?
Read: Rumor: Madonna Is Bringing “The Gay” To The Super Bowl »
Why? Because “There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.” After a few paragraphs describing how not every scientist is a Warmist, and the numbers who are opting out of previous held beliefs that Mankind is mostly or solely at fault, we get to (h/t Climate Depot)
(Wall Street Journal) In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The letter from the concerned scientists goes on to describe how CO2 is actually a good gas, and life evolved when concentrations were 10+ times higher. How young scientists are afraid to come forth and not walk the academic Warmist line. That this is not the way science works. Oh, and that if you want the real answer as to why so many push the meme of man-induced global warming climate change extreme weather global weirding it’s snowing because it’s hot, you need to follow the money.
They also point out that if one does subscribe to the notion of AGW, the best solution is not taxes and restrictions, but economic growth
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
And, let’s not forget, with strong economic growth comes advances, advances that could see quality replacements for much of the use of fossil fuels (coal and oil, which, let’s face it, aren’t particularly clean, and I’m not referring to CO2) at cheap prices. Instead of wasting money on means to “stop global warming”, none of which actually work, that same money could be used to solve medical issues, to increase the quality of life of people, and even deal with real environmental issues. But, we all know that the AGW movement is about putting more money and power into the hands of centralized government, enforcing a far left fascistic vision of the world.
And, oh, these scientists aren’t exactly pip squeeks. Check the listing at the WSJ.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: 16 Concerned Scientists: Chill Out, No Need To Freak Over Anthropogenic Global Warming »
Yes, John Stewart had a little hussy fit over Mitt Romney’s tax returns. Oh, and then we find out
(Bob Bartelby at Yahoo News) Here’s the problem: According to celebritynetworth.com, Stewart earns $15 million per year as his salary on “The Daily Show.” We can assume, because that is a job, he pays closer to the 30 percent rate than Romney’s 13.9 percent.
However, that’s only part of the picture. Stewart is also estimated to have a net worth of $80 million. Depending on how he is invested, he is also earning a substantial income from his $80 million nest egg. Even if he is invested conservatively, he’s likely earning investment income of $4 million per year, which would be taxed at a rate equal to Romney’s. Indeed, between investment income and book royalties, and his salary, more than likely Stewart earns more money in the fiscal year than Romney despite paying a marginally higher tax rate.
Stewart should release his tax returns, let’s see his rates.
Do you know what Liberals like Stewart are really ticked off about? That people use tax deductions to make donations directly, instead of giving the money to the Central Government to do with as they want.
Read the whole thing.
…is the evil flag of the most evil carbon polluter in the world, you might just be a Warmist

Read: If All You See… »
Remember, they were growing excellent wine grapes in England during the previous warm period, putting France’s wines to shame. Then the Little Ice Age came along, and people were starving, there was famine, crops died out, there was revolution, etc.
(UK Daily Mail) Warmer temperatures and fresh produce could be unforeseen upsides to global warming.
A UK government study released today has identified the top 100 effects of climate change and how they may surprisingly impact Britain in the next century.
The costs of public health and shipping will also go down but flooding could be really problematic and expensive, the Climate Change Risk Assessment has found.
With the melting of the Arctic sea, new routes will open up which will reduce journey times and fuel costs.
The warmer water temperatures mean sole and plaice will be more plentiful in the UK, though cod and haddock will move to cooler climates.
Flooding and other weather related events would happen regardless of temperature. It always does something. Reading the article, we also see that cold weather deaths decline significantly in the UK. Cold spells will be less. Heating demand will go down (though AC days will go up).
On the plus side, sugar beet yields could rise by up to 70 percent and wheat yields by as much as 140 percent by mid-century due to longer growing seasons if water and nutrients are available.
‘A warmer climate presents opportunities to grow new crops such as soya, sunflowers, peaches, apricots and grapes, while new markets may open up overseas for British grown produce,’ the study said.
Warmists want to bomb us back to the stone age instead of letting things that are good, and natural, progress. Well, let me restate: they want to bomb Everybody Else back to the stone age, just not themselves.
Read: Shocker: Warmer Weather Mostly Better For Everything »
This apparently caused a bit of a kerfuffle
(Washington Times) Fighting to curry favor with Florida’s large pool of Hispanic voters, Newt Gingrich on Wednesday called for a guest-worker program for most illegal immigrants, but his campaign could not say whether those people would be on a path to citizenship – the key question in the immigration debate.
Under close questioning by Univision’s political host, Jorge Ramos, Mr. Gingrich said he would grant quick citizenship rights to illegal immigrants who join the military or to those who have been in the U.S. between 20 and 25 years. He said the rest of the estimated 11 million should be given access to a guest-worker program.
“With most of them? I would urge them to get a guest-worker permit,” he said, calling for a substantial rewrite of immigration laws that would cancel existing penalties and instead let illegal immigrants stay.
But his campaign said it was unclear whether at the end of that guest-worker period the immigrants would be allowed to stay and gain citizenship, essentially jumping the legal immigration line, or whether they would be required to return home.
On one hand, Gingrich is correct in that he previously said that it is unrealistic to deport every illegal, nor stop them fully from coming, and, yes, we could show some compassion to those who came to this country and attempted to be a part of America and do things like joining the military. It’s not like people didn’t just come to America in the past, without any sort of immigration programs and such. If someone is putting their life on the line to join the military to protect America, perhaps some accommodations could be made.
On the other hand, why pander to Hispanics who can’t vote because they are here illegally? Why pander to Hispanics who are here legally, but still can’t vote because they aren’t citizens? And a good chunk of Hispanics who are legal citizens tend to get a little ticked off when politicians want to give illegals who did it wrong a pathway to citizenship when they themselves followed the onerous and burdensome rules.
Do we want guest workers? Yes, we do. But it is a bad idea to suddenly give people who came to this country illegally guest worker visas after doing the illegal thing with no penalties. Let them leave the country and apply for a worker program that should be expanded. What Gingrich is doing is telling people who are thinking of coming to America illegally to just come on in, no problem, we’ll take care of you. He might want to rethink this line of thought.
Bad Behavior has blocked 5062 access attempts in the last 7 days.