Warmist Has Long Diatribe On Those Mean “Skeptics”, Has Three Questions

You really should go over and read this rant by Warmist James Murray in a post entitled “How to argue with “climate sceptics”“, which he has been “procrastinating” on writing.

But worse than all of that, is the sheer boredom. Almost every discussion between environmentalists and climate sceptics follows a remarkably predictable and circuitous path that proceeds in ever decreasing circles until someone (usually me) gets bored and walks away.

Usually they walk away because they don’t have scientific evidence on their side, just hearsay and alarmism. He also calls for “polite engagement”, then refers to Climate Realists as “climate reckless” and “pollutocrats”. Anyway, here are the 3 questions

The first is the environmental campaigner George Monbiot’s killer question, what would it take to convince you that you are wrong?

The next question is, what happens if you are wrong?

Finally, and this is the most important question for businesses to ask of climate sceptics, what makes you hate the future so much?

Let’s see:

  1. Honest scientific proof, including raw data and “smoothing” methodology from the “climate” researchers, that proves without a shadow of a doubt that this warm period is mostly or solely due to Mankind’s output of greenhouse gases. Oh, and Warmists practicing what they preach, which would show that they actually believe their own mule fritters, would help. Furthermore, being able to predict what will happen over the next few years with the climate with at least 80% accuracy, since pretty much all your predictions based on computer models have failed time and time again, hence the Warmist use of “50-100 years”.
  2. Nothing that hasn’t happened time and time again. What happens if you’re wrong, and we spend oodles of money, moving it from the private sector to the public sector for redistribution, all while restricting the freedoms of individuals?
  3. “When did you stop beating your wife?” A BS question for a BS issue. When will Warmists stop agitating and spreading awareness and themselves embrace the “carbon neutral” lifestyle, virtually giving up all trappings of modern life?

Read: Warmist Has Long Diatribe On Those Mean “Skeptics”, Has Three Questions »

If All You See…

…is evil beer putting CO2 into the atmosphere, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Wizbang, with a post on racism.

Oh, and in case you didn’t know, the color of the week is white. Next week is ultraviolet.

Read: If All You See… »

Maybe #PresidentLadyParts Should Concern Himself With Women In Egypt

Most of you probably caught the “lady parts” kerfuffle yesterday. The Weekly Standard has a good recap. Here are two of my Tweets from yesterday

Let’s look at the link in that second one

Three separate protests against elements of Egypt’s draft constitution will be held on Tuesday to coincide with an expected court ruling on the status of the Constituent Assembly.

A protest against the draft constitution’s Article 36, which focuses on women’s issues, will take place at the Shura Council (where the Constituent Assembly meets) at 6pm. Critics of the article say it could open the door to lowering the marriage age to below 18, legalising female genital mutilation and using Sharia law (Islamic jurisprudence) to limit the rights of women to education and work, among other restrictions.

Moe Lane points out that the US is planning on giving Egypt $450 million of our tax dollars to a government that is anything but “moderate”. Strange how Obama and Democrats care little for the “lady parts” of women under Islamist regimes, and ignore the growing danger from the Muslim extremists.

Read: Maybe #PresidentLadyParts Should Concern Himself With Women In Egypt »

5 Things To Watch In Tonights Debate

The Politico provides a handy dandy reference guide to the first cage match presidential debate between President Mitt Romney and challenger Barack Obama…..what? Romney’s not president right now? Weird. The way the media portrays it, Mitt’s been president. Anyhow, here we go

1. Can Romney win the first half-hour? Like Obama, Romney can seem smug and prickly when challenged. He needs to go in relaxed, without memorizing his briefing book to the point of paralysis. Romney will try to trip up the president, but he needs to be as nimble as possible. Also like Obama, Romney is a good but not expert debater. He can make a mistake in a weak or unpredictable moment. And the fact that he started laying out a few new policy statements 48 hours before the debate suggests he knows tough questions are coming.

Essentially, which Romney shows up? The tough one? The one who bet Rick Perry $10k? The one who complained to the moderators about Perry taking too much time?

2. How hard will Obama attack? The president does not tend to fare as well going negative. But he has to attack.

The article notes that Obama doesn’t like Romney, which highlights that Obama takes politics personally, something we’ve seen over the years. This is something that Romney can exploit in getting Obama off his game. Romney will want to get a few zingers in to get Obama looking petty and angry, and perhaps raising his chin so that he’s looking down his nose into the camera.

3. How do “47 percent” and Libya play?

The latter will be bigger than the former, if Romney can get a chance to discuss what the administration has attempted. Will there even be an opportunity for the latter? You know the moderator will attempt to bring up the former.

4. Is Obama ready for prime time? It seems like a crazy question to ask about a man who has governed the country during one of its most tumultuous recent periods — and a guy who speaks in public nearly as much as he speaks in private. But the truth is Obama is really, really rusty when it comes to debating.

And we’ve seen how well Obama does when he is off teleprompter.

5. Who brings up Bill Clinton?

Bringing up Clinton might not be the best for Obama. While Billy Jeff certainly helped Obama during the Democratic National Convention, in the days afterwards people were able to sit back and say “hey, this Obama guy is nothing like Clinton”.

The bigger question is what happens in debate about the economy. Obama will certainly want to use his standard talking points and then deflect to personal attacks on Mitt and Bain Capital. You can bet that Mitt will have plenty of material about the economic conditions ready to go.

What are your predictions for tonight?

Read: 5 Things To Watch In Tonights Debate »

Obama Admin Knew Within Hours That Benghazi Attack Was Terrorism

I know many are talking about the bombshell of Obama’s speech in 2007, which I really don’t see as that big of a deal: we knew back then that Obama hadn’t divorced himself from Jeremiah Wright, that he was (and still is) a race hustler, and that he attempts to divide people. I find this a bigger bombshell than a 5 year old video

(Reuters) Within hours of last month’s attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama’s administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said.

Despite these reports, in public statements and private meetings, top U.S. officials spent nearly two weeks highlighting intelligence suggesting that the attacks were spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim film, while playing down the involvement of organized militant groups.

It was not until last Friday that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office issued an unusual public statement, which described how the picture that intelligence agencies presented to U.S. policymakers had “evolved” into an acknowledgement that the attacks were “deliberate and organized” and “carried out by extremists.”

So, within hours the Obama administration had reports that it wasn’t a video, it was a preplanned attack resulting in the death of our ambassador and 3 others. And what did Obama do? He went on a fundraising trip to Vegas. Then some more trips over the days following as his administration pushed the notion that it was all a spontaneous response (with RPGs and heavy weapons) to a stupid video that none had seen.

The stream of intelligence flowing into Washington within hours of the Benghazi attacks contained data from communications intercepts and U.S. informants, which were then fashioned into polished initial assessments for policymakers.

Officials familiar with them said they contained evidence that members of a militant faction, Ansar al-Sharia, as well as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, were involved in the assaults.

The officials did not allege the attacks were a reaction to the anti-Muslim film, but they acknowledged it was possible that the attackers sought to use an outbreak of violence in Cairo over the film, which insulted the Prophet Mohammad, as a pretext for attacks.

The big question is why did the Obama admin. decide to go with the “it was a film” talking point instead of terrorism? Essentially a cover up. There are many theories, but the only one that truly makes sense is that by labeling the attack as a growing out of the protest allowed Obama to continue campaigning at will since September 11 and then hoping that enough of the real information would stay off the media radar till the elections. Obama even blamed the attack on the Mohammed video during his United Nations speech, before blowing off world leaders to go on The View.

In other words, the Administration purely lied to the American public.

And they have no intention of being honest with the American Public. The FBI still hasn’t accessed the scene of the attack. The Washington Post has. And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is stating that they’ll have a report on this attack….(via Allahpundit)

Clinton asked Issa to withhold any final conclusions about the Benghazi attack until the review board finishes its work and reports to Congress, which could come as early as November or as late as early next year. She pledged to work with Issa’s committee and asked him to submit any requests for information or witnesses at hearings to the State Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs.

So, after the election. Foot dragging, stonewalling, and coverup.

Allah also posts this video about the sorry state of the security at the Behngazi site

The big question is will the media do their job and investigate? It used to be that the media were sharks, and something like this would be a pool of blood in the water.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obama Admin Knew Within Hours That Benghazi Attack Was Terrorism »

Biden: “The Middle Class Has Been Buried The Past 4 Years”

Sheriff Barney Fife Joe Biden went gaffetastic once again here in North Carolina this afternoon

(CNN) During a campaign event in Charlotte, North Carolina, the vice president reiterated recent attacks against his Republican opponents: claiming that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s economic plans would raise taxes on middle class families.

“This is deadly earnest,” Biden said. “How they can justify, how they can justify raising taxes on the middle class that has been buried the last four years? How in the Lord’s name can they justify raising their taxes? We’ve seen this movie before.”

Except, Romney/Ryan aren’t looking to actually raise taxes on the middle class, the same middle class that has been buried by Democrat/Obama policies.

(WRAL) “We need to stop digging by electing Mitt Romney the next president of the United States. Of course the middle class has been buried,” Ryan said in Burlington, Iowa. “They’re being buried by regulations; they’re being buried by taxes; they’re being buried by borrowing. They’re being buried by the Obama administration’s economic failures.”

Obviously, Democrats aren’t happy with Republicans highlighting Biden’s words

Lis Smith, a spokeswoman for Obama’s campaign, said the Republican response to Biden’s remarks was “another desperate and out-of-context attack.”

The only thing Democrats hate worse than people using their own words back against them is……well, nothing.

Read: Biden: “The Middle Class Has Been Buried The Past 4 Years” »

Warmist Decides To Walk The Talk, Cut Back On Showers

Well, finally one sort of stands up and decides to sort of live the “carbon” neutral lifestyle, and tells us about it as part of the silly “50 months left” schtick I mentioned yesterday. Here’s Warmist Kevin Anderson (via Climate Depot and Tom Nelson)

My day job is to translate the science of climate change into the everyday language we use to understand our lives. To chaperon policy-makers in the transition towards a low-carbon UK, and to help companies and civil society understand the mitigation challenge we all face. But this is not just a job – I’m as much a part of the problem as the solution. Many of my colleagues disagree with me on this – but as I work in the area I cannot excuse my profligate emissions through lack of knowledge.

Hmm, you fellow Warmists disagree that they have to walk the talk? Shocking!

So what will I do differently? I haven’t flown for almost eight years – and that will have to continue. I have halved the distance I drive each year and have significantly changed how I drive. I’ve done without a fridge for 12 years, but recently relented and joined the very small proportion of the world’s population that has a fridge – this I may have to reverse! I’ve cut back on washing and showering – but only to levels that were the norm just a few years back.

Actually, despite my constantly telling Warmists to live the life they say everyone should be forced to, please, Warmists, shower properly.

All this is a start but it is not enough. Certainly, if those of us working on climate change are a bellwether of society’s response, the future looks bleak. Nevertheless until those intimately engaged in climate change, including the scientists, journalists, NGOs and ministers, put their own houses in order, I think it unlikely others will take our analysis seriously. As we pass the bus stop to jump in a taxi from the airport to another air-conditioned hotel room in Bali, Cancun or Rio – what message are we disseminating?

I have to say, he has a good point. Why should anyone buy what Warmists are selling when they refuse to modify their own lives?

Oh, and as for all the “tipping points”, Climate Depot has a good list of many that have been thrown out.

Read: Warmist Decides To Walk The Talk, Cut Back On Showers »

If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle driven by evil rich people, you just might be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Nice Deb, with a post on all the Obama scandals.

There’s cheesecake for the women under the fold.

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

MSNBC: If You Think You’re A Certain Ethnicity, You Are A Certain Ethnicity

Why? Because MSNBC host Melisssa Harry Perry is attempting to protect Elizabeth “Fauxahontas” Warren

(The Blaze) MSNBC host Melissa Harris Perry jumped to defend Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s claims that she is part Cherokee Indian Saturday on her weekend show. Perry delivered a mini-diatribe on the relativity of race, with the conclusion that all one must do is “think” they are a certain ethnicity for it to be true.

Perry began her lecture by lamenting “in Massachusetts…you’ll see that the path of progress is sometimes a long and slow one.” She compared the race to a famous scene in the Bruce Willis movie “The Sixth Sense” tritely noting that ”some are saying, I see indigenous people” in reference to Warrens claims. After showing a picture of Warren, Perry asks “Is that what an American Indian is supposed to look like?” She continued, lecturing her audience, “Careful. The right answer is there is no answer.”

Perry then discussed her race relativism theory: “If candidate Warren grew up thinking she is Native American by heritage, who are we to say she is not? And who are we to define her based on narrow constructs of race.”

Yeah, OK. So, if someone just thinks they are a minority, without any proof, they can receive all the perks of that belief at the expense of others? These people are nuts, but, being liberals, I digress.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read: MSNBC: If You Think You’re A Certain Ethnicity, You Are A Certain Ethnicity »

Obama Supporters Attack Romney On His Mormon Faith

And, really, are attacking Mormons in total (via Gateway Pundit)

(Catholic.org) The head of a pro-life committee at a parish I know just received a call from the Obama campaign. The caller asked for her daughter by name, and when she was not there then asked where she could be contacted. Her mother responded by telling the Obama supporter, “not to waste her time as my daughter is supporting the pro-life candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.”

When the caller hesitated and acted surprised, the mother, a staunch pro-life Catholic, said:

“My daughter is a practicing Catholic and would never cast a vote for a pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage, pro-embryonic stem cell research, pro-euthanasia candidate who supported the HHS mandate that will take away religious freedoms from Catholic hospitals, Catholic charities, and Catholic institutions.”

The Obama supporter then launched into her “canned response” and started reading from her call script: “Well, I am a practicing Catholic, and I strongly support President Obama.” The mother then asked her if she was “familiar with the Pope’s five “non-negotiables.”‘ The Obama supporter had no idea what she was talking about and explained that it was only the Pope’s “opinion” to ban the use of contraception.

The Obama caller then went back to her script, asking these clever questions:

1. How can you support a “Mormon” who does not believe in Jesus Christ?
2. What to you think about the “Nuns on the Bus” who support Obama?

The mother replied, “How can you support a man who supports the killing of innocent pre-born children for all nine months?”

No one should be surprised at the attacks on Mormonism, Democrats have been doing this ever since it looked like Mitt Romney would come out as the winner of the GOP primaries. Liberals self describe as “tolerant” and “compassionate” and “for everyone”, but, as we all know, anyone and any group is fair game in order to get a Democrat elected.

We also know that Democrats will ditch their supposed faith in a heartbeat in order to prop up their political religion.

Read: Obama Supporters Attack Romney On His Mormon Faith »

Pirate's Cove