The Threat of Global Warming…Deniers


In 2006, then climate change enthusiast James Lovelock believed that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” The 92-year-old scientist is now in the recanting phase of his life. He admits that some of the language in his 2006 book Revenge of Gaia had been over the top. He admits that if he were writing today he would be more cautious.

It’s a little late now that laws are being implemented to curtail what was said to be “scientific fact.”

More than a century ago, John William Draper made the unsupported claim that scientific “opinions on every subject are continually liable to modification, from the irresistible advance of human knowledge.”[1] This wasn’t true then and it’s not true today.

In reality, scientists for any number of reasons often oppose many new scientific theories. There is continued scientific debate over the causes or even the reality of human-caused global warming, whether oil is a “fossil” fuel or a renewable abiotic resource, [2] the medical benefits of embryonic stem-cells, and much more. A lot of it has to do with grant money.

These debates can be downright hostile as charges and counter charges are lobbed from scientific strongholds where the claim is made that there is no room for debate. Consider the Inquisition-like reaction to those who question the certainty of global warming:

Scientists who dissent from the alarmism [over global warming] have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.

Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. . . . In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.[3]

Some have gone so far as to propose that “global warming deniers” are aiding and abetting a global holocaust and should be prosecuted. Australian columnist Margo Kingston “has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial.’ ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial,’ she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offense. It is a crime against humanity, after all.’ Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their attempts to cover up the ‘global warming . . . Holocaust.’”[4] These arguments are being made by those within the secular scientific community. Follow the money. 

There’s a new Inquisition in operation. If you don’t hold to the agreed-upon theories, then you will not be hired, and if you already have a position, there is a good chance you will lose it if you express your opinion, especially if that opinion goes against a theory that might jeopardize money that flows from government grants. Stephen Jay Gould has written: “The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology.”[5] Scientists are just like everybody else. They want the same things.

We shouldn’t be surprised that climate scientists might fudge the evidence to keep the grant money coming in. Who’s really getting harmed? Anyway, the kids need new shoes and an investment portfolio so they can get into the best universities to learn how to game the system.

Gary Sutton, writing in an online article for Forbes, makes the point:

You can’t blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed’s mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today’s scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work [6].

Of course, they can be blamed when they claim that they are doing real science, there is no contrary evidence, and what contrary evidence they do find they suppress it. So the next time someone dogmatically asserts that the majority of scientists believe in Global Warming, ask your antagonist how much grant money he’s getting?


1.       John William Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1875), vi. []

2.      Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith, Black Gold Stranglehold (Nashville, TN: WND Books, 2005). []

3.      Richard Lindsen, “Climate of Fear: Global-Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence,” The Wall Street Journal (April 12, 2006): []

4.      Brendan O’Neill, “Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech” (October 6, 2006): []

5.      Stephen Jay Gould, “In the Mind of the Beholder,” Natural History (February 1994), 103:14. []

Gary Sutton, “The Fiction of Climate Science,” (December 4, 2009). []

Term Limits

Although Chuck is focused on California, his home state, it’s instructive none the less. I have seen many deceptive ballot initiatives in my state. The way the ballot is written, you think you’re voting yes for something when you’re really voting no. Make sure you fully understand what you’re voting for or against ahead of time. There is nothing scarier to a politician than an informed electorate.

A Few are Awakening



A funny thing happened upon release of the monthly unemployment statistics yesterday.

A few journalists in the mainstream media began to wake up.

While there are still plenty of headlines floating around today that are some variation on “Unemployment Down Despite Lack of Jobs, Obama Yay,” a few journalists appear to have noticed the oxymoron inherent in the story pushed by the Obama Labor Department.

You’d be excused if your initial reaction is “it’s about time.”

Reuters and a few news outlets got it right this time. Instead of following the lead of the Associated Press, which published a story earlier this week predicting unemployment below 8 percent by election time, Reuters’ headline reported “US hiring slows, spells trouble for economy, Obama.”

While the unemployment rate technically fell from 8.2 percent in March to 8.1 percent in April, only about 115,000 jobs were added, not enough to account for the statistical improvement of jobless figures.

The secret number that’s being buried this month is the increasing number of people who are just giving up and leaving the labor force altogether. About half a million unemployed people who were counted as being in the labor force in March were removed from the April figures, drastically shrinking the number of people considered unemployed, without increasing jobs.

The Associated Press report predicting sub-8 percent unemployment ran this week before the release of the new labor figures. The prediction titled “Steady Job Gains To Sustain US Recovery” was based on interviews with obviously pro-Obama economists, included some outright boosterism:

“Falling unemployment would boost President Barack Obama’s prospects in November. Going back to 1956, no president has lost re-election when the unemployment rate dropped in the two years before the election.”

The AP’s spin on today’s unemployment figures was “Jobs Lost to Recession Trickle Back.”

The Associated Press’ chairman is William Dean Singleton, who last month slobbered all over himself while introducing President Obama at a luncheon. Singleton also owns hundreds of newspapers across the country and is probably singlehandedly responsible for running more newspapers into the ground than any human being in the last century.

Under Singleton’s leadership, those newspapers that haven’t closed outright have whittled their staffs down to near nothing, virtually eliminated local and original reporting, and ultimately just become print versions of the Associated Press and New York Time wire service, with local banners and ads.

As the Associated Press has swung Left under Singleton, a substantial portion of America’s newspapers have blindly followed.

Reuters, owned by the Thomson Corporation of Canada, operates in somewhat different circles than the AP leadership. One story doesn’t mean any media outlet is changing its tune, but it would be nice if professional reporters started leaving the rose-colored glasses at home when covering the Obama Administration.

Editors notes:

1) The margin of error for that 115,000 jobs number is 100,000. My prediction; the paultry 115,000 will quitely be revised down. Watch for it next week. It always happens.

2) 125,000 to 150,000 jobs must be added each month just to keep pace with work force population growth.

3) The Workforce or Labor Participation Rate is at 63.6%, the lowest in 30 years (1981). The labor force dropped 522,000 off the books to total over 88,000,000 discouraged Americans no longer looking for work.

Simply put, by dropping people off the books, the government can claim any unemployment rate it wishes without adding a single new job.

Santorum, Rubio, Tops for VP Slot

Rick Santorum and Marco Rubio are the top two choices among U.S. Republican voters as Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday.

Eighteen percent of Republican registered voters picked former Pennsylvania Senator Santorum out of a list of 19 potential running mates for Romney, the party’s presumptive presidential nominee in the Nov. 6 general election.

Seventeen percent chose Rubio, a U.S. senator from Florida. Rubio was also the most popular pick among members of the Tea Party movement, a group that Romney wants to win over as he works to solidify his support among the party’s conservatives after a divisive primary fight.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush were tied for third among Republicans, with 13-percent support, and 12 percent picked former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

None of the other potential vice presidential picks was higher than 6 percent, largely because they are unfamiliar to most voters, Ipsos pollster Chris Jackson said.

Congressman Paul Ryan, well known in Washington for his cost-cutting budget plan, was one big name with scant support at just 4 percent. Despite campaigning with Romney in Wisconsin recently in what was seen as a try out for a possible vice presidential nomination, Ryan was familiar to only a third of the registered voters polled.

Almost a quarter of Tea Party members picked Rubio in the online poll, compared with 16-percent support among the group for Santorum, who ended his own presidential run last month.

But Rubio might not be the best choice of running mate if Romney wants to appeal to independent voters in the general election against President Barack Obama.

The 40-year-old Cuban-American senator was backed by only 4 percent of independents, behind other top Republican names mentioned in the vice presidential stakes.

There has been speculation he might help Romney win over Hispanics, with whom he trails Obama by a whopping 40 percentage points, but early polling has not borne that out.

Attribution: Newsmax


By Thomas Sowell:

Labor unions, like the United Nations, are all too often judged by what they are envisioned as being — not by what they actually are or what they actually do.

Many people, who do not look beyond the vision or the rhetoric to the reality, still think of labor unions as protectors of working people from their employers. And union bosses still employ that kind of rhetoric. However, someone once said, “When I speak I put on a mask, but when I act I must take it off.”

That mask has been coming off, more and more, especially during the Obama administration, and what is revealed underneath is very ugly, very cynical and very dangerous.

First there was the grossly misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act” that the administration tried to push through Congress. What it would have destroyed was precisely what it claimed to be promoting — a free choice by workers as to whether or not they wanted to join a labor union.

Ever since the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, workers have been able to express their free choice of joining or not joining a labor union in a federally conducted election with a secret ballot.

As workers in the private sector have, over the years, increasingly voted to reject joining labor unions, union bosses have sought to replace secret ballots with signed documents — signed in the presence of union organizers and under the pressures, harassments or implicit threats of those organizers.

Now that the Obama administration has appointed a majority of the members of the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB leadership has imposed new requirements that employers supply union organizers with the names and home addresses of every employee. Nor do employees have a right to decline to have this personal information given out to union organizers, under NLRB rules.

In other words, union organizers will now have the legal right to pressure, harass or intimidate workers on the job or in their own homes, in order to get them to sign up with the union. Among the consequences of not signing up is union reprisal on the job if the union wins the election. But physical threats and actions are by no means off the table, as many people who get in the way of unions have learned.

Workers who do not want to join a union will now have to decide how much harassment of themselves and their family they are going to have to put up with, if they don’t knuckle under.

In the past, unions had to make the case to workers that it was in their best interests to join. Meanwhile, employers would make their case to the same workers that it was in their best interest to vote against joining.

When the unions began losing those elections, they decided to change the rules. And after Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, with large financial support from labor unions, the rules were in fact changed by Obama’s NLRB.

As if to make the outcome of workers’ “choices” more of a foregone conclusion, the time period between the announcement of an election and the election itself has been shortened by the NLRB.

In other words, the union can spend months, or whatever amount of time it takes, for them to prepare and implement an organizing campaign beforehand — and then suddenly announce a deadline date for the decision on having or not having a union. The union organizers can launch their full-court press before the employers have time to organize a comparable counter-argument or the workers have time to weigh their decision, while being pressured.

The last thing this process is concerned about is a free choice for workers. The first thing it is concerned about is getting a captive group of union members, whose compulsory dues provide a large sum of money to be spent at the discretion of union bosses, to provide those bosses with both personal perks and political power to wield, on the basis of their ability to pick and choose where to make campaign contributions from the union members’ dues.

Union elections do not recur like other elections. They are like some Third World elections: “One man, one vote — one time.” And getting a recognized union unrecognized is an uphill struggle.

But, so long as many people refuse to see the union for what it is, or the Obama administration for what it is, this cynical and corrupt process can continue.