No City Uses 100 Percent Renewable Energy – Not Even Close

from Climate Depot:

Alex Epstein: Gore’s sequel ‘lies’ about alleged ‘100% renewable energy’ city of Georgetown TX

Epstein: “Gore shows us the town of Georgetown, Tex. and its use of 100-per-cent renewable energy. Stories about “100-per-cent renewable” locations like Georgetown, Tex. are not just anecdotal evidence, they are lies. The Texas grid from which Georgetown draws its electricity is comprised of 43.7 per cent natural gas, 28.8 per cent coal, 12 per cent nuclear, and only 15.6 per cent renewable. Using a virtue-signalling gimmick pioneered by Apple, Facebook, and Google, Georgetown pays its state utility to label its grid electricity “renewable” —  even though it draws its power from that fossil-fuel heavy Texas grid — while tarring others on the grid as ‘non-renewable.’” read more

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Climate Inquisition

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The Climate alarmists are losing it. As each year of the “hiatus” passes – now over a decade of no warming – climate change warriors become more unhinged. They are losing the argument and they know it. Polls regarding what is most important to Americans continue to rank man caused climate change dead last or near the bottom consistently.

But liberals, as we know, never give up on a cause – certainly not this one. In fact, global warming long ago ceased becoming just a cause. It has morphed into a religion, and the faithful followers of this religious sect require all to believe. I would liken the religion of climate change, not to Christianity or Judaism, but more akin to radical Islam. There can be no global warming atheists or even agnostics. All must believe – all must convert – or pay the price.

Oh, I don’t mean that warmists will behead non-believers, but they will and have publicly shamed skeptics, ruined the careers and lives of apostate scientists and academics, as well as attempting to sue deniers like Mark Steyn for millions of dollars for calling the “hockey stick” warming model a lie. read more

Anniversary of a Global Warming Fail

by: the Common Constitutionalist

With the onslaught of snow that buried much of the east coast this past weekend, I recall a prediction of just a few years ago. It was part of an article from 2006 which was updated in 2012, entitled “20 THINGS YOUR GRANDKIDS MAY NEVER BE ABLE TO SEE.”

The article began with: “So here we look at 20 things that our grandchildren may never see by the year 2050…” The number one item the British authors were dismayed about was: “British winters are getting warmer and wetter, due to global warming. Climate experts predict that temperatures could rise by a minimum of 2.5C by 2050. This may mean that we’ll see no snow in the future – and our grandkids won’t be able to build real snowmen or enjoy snowball fights.”

I’m sure you noticed the caveat of “temperatures could rise,” not temperatures will rise.

Now some might say I’m nitpicking and the climate science, like any science, is not exact. In science, they say, one never gives definitive statements like “will.” That’s true except that warming alarmists, I mean scientists, have repeatedly declared that the science of global warming is settled – this all “credible” experts agree. Settled science is pretty definite, is it not? So why use hedge words like “could” and “may” instead of “will” and “shall?” Hmm. read more

Al’s Global Warming Mega-Church

By: the Common Constitutionalist

 

Yesterday Rush Limbaugh once again spoke of the hoax that is global warming. It’s in the news again, don’t ya know.

 

This is a real pet peeve of mine. I’ve done many articles disclaiming this hoax. As Rush stated, how otherwise brilliant people can just buy into the lie is fascinating.

 

It just shows that it is indeed not science but a religion and for others, it’s the politics of money, power and control.

 

The evidence so clearly shows there is no warming and hasn’t been for over 15 years. Recall the published e-mails of climate “scientists” falsifying and deleting data to achieve the necessary result. Yet the obvious manipulation by these climate hacks seems to hold no sway to the true “warming believers”.

 

The latest revelation of the climate scientists is that there is 95% certainty of global warming and it is man-made.

 

And there you have it. Proof positive! All they have to do is announce it and the religious faithful will just eat it up.

 

Rush said it is especially prevalent with the twenty-something crowd. I agree. I believe they have an ongoing struggle to be relevant and will thus latch onto any feel-good cause. They ask for no data, no proof, and no evidence.

 

And there is plenty of real data out there. There is also plenty of doctored data. That unfortunately is what makes the headlines.

 

For people like Al Gore who have become super rich off the hoax, one needs no proof. His truth is the truth.

 

Yet, as I stated, there is no real science to support their claims. In fact, the unaltered science claims the exact opposite.

 

Just look at the graphs below. This is empirical/scientific data. The unaltered data shows cooling, not warming and that just won’t do.

 

James Hansen worked at NASA’s GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) He is now a professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Maybe if you’re lucky, he will be teaching your impressionable children all about global warming. Or at least his made-up version. Below is some of Hansen’s “scientific” handiwork. read more

NASA Makes Another Useless Global Warming Prediction

Junk Science: A new NASA study says global warming could “increase the risk for extreme rainfall and drought.” We’ve heard this sort of threat many times before and, no, there’s nothing to see here.

According to NASA: “Analysis of computer simulations from 14 climate models indicates wet regions of the world, will see increases in heavy precipitation because of warming resulting from projected increases in carbon dioxide levels. Arid land areas outside the tropics and many regions with moderate rainfall could become drier.”

How about that? Heavy rain in soggy regions and drought in the parched ones.

Pardon us if we don’t get too excited about this. If it happens, the world will deal with it. But there’s a good chance this forecast will end up like many of the other global-warming predictions of doom.

Who can forget that acclaimed 2007 film made by Al Gore, in which the former vice president and failed 2000 White House candidate said sea levels would rise by 20 feet “in the near future” due to man-made global warming? So, if we might employ today’s vernacular, how’s that working out for you, Al?

Not so good, he’d say if he were honest. The “near future” has come and gone, and the sea has not risen 20 feet, or 10 feet or even a single foot. No coastal city has become the new Atlantis and no beach resorts have been overrun by the ocean.

Years before Gore made his blustery prediction, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that man-made warming would increase sea levels from 11.8 inches to 39.4 inches by 2100. Eleven years later, in 2001, it revised its prediction. The new range was 3.5 inches to 34.6 inches.

Another revision, this one in 2007, put the range between 7.1 inches and 23.2 inches, again by 2100.

Continue Reading

Al Jazeera Expansion

Witness the evolution, or devolution of America:

Middle East Broadcaster Al Jazeera Launches Major US Expansion

Al Jazeera, the cable news network owned by the government of Qatar, has big  plans for its American operation despite being criticized by the U.S. government
for airing videos from Osama bin Laden.

The U.S. cable news channel, Al  Jazeera America, will be editorially separate from the Doha-based broadcast
center that is also home to Al Jazeera English.

Bob Wheelock, the former  ABC executive in charge of setting it up, believes times have changed and so has
Al Jazeera’s image.

“Imagine six or seven years ago, trying to find real  estate for Al Jazeera in Washington. I’m sure it wasn’t easy,” he told USA Today. Now, he said, “We’re going to have signage, you
know, just like CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC, just like everybody else. We’re  psyched.” Continue Reading

Al Goreisms

Some  Pearls of Wisdom from our former Vice President – Al Gore

“We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.”

 ’97

“For NASA, space is still a high priority.”

 ’93

“Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children.”

“The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation’s history. I mean in this century’s history. But we all lived in this century. I didn’t live in this century.”

 ’95

“It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.”

“[It’s] time for the human race to enter the solar system.”

“We’re all capable of mistakes, but I do not care to enlighten you on the mistakes we may or may not have made.”

“I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy – but that could change.”

’98

“One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is ‘to be prepared.'”

’93

“Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.”

 ’96

“I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.”

“The future will be better tomorrow.”

“We’re going to have the best-educated American people in the world.”

’97

“I stand by all the misstatements that I’ve made.”

’93

“We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a *part* of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a *part* of Europe.”

Olbermann, Pompous Ass or just Misunderstood

Liberal talk show host Keith Olbermann changed car services eight times in the year he was at Current TV, complaining his chauffeurs ‘smelled’ and even ‘talked to him’ in the car, according to reports. Oh, the horror.

The left-leaning network founded by former presidential candidate Al Gore, fired Olbermann, it’s biggest star and the host of its signature program, last week for breach of contract.

Sources close to the TV channel have begun leaking claims about Olbermann’s behavior that give hints about why the host of ‘Countdown’ was given the ax.

Olbermann has promised to sue the station after it cut short his five-year, $50 million contract. He fought back against the firing, saying Current didn’t make good on its ‘promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program.’

Mediaite cited anonymous sources as it reported that Olbermann had Current staffers change his car service eight times since he began work at the network last February.

Olbermann, who cannot drive, complained that some of the drivers ‘smelled.’ Others ‘talked to him.’

The network publicly cited unauthorized absences, failing to promote Current-TV, and disparaging the company and its executives as its public reasons for cutting ties.

Among the other gripes are claims, from Mediaite’s source, that the network built a $250,000 custom-designed set for Olbermann’s signature show. When the set had lighting trouble in December, Olbermann told the crew he wouldn’t use it anymore.

He also instructed guest hosts not to use the set, either.

Olbermann also refused to allow the network to promote the show when he wasn’t hosting it and prohibited the staff from sending out tweets when he was absent, according to Mediate.

Olbermann left MSNBC in January 2011 after the network declined to renew his contract. Some have speculated that this was a result of his suspension for making undisclosed donations to three Democratic Congressional candidates in 2010.

Shortly after he left, Current-TV, a newly-launched liberal TV news channel, hired Olbermann as its prime time star.

With Olbermann’s departure, Current announced it had hired client number 9, disgraced former New York Gov Eliot Spitzer to replace him.

Attribution: Mail Online

Malkin Beats Me to the Punch

I am a Santorum supporter. Rather than just explaining why I don’t support the other schmoes, I’ve had a request to write an article explaining my support for him.

Well, it appears, I don’t have to. Michelle Malkin has expressed her support for Santorum as well as I ever could.

From Michelle Malkin:

Rick Santorum opposed TARP.

He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.

Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual U.S. Senate waters.

He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum
has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth”, as Newt did.

Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.

Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed.

He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners’ character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics.

He rose above the fray by sticking to issues.

Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.

Of course, Santorum is not perfect. As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects. He lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives. He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era. He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey.

I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul.

And I wish Ron Paul was not the far-out, Alex Jones-panderer on foreign policy, defense, and national security that he is.

If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists
at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t

changed for me in 2012.

Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer.

It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.”

For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine.

And at this point in the game, Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them.