Thursday Must Reads

Ramirez Cartoon via Lucianne

In a Coulter vs. Maddow match-up who do you think wins? Heh. That’s right:

In her latest column, WOULDN’T A MINI SERIES ON ATTILA THE HUN EXPLAIN NANCY PELOSI? Coulter eviscerates Maddow’s recent Teaparty/Timothy McVeigh extravaganza on MSNBC.

On her April 14 show, Maddow gave a “War of the Worlds” report on gun rights activists whom she claimed were planning tributes to Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City. “On the anniversary of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh,” she said, “there will be two marches on Washington.”

After reminding viewers that McVeigh was “an anti-government extremist with ties to the militia movement” (his only “ties” being that he tried to join the Michigan Militia, but was rejected) Maddow said one of the groups, the Second Amendment March, had “been holding armed rallies at state capitols from Kentucky to Montana to Virginia — anti-government marches and rallies at which participants are encouraged to wear and display their guns.”

So if I have this straight, the pro-Second Amendment marchers were both armed … AND displaying guns!

Having received an “A plus” from the Department of Redundancy Department, a deadly earnest Maddow continued: “Also on the occasion of the Oklahoma City bombing anniversary,” there would be an Open Carry rally.

Participants, she said, “are being encouraged to bring guns” (you know, just like the guns Timothy McVeigh used to shoot up the federal building in Oklahoma City).

True, April 19 is the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. It’s also the anniversary of Lexington and Concord.

Doh. Glad to see someone is keeping an eye on the crapola coming out of the MSNBC sewer.

And now Ace, as brilliant as ever with his latest stream of consciousness:

Obama: As I’ve Always Said, I Promise I Won’t Raise “Any Form of Taxes” Income Tax on the Middle Class:

He starts off talking about Obama’s blatant oft repeated tax lie, and goes on to the fact that Republicans need to call him out on his lies, and then to the reason why they don’t is because of  the people who get too perturbed by scary, judgmental words like “lie” – who would rather not have an opinion on such things (pssst:Independents), to the two types of Independents:

Obama’s “pledge” was always a lie, and the media repeated his promise incessantly, and uncritically, to sell Obama as a different kind of Democrat. They never inquired how it was he could spend so much more without bankrupting the country if he also did not raise taxes on the middle class — a bit of easy math would have shown this as an impossibility, but, alas, the media was apparently told there would be no math in this election.

Obama originally planned — and stated as much — to tax the middle class by levying huge carbon taxes which would of course hit the middle class (and poor, for that matter). He confessed — or rather proudly declared — that his planned carbon taxes would “necessarily” cause electricity rates to “skyrocket” — and again, the media simply ignored this, and again, simply insisted to the public that Obama’s word was bond about not raising taxes. Even though he just announced that taxes would be raised in the form of “skyrocketing” electricity costs.

That was Obama’s Plan A for raising taxes on the middle class — taxing the living hell out of the motive force of our economy, energy, which every single human being and business uses in varying quantities.

His Plan B was the VAT.

This is not some kind of “readjustment” to “new realities.” The man simply lied, and he did so deliberately. He always intended to raise taxes broadly on the middle class, either through Plan A or Plan B or some Plan C waiting in the wings. (Actually, he already has raised taxes on the middle class, of course; call those Plans Alpha through Epsilon.)

He gets to deliberately lie with impunity, however, and never be called what he is: Liar. Because he’s special, you see.

Read the whole thing.

No reading involved here – Moonbattery brings us: An Erf Day Classic! Enjoy!

Psychotherapist, Robin of Berkeley, is always a good read. In her latest piece at The American Thinker, she explains how she had to deprogram a young woman raised on eco-extremism.

Why I Am Enlarging My Carbon Footprint:

A sensitive soul, Emma became terrified that her beloved Earth would perish, and that she’d be culpable. Starting in third grade, she became an environmental fanatic. Emma went ballistic on her disabled grandmother when the old woman threw a bottle in the trash.

After school, she and her friends would sift through other people’s garbage to root out recyclables. While Berkeley has plenty of homeless folks going through trash, Emma and her friends were out to save the world.

The poor thing would even sob in her car when she had to drive more than a few miles. She envisioned the pollution burning up the rain forests and asphyxiating polar bears.
A year into our therapy/cult deprogramming, I asked Emma about her fixation with all things ecological. She replied, “I’m over it.”
Emma hasn’t morphed into a consumer-glutton. But she’s not making herself a stress case anymore. Emma even told me, with obvious pride, that for the first time in her life, she took a road trip.

How did I help Emma snap out of her trance? I simply imparted truths that someone should have communicated years ago, like the following:

Emma, you’re a wonderful, good-hearted person. You deserve to be here. Your life is a blessing. It’s OK to drive your car or to take a bag from the store. You deserve all these things and more. Besides, the earth has been here for millions of years and will be here long after your great grandchildren are gone.

Now, if the planet is not about to crash and burn, why turn children like Emma into eco-warriors? Why condition them to take three-minute showers and lambaste their elders?
The Left’s underlying goal: to convince all of us that we don’t matter.

Read it all.

Share

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “Thursday Must Reads

  1. Pingback: Brandeis U: gutter crawling for the world to see; good work Slick Willy, if they get someone killed, you own it « VotingFemale

  2. Nice Deb, Rush said recently, ” I can’t believe it, every day I wake up and there is something new and hideous happening out there.” But then I remember that has God said:

    Vengence in mine saith the Lord, I shall repay.
    Romans 12:19

    God has promised to repay evil, and I have lived long enough to know it is true. (Sura 2:29)

    Like

  3. I think we need to get back to the virtues, to being good. I myself hastily wrote something sassy today on my blog about how a Catholic award site didn’t deserve their own award and perhaps deserved the Satanist Award, being into climate denialism and hosted by a Heritage Foundation guy — Heritage being heavily funded by Exxon and Koch to promote climate denialism.

    I added a smiley, & in a comment specified it was said “tongue-in-cheek,” and admitted it is wrong to be sassy, even if others have been mean to me.

    The evil out there — and I think climate change denialism & anti-environmentalism are up there with priest abuse and abortion, because such harms kill people — is very frustrating, so I tend to fall into using sassy humor. But I know that’s not being Christian.

    I would hope that you and your friends would sincerely pray to God for some insight about environmental issues. If you are confused about all the conflicting statements re the science, you can ask questions on http://www.realclimate.org , either on their blog or communicate privately with the scientists. For instance, I was wondering about the terrible cold snap in Texas this winter, and they explained it was due to a strongly negative arctic oscillation (weather shifting north to south, rather than west to east, which happens sometimes, a natural fluctuation), and that the average temp for the whole world was still above average warmer, and extremely warmer, 7C above normal, in the West Arctic. I’m not saying to blindly accept what scientists say, but to use your own knowledge and rationality to try and understand, without letting fears and hatred of possible policy implications bias your thinking. I.e., follow a truth-driven agenda, rather than agenda-driven “truth” (or falsehoods). God is Truth, and scientific truths, tho provisional and based on the best theories and evidence to date (and thus changeable) deserve our respect.

    I’m not as obsessed as your eco-friend, Emma, but after I came to understand in 1990 that our GHGs could be causing drought in Africa and other negative effects, we’ve been over the decades implementing measures to reduce our GHGs, and have reduced more than 60% below our 1990 emissions, while saving money and not lowering our living standard, even increasing it a bit.

    Please try and help your friend Emma to do the right thing and help save the earth for future generations and the poor in the world (who are suffering the most from our environmental harms), but to do so in sensible moderation.

    May God bless you.

    Like

  4. I believe in climate change. It’s called weather. Climate changes. It has since the beginning of time. The earth has seen many larger upheavals in climate than you’ve seen in your lifetime.

    You really should do a little research to find out who the people are that are behind climate change/global warming alarmism.

    You have fallen victim to an alarmist hoax which is the real evil, here -( besides calling people who haven’t fallen for the hoax, deniers).

    The Nefarious Left-wing Cabal Behind Climate Research (UPDATED)

    https://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/a-nefarious-funder-of-climate-research/

    The Club Of Rome:A Major Force Behind Global Warming Alarmism And its Push For A New World Order

    https://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/a-major-force-behind-global-warming-alarmism-and-its-push-for-a-new-world-order/

    Soros Behind Massive Eco-Redistribution Scheme in Copenhagen

    https://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/soros-behind-massive-eco-redistribution-scheme-in-copenhagen/

    Start deprogramming. You’ve been had.

    We all love the earth. We all want to conserve and be good stewards, but what the climate change alarmists want to do is convince us there’s a crisis so they can increase State control of our daily lives.

    Like

  5. All I’m asking is give life a chance. Not by submitting to a totalitarian state, but by putting forth some effort at resource/energy conservation/efficiency & going on alt energy, when available. Like we’re on Green Mountain 100% wind energy (one of the pro-items of moving to Texas); it is cheaper than dirty energy, and when/if we get an EV or plug-in hybrid we can drive on the wind the 2 miles to work (we’ve made it a point since the 1970s oil crunch & my awareness of peak oil to live within 1 or 2 miles of our workplace — tho I’ve had jobs much farther than that now & then in the 40 years since, but at least one of us live close to work).

    There is really very little a gov can do to reduce GHGs — it can reduce its own GHGs, which Gore as VP did around 1995 to the tune of saving us taxpayers billions/yr; and the gov can put in place a few carrots & sticks (incentives & fees), but if people out of spite insist on emitting profligate levels of GHGs & wasting their money, there is really little hope to avert the death and destruction that is and will be coming from climate change.

    I would first call on the gov to halt all subsidies and tax-breaks to oil and coal, then with that money saved they could reimburse the poor somehow, so they would not be harmed by the prices going to their natural market value. Maybe we need a “Green Tea Party.” I would also be in favor of a Fee (on oil/coal) & Dividend solution, but only if all that money were returned to all Americans, so as to have no net economic effect. I’m against Cap & Trade, which is ineffective and only give industry money.

    I’ve been following climate science in the scientific journals for 20 years now, and I must say the science has only gotten stronger & stronger. I was into it well before it became a political issue, and I personally know several of the top scientists. They are good people. Salt of the earth people.

    You are confusing weather and climate (which is the statistical aggregate of weather). And, yes, during the end-Permian great warming 251 million yrs ago 95% of life on earth died. Since the sun has become hotter, and we are now on the verge of triggering a much more dangerous warming. See esp pg. 24 of Jim Hansen’s (head NASA climate scientist, and a grandfather concerned about his grandkids) presentation at the American Geophysical Union, at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf .

    Pascal has taught us Christians how to make decisions (see Pascal’s wager on Wiki). Scientists must strive to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE (making an untrue claim); they cannot be the boy who called wolf, or they harm their reputations, so they are very cautious. They’ve known about the greenhouse effect and the potential for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) for over 100 years, but they didn’t have enough evidence to meet their 95% confidence stantard (.05 signif level) until 1995 — that’s when the 1st studies reach such confidence about AGW.

    We layperson and policymakers, OTOH, should be striving to avoid the FALSE NEGATIVE (failing to mitigate a true problem). If the doctor tells us the tests say they are only 94% confident our lump is cancerous, so they can’t do surgery, we’d look for another doctor. In actuality the FALSE POSITIVE is the best of all worlds, because if we mistakenly mitigate climate change when it is not happening, we save money, improve our living standards and economic productivity (acc to NATURUAL CAPITALISM — see http://www.natcap.org — our economy could reduce by more than 75% without lowering productivity), and mitigate many other problems, like local pollution (which kills fetuses & causes birth defects), acid rain, ocean acidification, military costs & losses, etc. Mitigating climate change is a win-win-win-win-win situation; so mitigating when it is not happening is a win-win-win-win situation. Failing to mitigate is a lose-lose-lose-lose-really big lose situation.

    And last, but not least JPII & BXVI have admonished us to mitigate climate change, since 1990. JPII said it was everyone’s moral responsibility.

    A true Catholic will not wantonly go against the Holy Fathers.

    Like

  6. You do realize that Al Gore is a complete fraud, right?

    They’ve known about the greenhouse effect and the potential for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) for over 100 years

    Then why were they predicting global cooling in the 1970’s?

    The fact of the matter is, whatever the earth decides to do, there is little we can do to stop it.

    A true Catholic will not wantonly go against the Holy Fathers.

    The Holy Fathers I’m sure are against fraud and deceit.

    Take your bogus talking points elsewhere, ma’am.

    Like

  7. Basically lynnvinc is making things up out of whole cloth, and displaying an abysmal ignorance of energy and economics. Nobody is deliberately trying to emit greenhouse gases. We’re just trying to do what makes economic sense.

    If you look at the US (and world) energy needs over the next 40 years, as a CalTech professor did, you find that there is only one technology that can meet our long-term needs: solar power. But solar power is still not cheap enough to compete with conventional energy. I’ve wanted to put solar panels up for 5 years, but every time I look at the costs vs. the savings, I can’t recoup the costs over the lifetime of the solar system.

    If wind energy were saving money, we would all have wind energy. Look to Spain to see exactly how economically feasible widespread implementation of wind power is. I say this as a long-time subscriber to Wind Power.

    And as far as the pollyanna bit about climate change: whatever led you to believe that mitigating greenhouse gases would be cheap or even save money? It is not a win-win-win scenario, it’s an OMG it’s going to cost a fortune to switch to more costly, less efficient lower-carbon-footprint technologies scenario.

    Try living in the real world for a change, where thermodynamics, chemistry, and economics all matter.

    Like

  8. What I find strange is that so many appear to be far more concerned with the created, rather than Creator. God put us here to exploit the earth’s resources offered. To deny otherwise is to deny His purpose.

    Yes, we are to be good stewards. Yes, we should respect the earth. But not because it’s our earth, but His.

    Frankly, I am getting queasy that after all the proven falsification of scientific data about anthropogenic global warming, that people who should know better are scaring themselves silly in a futile pursuit.

    How many times will you be fooled by the charlatans? We can no more control the earth than we control our tongues. One volcano, minimal by the largest of standards, brought the traffic of a continent to its knees in a matter of moments.

    A combination of the ignorance of good science, irrational fear, and the ignorance or outright denial of God’s basic tenets leads to our undoing.

    Like

  9. Well, it seems you think I’m doing grave harm to the Church by urging people to mitigate climate change, and I think you’re doing grave harm to the Church by dissuading people from mitigating climate change. And it looks like neither of us will be able to persuade the other to change, so I won’t try again.

    Well, you view Al Gore as totally evil and bad, but even in bad people there is some good, and in good people, some bad. Let’s try to encourage the good in each other.

    Good-bye, I won’t bother you again. Peace of Christ be with you.

    Like

  10. lynnvinc,

    I don’t really have a dog in the hunt, but you seem to be particularly sensitive. You won’t persuade anyone if in initial disagreement, you pick up the ball and run home. I reread my post, and certainly hope that was directed at me. If I ever choose to be harsh, you’ll know it.

    However, in case you come back I do have to take issue with this statement:

    Well, you view Al Gore as totally evil and bad, but even in bad people there is some good, and in good people, some bad. Let’s try to encourage the good in each other.

    While we can try to continue to encourage good, and it true all people capable evil to a degree as Christ told us as much, don’t ever make the false assumption that all opinions are of equal value.

    As a scientist of sorts, I can tell you with absolute certainty, short of nuclear power or more hydroelectric (and we’re running out of options with water), there are no real good substitutes for hydrocarbons currently available. The thermodynamic properties of alternative fuels simply aren’t there without quickly becoming cost prohibitive.

    Like

  11. Tex Taylor, it was not directed at you. But I’d love to discuss GW solutions, which we can do over on my blog. I just don’t think anyone here is into that and I seem to irritate them — just click on my name, and I’ll set up a platform….

    Like

  12. The problem is, some of us just don’t believe global warming is an urgent problem. And we don’t think that the scientists who have been pushing the theory have pure motives -in fact we believe they have become irredeemably politicized. We think there’s an agenda behind AGW alarmism, and if you followed the events in the climate science community for the past six months, you should know our skepticism is well founded.

    So don’t come here, acting like you have the high moral ground, when you’ve aligned yourself with some the most anti-life forces on the planet.

    Yes, it irritates me to no end.

    Like

  13. NiceDeb, I’ve been following climate science and the scientists very closely for 20 years & know every sordid detail of the malicious attacks upon them for the past 5-6 years. I know who’s behind it, mainly Exxon & Koch Industries & the orgs & bogus scientists they fund. I would hope that people would not attack the messenger, bec they don’t like the message. AGW is really not a nice message at all.

    But if we fail to mitigate AGW, there will be terrible economic and political consequences, not to mention worst of all death consequences.

    OTOH, I really don’t see how, for instance, going solar & wind power, etc, and getting off the grid gives us less freedoms — it gives us more freedom. And how does a penny saved harm us economically. Confucious say, turning off lights not in use saves us money; it does not cost us 🙂

    I have been anti-abortion for 60 years. My concern over my killing of people thru environmental harms flows out of my abhorrence to killing. I participate in pro-life rallies. But it is totally impossible to be pro-life without having gotten one’s antenna up over AGW, and deciding to mitigate it, even before the science is all in (which it was by 1995).

    If you really want to know the truth, or at least hear the scientists’ side of the story, I do urge you to check out http://www.RealClimate.org — you can either post Qs openly, or email the scientists privately (now its more difficult to find their emails, but I think if follow their bio links you can get it — or I could supply them).

    We don’t want to risk life. That’s the first principle. But we don’t want to risk our economy and political freedoms either. So let us all work together to find solutions to AGW that will help us preserve lives AND our economy and political freedoms. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. With God’s help all can be done.

    Or, at the very least, just mitigate up to the point you feel comfortable that you are not losing your living standard or political freedoms. It can be really fun. You have children (I had so longed for that joy/responsbility). They could help you do a compost heap, or make recycling bins, or plant a veggie garden. As for energy/resource efficiency/conservation, start out with the cheapest things, then as you save money, plow it into more costly things that save in the long-run. Figure ways to cut down driving. When the denialist came up with “Studies show beef entails more GHGs than driving [actually it was the whole industrial agri sector that involves more GHGs than transportation…but we need to eat],” I replied with why can’t we reduce both — like turn off our engine in the drive-thru and order the veggie burger 🙂

    I’ve developed The Little Way of Environmental Healing, after St. Therese’s Little Way of Spiritual Childhood. Just do every little (and big) thing you can to help save the earth out of love for God….

    Like

  14. Lynn,

    Like you, I believe in the sanctity of the innocnent. But you are being duped into fear by a cast of scurrilous pagans whose real purpose, perhaps even sole purpose, is enriching and empowering themselves. And these pseudo-scientists are literally scaring people to death.

    Let me ask you this. If we are really destroying the environment, if we are turning our earth into a climate of chaos dangerous to the sustaining of life, why are we living so long? Would it not follow that if we were irreparably damaging that which sustains us, life expectancy should begin decreasing?

    It hasn’t and continues to trend upward.

    Now I know you can cherry pick certain locales in Africa or South America where there is warfare and abject poverty to argue against the merits of my conclusion. But in industrialized countries without real social turmoil, life expectancy increases every year that passes.

    Here is the dirty, little secret none of us like to admit. Do you know why our medical costs are so exorbitant? Part of the blame can be attributed to defensive medicine, part of it to personal irresponsibility. But the largest part of the costs are associated with geriatrics and end of life.

    Like

  15. And how does a penny saved harm us economically.

    Prove that alternative energies’ lifetime costs save money instead of imagining it with your fairy powers. Short answer: they don’t. It’s people like you, with your unrealistic expectations, who disillusion people about alternate energy.

    Like

  16. I have absolutely no fears at all — spiritually or materially. I’m close to the end of my life, and we don’t have children (tho I do feel bad for what will befall my grand-nieces and nephews, and all the other children of the world). I’m doing what I can to reduce my harm to other people and repenting for my failures. I’m good with God and hopeful for an eternity in Heaven. I don’t have medical expenses, except yearly check ups — I’m a vegan & take pretty good care of myself with food and herbal cures. I hope I won’t have a lot of end-of-life medical problems, but I’ll face that when/if I come to it; hope I can bravely offer it up to God, rather than scream and kick about it (if I were a gambling person I’d put my money on the “screaming & kicking”).

    I guess there could be dangers if people really started mitigating AGW — such as in shopping carts colliding in the CF lightbulb sections of stores. Watch out!

    It seems to me the denialists are so scared stiff about what they imagine to be draconian policies (totalitarian take-over and economic collapse if people actually did start turning off lights not in use, moved closer to work, turned off engines in drive-thrus & ordered the veggie burger), that they bury their heads in the sand and refuse to even give the science a minute of consideration. It’s like the story of the man who feared death, and ran away from it into another village, where he met death.

    Humor me, and just think for a brief moment if AGW is really happening and our world food & potable water supplies in 30 or so years start dwindling, creating a vicious killer musical chairs, what the political & economic consequences will be. (I predict both anarchy and people selling themselves to autocrats for crumbs and to keep the barbians outside the gates.) Does anyone really want to risk that or have their children live in such a world (even if there is only a slight chance of it happening), when they could avoid it by sensible measures today that save them money. As Mr. Spock would say, it just doesn’t compute. And I say, economic rational man does not exist. Even in my dotage, I never fail to be amazed.

    Like

  17. Does anyone really want to risk that or have their children live in such a world (even if there is only a slight chance of it happening), when they could avoid it by sensible measures today that save them money. As Mr. Spock would say, it just doesn’t compute. And I say, economic rational man does not exist.

    While we have droughts periodically, with some regions more susceptible than others, spare your worries. We aren’t going to run out of potable water anytime soon, unless the oceans go dry. Two, I don’t consider a vegan diet particularly healthy, unless you are supplementing the diet. It may be okay for the heart, but not the rest of you – a lesson I learned through biochemistry in medical school. Three, what doesn’t compute is the fact people continue to believe in AGW even after ClimageGate, Rain Forest Gate, Himalaya Gate, etc…I believe the real deniers who refuse to evaluate the facts at hand.

    I deny nothing of worth and my decisions are rational with respect to science. I have looked at the hypotheses and the data and believe it really bad science and a perversion of religion of sorts. At worst, we have more greenery from CO2. I kind of like that.

    Somewhere, Spock weeps at your assessment.

    Like

  18. Knock-knock

    I did have a knowledgeable reply to Qs about the climategate & glaciergate issues, but it seems that topic may be a bit too sensitive & isn’t getting thru

    Anyway, here is a refreshing item (for me, if not for my friends here) — There are Catholics who feel the Church is still in its infancy re environmental teachings, and hope to see it go further and be more outspoken: http://www.columban.org.au/Archives/features/2010/call-for-catholic-synod-on-creation/

    And I thought I was the only Catholic environmentalist in the world, alone, trying to get fellow Catholics onto the wonderful environmental bandwagon.

    Like

  19. As for the IPCC “gates,” it’s true there were some mistakes in its 1000s of pages, but none in the Working Group I climate science chapters, only in WGII impact chapters in a couple of areas where the writers were not experts — they were honest mistakes, which expert scientists eventually found.

    Since 100s of scientist work on IPCC reports for free in their spare time, such mistakes are understandable, but now they realize there has to be more communication between WGI & WGII.

    At this point the science has gone beyond the IPCC 2007 report. You can hear presentations of the 2009 4 DEGREES & BEYOND conference at Oxford to learn where the science is heading at http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees

    RE the “glaciergate” mistake, that was on pg. 493 of the WGII chapter on impacts on Asia. I think the real glaciergate story is that no one really cared about Asia to read it, bec I had read that chapter BEFORE the mistake was detected. I was writing a paper on “Food Rights & Climate Change.” I saw the claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear within 35 years, and thought that claim a bit shocking, since I had earlier read elsewhere it could take centuries. I looked at the source. World Wildlife Fund, got their report, and looked at their source, The New Scientist. Neither were good enough for me, since I was writing for a peer-review journal, so I didn’t include that claim. So NO HARM DONE.

    It seems almost as it I was the only one who read that page, bec no one really cares about Asia and whether or not they have water for drinking, much less irrigation. That’s 40% of India and China, a billion people, that could be in dire straights once the glaciers do melt in a few centuries, if we fail to mitigate AGW.

    Like

  20. Lynnvinc, you really should look into other sources besides the tainted ones you’ve been using. Sites like Climate Audit sprung up to combat the faulty science being propagated by Real Climate.

    And I thought I was the only Catholic environmentalist in the world, alone, trying to get fellow Catholics onto the wonderful environmental bandwagon.

    Sadly no, but we already knew that.

    Like

  21. About the CRU hacking & climategate, those emails have been analyzed and they found the scientists used correct methods in adjusting the data to make it more valid (they actually put in lower temps in many cases, due to things like the urban heat island effect.) However denialists, failing to understand the science or methods have focused on a few words out of context and twisted the meaning. Some of the raw data were from purchased sources, and the scientists were not at liberty to freely hand it over to those who asked for it (they would have to purchase it from the same providers), and apparently with only a tiny crew and staff and a lot of work they simply were not able to even beginning meeting the FOI requests the denialists kept submitting just to hound and harass the scientists. That, along with death threats, and all sort of other abuse at the hands of denialists would make the scientists’ comments about denialists understandable, if not excusable.

    You can see discussion of this and the other issues raised about the hacked emails at http://www.RealClimate.org . Just do a search on their site under “CRU.”

    Again, the real story here is that a crime was committed, hacking into emails, and how vicious and desperate the powers-that-be have become — Exxon/Koch and their funded orgs were probably behind the hacking & hounding. You’re safe being a climate denialist — at least they won’t come hounding you & hacking your emails.

    Like

  22. Climate Audit is totally bogus, with connections to Exxon & Koch money. You don’t understand, RealClimate.org is hosted by the top climate scientists of the world. There are no climate scientists left who are still skeptical about AGW. RC posts are written by actual climate scientists – several of whom I know personally. Not only are they sincere, honest, and helpful people (who hate the fact that AGW is happening, perhaps more than the denialists and contrarians), but their science meets the smell test of being valid, logical, based on well established physics, theories, and data.

    I’ve known about the natural greenhouse effect for over 40 years, and was a pretty good student in the sciences in college, even thinking of going into physics. I’ve spent 20 years educating myself about this issue, well before it ever became “political.” I’ve never had any problem understanding the science. As a Catholic, as a lay Carmelite (OCDS), it is my double responsiblity to take this issue on as my apostolate, to inform people about it — or the sin falls back on me (I was actually going to give up 2 years ago, but there was a reading during Mass that spoke about the sin falling back on the person).

    God gave us brains and hearts. We should use them. And he gave us help in making decisions, such as Pascal’s wager. I teach research methods and statistics, and I understand that scientist need to be very conservative in their claims. It is usually the public that is out ahead of the scientists, as they should be, in calling for mitigation of environmental problems. But not in this case. Everybody has their head in the sand.

    I still am surprised at why people are so unable to see the truth when it faces them, or at least respect scientist who have spent years getting their education, then many more years in studying the problem. This goes for Democrats as well as Republicans. Obama (who could have never become senator without S. IL coal — and is not delivering, if some mistakenly thought he would), as well as McCain (who was actually better on AGW than Obama). Catholics as well as Hindus. Whatever. All groups on earth are to be blamed and held responsible. You know, the very best environmental presidents we’ve had were both Republican — Nixon and Teddy Roosevelt. I teach that in my Environmental Crime and Justice course. If people could only get past the fact that earth system and the laws of physics are not dependent on political thinking or economic concerns. AGW is not going to go away just because we wish it away, or refuse to believe it is happening, due to (I really don’t know why people don’t want to face and solve it).

    So while environmental harms affecting and threatening people is not a political issue — the harms could have negative political consequences once the world is turned into a vicious killer musical chairs of dwindling life-sustaining resources.

    There is no silver bullet for this problem, as there was for the ozone hole or acid rain or other problems. The gov cannot fix this, tho it could offer a few carrots and sticks and inspire people. This problem is up to all the people to fix, as JPII told us to do in 1990, and if we people refuse to do the needful (most of it cost-effective & saving us money) the harms fall on all of us, mostly the poor and future generations.

    I wish you all well in your lives and pursuits. Blessings.

    Like

  23. Well, yes I did know that JPII, BXVI, and the U.S. Bishops were into AGW and telling us to mitigate it, but I really don’t know of any other Catholics, except for a tiny church environmental group of about 6 I belonged to over 10 years ago, and one was a climate skeptic. I’ve never ever heard any priest mention it at a Mass. When I asked my priest why he didn’t mention it, he said he was afraid of the Rush Limbaugh Catholics (in Rush they trust, they are Rush fearing people, I guess), and I suppose maybe my priest is also a Rush Catholic, since he sure isn’t afraid to talk about other issues with vigor.

    I come from very conservative roots, a Republican family since well before the Civil War (even my Texas ancestors, when everyone else in TX was a Democrat), and all the parishes I’ve belonged to are conservative, and I just can’t at all understand why somehow this has become an article of faith among the new conservatives the AGW just couldn’t possibly be happening. And then the liberals are into their own issues, and only pay lipserve to environmental issues, if at all they even acknowledge them.

    No, I personaly have not known any Catholics in to AGW — my Carmelite sister in 2005 thought AGW had been disproven bec she hadn’t heard about it in the media, and some in my group are set-in-their-ways denialists, so we just avoid the topic.

    People think Red v. Blue, politics & the economy, and that’s all there is in the world. But what about Green? What about life?

    Like

  24. Real Climate is the bogus site, ma’am, as anyone who has followed recent events can ascertain.

    P.S. You really are wasting your time, here. We’re not buying your b.s. , okay? I can’t put it any more bluntly than that.

    Like

  25. Okay, then, this might be a solution. It worked in our tiny church environmental committee up north some 10 years ago, when one member refused to believe AGW was happening — tho she (a geologist into water management), now does accept it. However, at the time we had what she fondly refers to as a “hissy fight” over it, then became best of buddies when we decided to get past the problem of the problems, and focus on solutions (which are solutions to many many problems).

    We started with water conservation, and did really well, having an “April Showers” event at the Church to help people conserve water, and went on the form the Aurora (IL) Conservation Campaign, giving out water conservation kits through the city water dept. My husband and I left for better jobs in Texas after we completed the water conservation part, so we never got to the energy conservation part, but our webpage is still floating out in cyberspace — http://www.auroraonline.net/conservation

    So let us then agree to disagree (which I did with my Carmelite sister here in Texas who cannot accept AGW for whatever reason). I won’t bother you or your readers anymore. Peace be with you and with your spirit.

    Like

  26. We could not disagree more, and I’m sorry your discernment skills, and b.s. detector are so impaired.

    I have no idea why you keep coming here to push AGW …when we said upfront that we believed in conservation, and taking care of the planet. We just don’t believe in destroying the US economy for a non existent crisis.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s