The Perverted Science of Global Warming Gets Dirty(er)

John Ransom | Jan 20, 2014        

 

Because one would suppose that in policies promoted by properly-thinking, modern progressives-- who worship all things science— and have no time for mumbo jumbo about faith and religion, that at the very least they’d have data to support that their policies will cool the earth, solve world hunger, bring people out of poverty, improve education, create income equality, or pay female White House staffers commensurate with men.

OK, the last one was outrageous. Never gonna happen under Obama.

What was I thinking?

At the very least, I was thinking that people like Ericynot, BoatBoy, DoctorRoy or Hillinger would enjoy me being bald and eating dog food.

Heck, I’d even make a video of it.

But the problem remains: Sea levels aren’t rising, storms aren’t nastier and more brutish. The only science that’s being done is the type where estimates are used where data is called for and predictions are being used instead of conclusions.

Stumped by the fact that temperatures are not accurately reflecting current climate “models”- in fact temperatures have remained stable for 17 years- scientists on the government gravy train are trying to tie any weather event to so-called climate change.

Or income inequality. Which really?Aren’t they the same things?
Hurricanes? Global warming.
Tornadoes? Global warming?
Drought? Global warming?
Blizzards, dropping temperatures, meteorites, Big Gulps? Global warming.

Last year I documented how researchers made up a map showing how vegetation could change in the arctic because of global warming.

The map, no lie, was called the “most accurate map” ever produced of its type.

A long last, scientists have revealed the single most important document ever, I wrote.It’s a crayon-colored map showing how “trees” could grow in the arctic.

If finally, mercifully, any one of the so-called “climate models” that so far have failed to “model” climate accurately, suddenly and then accurately begin to “model” climate in real time, then, well, WOW!

“Experts say the wooded areas in the region could increase by 50% over the coming decades,” writes the UK’s Daily Mail, “and accelerate global warming in the process. Researchers have unveiled the most accurate map ever (!) of how vegetation could change in the region.”

In the meantime,ThinkProgresshas published a remarkable paper calledArctic Sea Ice Death Spiral And Cold Weatherthat proves, or at least,says- same thing if you are a liberal - that globalwarmingis to blame for …coldweather in Germany.

Stumped by the fact that temperatures are not accurately reflecting current climate “models”- in fact temperatures have remained stable for 17 years- scientists on the government gravy train are trying to tie any weather event to so-called climate change.

Even homosexuality has been tied to global warming via population control.

“With the natural world on the brink of demise largely because of overpopulation,” G. Roger Denson, a self-appointed social theoretician wrote on the Huffington Post,“unrestrained homosexuality, as one of a variety of ethical and democratic measures available to us today, offers perhaps the most natural option to be enjoined.”

Unrestrained gayness? Seriously?

Going in through the out door with another man doesn’t seem “the most natural option to be enjoined” in trying to cool down the earth’s atmosphere.  But in the interest of fairness if G. Roger Denson wants to produce an actual scientific paper proving me wrong, I got a can of dog food and clipping shears here waiting.

Because one would suppose that in policies promoted by properly-thinking, modern progressives-- who worship all things science— and have no time for mumbo jumbo about faith and religion, that at the very least they’d have data to support that their policies will cool the earth, solve world hunger, bring people out of poverty, improve education, create income equality, or pay female White House staffers commensurate with men.

OK, the last one was outrageous. Never gonna happen under Obama.

What was I thinking? At the very least, I was thinking that people like Ericynot, BoatBoy, DoctorRoy or Hillinger would enjoy me being bald and eating dog food.  Heck, I’d even make a video of it.

But the problem remains: Sea levels aren’t rising, storms aren’t nastier and more brutish. The only science that’s being done is the type where estimates are used where data is called for and predictions are being used instead of conclusions.

Stumped by the fact that temperatures are not accurately reflecting current climate “models”- in fact temperatures have remained stable for 17 years- scientists on the government gravy train are trying to tie any weather event to so-called climate change.

Or income inequality. Which really?Aren’t they the same things?
Hurricanes? Global warming.
Tornadoes? Global warming?
Drought? Global warming?
Blizzards, dropping temperatures, meteorites, Big Gulps? Global warming.

Last year I documented how researchers made up a map showing how vegetation could change in the arctic because of global warming.

The map, no lie, was called the “most accurate map” ever produced of its type.
A long last, scientists have revealed the single most important document ever, I wrote.It’s a crayon-colored map showing how “trees” could grow in the arctic.

If finally, mercifully, any one of the so-called “climate models” that so far have failed to “model” climate accurately, suddenly and then accurately begin to “model” climate in real time, then, well, WOW!

“Experts say the wooded areas in the region could increase by 50% over the coming decades,” writes the UK’s Daily Mail, “and accelerate global warming in the process. Researchers have unveiled the most accurate map ever (!) of how vegetation could change in the region.”

In the meantime,ThinkProgresshas published a remarkable paper calledArctic Sea Ice Death Spiral And Cold Weatherthat proves, or at least,says- same thing if you are a liberal - that globalwarmingis to blame for …coldweather in Germany.

Stumped by the fact that temperatures are not accurately reflecting current climate “models”- in fact temperatures have remained stable for 17 years- scientists on the government gravy train are trying to tie any weather event to so-called climate change.

Even homosexuality has been tied to global warming via population control.

“With the natural world on the brink of demise largely because of overpopulation,” G. Roger Denson, a self-appointed social theoretician wrote on the Huffington Post,“unrestrained homosexuality, as one of a variety of ethical and democratic measures available to us today, offers perhaps the most natural option to be enjoined.”

Unrestrained gayness? Seriously?

Going in through the out door with another man doesn’t seem “the most natural option to be enjoined” in trying to cool down the earth’s atmosphere. But in the interest of fairness if G. Roger Denson wants to produce an actual scientific paper proving me wrong, I got a can of dog food and clipping shears here waiting.

Reasonable Gun Control That Follows 2n'd Amendment Possible

I wrote this piece during an exhaustingly long argument with gun owners, attempting to show I am not against gun ownership, but it is possible to have it while protecting 2n'd Amendment rights.  As they declared the issue "black and white" and admitted to refuse to listen to anything from the other side (and man, did they ever prove it), I thought I'd post it and see what people who do listen and reason think about it.

Any gun control measures should be on the states, not the federal government (except where needed, like border defense and the flow of guns between states.  Perhaps gun owners in a state should be made to be part of a well-regulated militia, provided of course they pass all background checks.  Imports of guns should be strictly regulated.  No more than one gun per citizen (unless you are a collector, a shooting range, or can prove a need otherwise), and the owners should be licensed (with periodic renewals), their weapon registered and regularly inspected by the state, and they should pay insurance just like car owners(given that only one out of thousands of guns is involved in personal injury, the premium shouldn't be very high).  Furthermore, if someone's gun is used in a crime, accidental wounding, or suicide attempt) the owner too should be prosecuted, fined, and have their license suspended for a period of time.  You own a gun, you are responsible for what happens with it.

Another roles the feds could play is to provides incentives and disincentives for states to provide for such regulation.

Does this sound reasonable or not?  It's certainly is consistent with the 2n'd Amendment, all of it, matches the Founding Fathers' ideas, allows for self-defense by firearm, and if that "last resort" should come, make private gun owners a much more effective fighting force.  And firearms deaths would have to drop more, I believe.

Atheists Face Discrimination in the U.S.

November 16, 2009

Atheists are one of the most despised minorities in the U.S., and anti-atheist bigotry is both widespread and socially acceptable in many areas. When we consider the fact that many religious believers have convinced themselves that our refusal to share their beliefs makes us inherently immoral, it is not surprising that they condemn us. Some go so far as to claim that we are less than fully human, reducing the prohibitions against inflicting harm on us that might normally be in place.

One response I have routinely encountered from Christians, and even a few atheists, is that negative attitudes aside, atheists are not actually discriminated against. Ah denial, is there nothing you can't do?

What is Discrimination?

Discrimination is not the same thing as being treated unfairly. In the legal context in which discrimination is most relevant, it can be defined broadly as unequal treatment for a reason other than ability or legal rights. More precise definitions and tests of discrimination are dependent on the context. Thus, employment discrimination may work a bit differently than discrimination involving educational opportunity. Still, we can abstract some general principles from U.S. law. Federal (and state) laws prohibit discrimination in areas such as employment, housing, voting rights, educational opportunity, and civil rights on the basis of race, age, sex, nationality, disability, and religion.

Both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion and the other factors noted above. That is, it is unlawful to discriminate against someone (i.e., to treat them unequally in certain specified matters) on the basis of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

Examples of Discrimination Against Atheists

What follows is by no means intended to be an exhaustive list. I intend only to provide a handful of notable examples which can be used to educate those arguing that there atheists in the U.S. do not face any sort of discrimination on the basis of their atheism.

• Some judges consider atheism to be a sufficient reason for denying custody to a parent during custody hearings.
• Many private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts of America, deny membership solely on the basis of lack of god-belief. Some of these organizations also manage to receive public funding.
• Atheists face many forms of employment discrimination, ranging from differential hiring practices to wrongful termination. A school district in Texas went so far as to refuse to do business with an atheist.
• In addition to widespread anti-atheist bigotry in the U.S. military, there are reports of institutionalized discrimination designed to quash complaints made by atheists who dare to speak out.
• A handful of states retain laws to prevent atheists from being permitted to hold public office in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.
• The mainstream media in the U.S. regularly excludes atheists, even from stories about atheism, while giving voice to religious believers.

A survey of atheist and other freethought groups completed by Margaret Downey in 2000 reveled that the overwhelming majority of instances of discrimination against atheists are never reported. Why? According to Downey,

...the fear of suffering further discrimination as a “whistleblower” was widespread. Some victims told me that they did not want to go public lest still more hatred come their way. This is the trauma of discrimination, just the sort of intimidation that discourages discrimination reports and makes it difficult to find plaintiffs for needed litigation.

We can all find examples of discrimination against atheists on their basis of their lack of god-belief. We should also be able to understand why there are not many more examples in the public record.

Read more: http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/11/atheists-face-discrimination-in-us.html#ixzz2qy6sVnkT