It Seems Like It's Reigning All Over The World

I've got a lot of reasons for not buying climate change, few of which deal with science:

"Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is the author of a novel, Return to Almora. In 2010, it was published to great fanfare. One of the world’s largest banks – HSBC – was an official sponsor of the gala book launch in Mumbai. 

Later that year, Pachauri downplayed media reports that his book is a racy read. 'I’m happy to send you a copy if you have the patience to go through it,' he told a reporter, 'but it’s 400 pages all about spirituality.' 

This journalist has now read those 400 pages. It turns out there’s a considerable gap between what the author says his book is about and the evidence on the printed page."

You know where this is going, don't you? C'mon, truth seeker, it's TMR: 

 You gotta know,...

 

Bernie Madoff (For A Long, Long Time) And We Ought To Get The Rest Of These Guys As Well

This evil bag of NewAge wind is Shirley MacLaine.

She's an actress, a cult leader, a U.F.O. nut, a fraud and a liar, has been known to drink her own urine, and she recently announced she slept with three guys in one day.

This pathetic specimen of a human being is Rajendra Pachauri.

As the head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) he too is a cult leader, a fraud and a liar, has been known to drink his own Kool-Aid of Global Warming Hysteria, and wrote a pornographic novel about "an aging environmentalist and engineer engaged in a 'spiritual journey' that includes meeting Shirley MacLaine, detailed explorations of the Kama Sutra, and group sex."

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? No - besides the multiple-partnered "love connection" these two could have:

Isn't it wild how much fraud our normal everyday lives are subjected to, almost without mention, and with no one paying a price?

Fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud. How many trillions of dollars of our money, and how many laws to hem us in, have we been subjected to because of fraud? And yet nobody's calling for anybody to go to jail, or even pay a fine, or anything else.

I think it's un-American.

I don't know if you guys read James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal but, if you don't, you should because he's one of us - without ring-around-the-collar and all.

Though he writes like a college kid, he thinks like a guy who got his G.E.D. and got out (which is what he is) so he doesn't do all those convoluted stunts other columnists try, attempting to sound smart while constantly missing the point. No, Taranto almost always gets it. Here he is on Obama's speech yesterday:

Obama said he was going to start "by being honest about what's causing our deficit." It's hard to cut spending: "You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but like the stuff that it buys." It's hard to raise taxes: "My finely honed political instincts tell me that almost nobody believes they should be paying higher taxes." And politicians are selling voters a bill of goods when they "feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse."

What's needed, he claimed, is "a serious plan" that will "require tough choices." He then outlined a four-step "approach"--it wasn't detailed enough to achieve planhood--that showed his promise of honesty to be an utter fraud.

Fraud again. And do you see how Taranto got to it? Good old fashioned clear thinking. Critical thinking. Horse sense:

Obama said he was going to be honest.

Obama said we need a "plan".

But then Obama didn't give us a plan, he switched up and gave us an "approach" instead.

So, in fact, Obama wasn't being honest.

And that's the fraud. See? It's easy.

Taranto then does the same thing with Al "release my chakra" Gore and Rajendra Pachauri's U.N. Global Warming hysteria - pay attention now, all you liberal scientists:

Australian blogger Gavin Atkins notes that "in 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010",...

Yet in 2010, mankind was so distracted by the elections, Wikileaks, the Haitian earthquake and the Chilean miners that 50 million climate refugees somehow escaped our notice. Oh, also they failed to materialize.

"They failed to materialize." So they committed a fraud. Fraud's a crime, kids, and I've said (along with others) that, for this one, there ought to be a Nuremberg-type trial for those who were perpetrating it - on such a massive scale - on the rest of us. They've taken our time, they've taken trillions of dollars of our money, they've wasted and diverted our resources, and scared our children (and, of course, our precious liberals) half to death. And I still think they should be made to pay.

But - considering they're all a bunch of NewAge perverts - I guess I won't mind now if they share a cell.

So, you know, Shirley and Rajendra can finally get to "know each other" better.

This Winter Is Proof: The AGW Crowd Are Cold

Other than "Al Gore and his ICPP henchmen should be put in prison", this article from the Investor's Business Daily should be the final word on Global Warming/Climate Change:

Climate: Nothing makes fools of more people than trying to predict the weather. Whether in Los Angeles or London, recent predictions have gone crazily awry. Global warming? How about mini ice age?

The sight of confused and angry travelers stuck in airports across Europe because of an arctic freeze that has settled across the continent isn't funny. Sadly, they've been told for more than a decade now that such a thing was an impossibility — that global warming was inevitable, and couldn't be reversed.

This is a big problem for those who see human-caused global warming as an irreversible result of the Industrial Revolution's reliance on carbon-based fuels. Based on global warming theory — and according to official weather forecasts made earlier in the year — this winter should be warm and dry. It's anything but. Ice and snow cover vast parts of both Europe and North America, in one of the coldest Decembers in history.

A cautionary tale? You bet. Prognosticators who wrote the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, global warming report in 2007 predicted an inevitable, century-long rise in global temperatures of two degrees or more. Only higher temperatures were foreseen. Moderate or even lower temperatures, as we're experiencing now, weren't even listed as a possibility.

Since at least 1998, however, no significant warming trend has been noticeable. Unfortunately, none of the 24 models used by the IPCC views that as possible. They are at odds with reality.

Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, "falsifiable." That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false. That's what scientific experimentation and observation do. That's the essence of the scientific method.

Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It's global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.

Nothing can disprove their thesis. Not even the extraordinarily frigid weather now creating havoc across most of the Northern Hemisphere. The Los Angeles Times, in a piece on the region's strangely wet and cold weather, paraphrases Jet Propulsion Laboratory climatologist Bill Patzert as saying, "In general, as the globe warms, weather conditions tend to be more extreme and volatile."

Got that? No matter what the weather, it's all due to warming. This isn't science; it's a kind of faith. Scientists go along and even stifle dissent because, frankly, hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants are at stake. But for the believers, global warming is the god that failed.

Why do we continue to listen to warmists when they're so wrong?

We don't know. We just don't know. We do know our idea sounds kind of far-fetched, but maybe, just maybe, it's a cult?