Simplicity is the simplest way to make a serious argument — and, as Shakespeare said, “Brevity is the soul of wit.” There’s one word that we could boil all of Mrs. Clinton’s proposals and policies and all of the liberals’ proposals and policies down to, and that one word will tell us why we oppose all of them, the people and their policies. The word is “freedom.” It’s just that simple. Liberalism and this current crop of Democrat candidates, is out to take as much day-to-day freedom from you as possible. We’re not necessarily talking about constitutional freedoms, just freedoms to live our lives. That’s the objective, and the simplest way to explain what they want to do to people is to simply use that word: “Freedom. Do you like it? Do you want to keep it? It’s threatened by today’s Democrats.”
Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming
“It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of ‘geologists.’ Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming — it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age. The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be ‘wiped out’ or lower crop yields would mean ‘billions will die.’ Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting — blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature. Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, ‘Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.’
This is the first paragraph of…
By R. Warren Anderson
Research Analyst
Dan Gainor
The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow
Please view this piece. Great read! It’s long, so I suggest printing the pdf. version and reading it at you leisure.
During the last 10 million years, Earth has had 10 major ice ages and numerous smaller glaciations such as the recent Little Ice Age. Each major ice age has been followed by a warm period of about 10,000 years. We’re in a warm period now—more specifically, we’re at the end of one. Should we expect another major ice age soon? There’s no way of knowing. Climate change may be cyclical, but it’s not easy to forecast. Both day-to-day weather and long-term climate change remain difficult to predict.
quote from…
Ice and Snow
and a little bit more info i found…
Meanwhile, a retired arctic research director has slammed global warming. His name is Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu. He’s the former director of the University of Alaska Fairbanks International Arctic Research Center, and in the Anchorage Daily News on Sunday he said, “‘If you look back far enough, we have a bunch of data that show that warming has gone on from the 1600s with an almost linear increase to the present,’ Akasofu said. He showed ice-core data from the Russian Arctic that show warming starting from the early 1700s, temperature records from England showing the same trend back to 1660 and ice breakup dates at Tallinn, Estonia, that show a general warming since the year 1500.” The cycles of climate on this planet are so long, they span multiple lifetimes, but most people’s historical perspective begins the day they were born, and they think that we’re in the Last Days, the worst of times, that nothing is happening today on this planet’s ever happened before.
It’s never gotten warm. It’s never heated up. Ice floes have never broken up. Ice has never melted. (sarcastically) All these things are happening for the first time, because most people haven’t the slightest idea of the complexity of the climate, primarily because they were never taught about it in basic science in high school or even college. It’s vanity.
Now, this expert, Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu said scientists who support the man-made greenhouse gas theory disregard information from centuries ago when exploring the issue of global warming. Satellite images of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean have been available in the satellite era only [obviously!] since the 1960s and 1970s. ‘Young researchers are interested in satellite data, which became available after 1975,’ he said. ‘All the papers since (the advent of satellites) show warming. That’s what I call “instant climatology.” I’m trying to tell young scientists, “You can’t study climatology unless you look at a much longer time period.”‘” Now, why 1975? It’s sort of important, because between 1940 and 1975 the planet was going through a period of cooling which led many scientists to believe in global cooling.
They gave us stories in TIME and Newsweek in 1979 about global cooling and the coming of the new ice age. So that’s why you ignore everything before 1975 because things started warming up. These cycles go back and forth, and if you use ’75 as your starting point, you can say, “Yeah, it’s warming up,” but if you ignore the process which actually began the 1500s and 1600s, then of course you can make your case erroneously as they are today. “Akasofu said there is no data,” NO DATA, “showing that ‘most’ of the present warming is due to the man-made greenhouse effect, as the members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” the UN, “wrote in February.” No evidence, no data showing that most of the present warming is due to man. NO DATA. He’s a scientist. He hasn’t joined the consensus of the others, and he’s one of thousands that disagree with it. “He pointed out that the atmosphere cooled from 1940 to 1975 despite a rapid increase in carbon dioxide emissions during the same period. ‘Nature changes all the time,’ he said. ‘The natural component is there. Until you remove it, you don’t know the man-made effect.'”
Consensus is opinion, it is not science.
Fact is science.
“You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity! Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away — all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time.It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. Might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It’s powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. You think this is the first time that’s happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine.
When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. Hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.”
Michael Crichton
Mrs. Clinton got a question from Bill Maher. “Senator Clinton, all the Senators here except Senator Obama voted for the Iraq war resolution in 2002 saying their decision was based on intelligence they believed to be accurate at the time. In other words, George Bush fooled you. Why should Americans vote for somebody who can be fooled by George Bush?”
HILLARY: Well, Bill, it was a little more complicated than that. I sought out expert opinions from a wide variety of sources, people inside and outside the government, people in my husband’s administration, and I think it is fair to say that at the time I made it very clear I was against a preemptive war. And I believed that giving the president authority to go back to the United Nations and put in inspectors was an appropriate designation of authority.
That’s just at variance with the truth, folks. The use-of-force resolution did not say anything about bombing the United Nations. That is just disingenuous. You know, she did not want that question. She’s the smartest woman in the world. Here’s Hillary, September 15th, 2002, on Meet the Press.
HILLARY: I doubt it. I can support the president. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it’s in the long-term interests of our national security.
Her Senate floor speech, October 10th, 2002.
HILLARY: In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Resource Link:
