Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Is a human 'population bomb' ticking?
(ARSONomics note: Eugenicists have been making these claims since before global population was near 1 Billion!)
Action is urgently needed to limit population growth - and rich nations must curtail gluttonous consumption - or else humanity faces a terrifying future, scientists have warned.
The warning goes against what many governments and academics have espoused for centuries in the industrialised world. Yet more than 100 scientific academies around the globe have broken the taboo, saying if birthrates and overconsumption continue unabated, large-scale famine, drought, disease and war... (CONTINUE)
Monday, June 18, 2012
The ice-core man
Once upon a time, and for millennia before then, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were low and stable. Then came the industrial revolution and CO2 levels began to rise. The more man industrialized, the more that CO2 -- and the temperature -- rose. In the last half century, with industrialization at unprecedented levels, CO2 reached levels unprecedented in the human history. This is the story of global warming.
This story is a fable, says Zbigniew Jaworowski, past chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, a participant or chairman of some 20 Advisory Groups of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Environmental Program, and current chair of the Scientific Committee of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw.
Dr. Jaworowski agrees that CO2 levels rose in the last half century. Starting in 1958, direct, real-time measurements of CO2 have been systematically taken at a state-of-the-art measuring station in Hawaii. These measurements, considered the world's most reliable, are a good basis for science by bodies like the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the agency that is co-ordinating the worldwide effort to stop global warming.
But the UN does not rely on direct real-time measurements for the period prior to 1958. "The IPCC relies on icecore data -- on air that has been trapped for hundreds or thousands of years deep below the surface," Dr. Jaworowski explains. "These ice cores are a foundation of the global warming hypothesis, but the foundation is groundless... (CONTINUE)
This story is a fable, says Zbigniew Jaworowski, past chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, a participant or chairman of some 20 Advisory Groups of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Environmental Program, and current chair of the Scientific Committee of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw.
Dr. Jaworowski agrees that CO2 levels rose in the last half century. Starting in 1958, direct, real-time measurements of CO2 have been systematically taken at a state-of-the-art measuring station in Hawaii. These measurements, considered the world's most reliable, are a good basis for science by bodies like the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the agency that is co-ordinating the worldwide effort to stop global warming.
But the UN does not rely on direct real-time measurements for the period prior to 1958. "The IPCC relies on icecore data -- on air that has been trapped for hundreds or thousands of years deep below the surface," Dr. Jaworowski explains. "These ice cores are a foundation of the global warming hypothesis, but the foundation is groundless... (CONTINUE)
Sunday, June 17, 2012
“Officials say” journalism
Yet again, the American media misleads by uncritically printing unverified, false claims from the U.S. military
On June 1, Taliban insurgents attacked a U.S. outpost in Khost, near the Afghan-Pakistani border. The official claim from coalition forces was that they “successfully repelled the attack” and “there are no reports of ISAF fatalities.” But as The Washington Post details today, that claim was wildly misleading and in some cases outright false. The attack was “much worse than originally disclosed by the military as insurgents pounded the base with a truck bomb, killing two Americans and seriously wounding about three dozen troops . . . Five Afghan civilians were killed and more than 100 other U.S. troops were treated for minor injuries.” Because “the statement did not report any casualties, nor that there was a truck bomb” — indeed, the official statement claimed there were no casualties – The Post today delicately concludes: “the scale of the attack and the extent of the U.S. casualties contrast with the official description.” That’s as close as an American establishment media outlet will dare get to stating that the American military made false statements (reality “contrasts with the official description”).(CONTINUE)
Saturday, June 16, 2012
These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America
This infographic created by Jason at Frugal Dad shows that almost all media comes from the same six sources.
What Peak Oil?
Is peak oil imminent? Lots of people seem to think so.
The data (released by BP a company who have a vested interest in oil scarcity) don’t agree. Proved reserves keep increasing:
The oil in the ground will run out some day. But as the discovery of proven reserves continues to significantly outpace the rate of extraction, the claims that we’re facing immediate shortages looks trashy.
Some may try to cast doubt on these figures... (CONTINUE)
Friday, June 15, 2012
Court orders University of Virginia to release documents and raw data pertaining to the discredited global-warming myth.
These documents are believed to contain damning evidence of deliberate distortion and falsification of scientific data to support the theory of catastrophic, man-made global warming. The University has done everything possible to keep these files hidden from the public, but the court says the taxpayers' have a right to know how their money was used. GO TO STORY American Tradition Institute
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Will Obama Cause a New 9/11?
Today’s defense of President Obama from Andrew Sullivan is devoted to refuting Conor Friedersdorf’s criticism of Obama’s drone program. Says Sullivan:
What frustrates me about Conor’s position – and Greenwald’s as well – is that it kind of assumes 9/11 didn’t happen or couldn’t happen again, and dismisses far too glibly the president’s actual responsibility as commander-in-chief to counter these acts of mass terror.
This is exactly backward. I absolutely believe that another 9/11 is possible. And the reason I believe it’s so possible is that people like Andrew Sullivan — and George Packer — have spent the last decade publicly cheering for American violence brought to the Muslim world, and they continue to do so (now more than ever under Obama). Far from believing that another 9/11 can’t happen, I’m amazed that it hasn’t already, and am quite confident that at some point it will. How could any rational person expect their government to spend a full decade (and counting) invading, droning, cluster-bombing, occupying, detaining without charges, and indiscriminately shooting huge numbers of innocent children, women and men in multiple countries and not have its victims and their compatriots be increasingly eager to return the violence?(CONTINUE)
What frustrates me about Conor’s position – and Greenwald’s as well – is that it kind of assumes 9/11 didn’t happen or couldn’t happen again, and dismisses far too glibly the president’s actual responsibility as commander-in-chief to counter these acts of mass terror.
This is exactly backward. I absolutely believe that another 9/11 is possible. And the reason I believe it’s so possible is that people like Andrew Sullivan — and George Packer — have spent the last decade publicly cheering for American violence brought to the Muslim world, and they continue to do so (now more than ever under Obama). Far from believing that another 9/11 can’t happen, I’m amazed that it hasn’t already, and am quite confident that at some point it will. How could any rational person expect their government to spend a full decade (and counting) invading, droning, cluster-bombing, occupying, detaining without charges, and indiscriminately shooting huge numbers of innocent children, women and men in multiple countries and not have its victims and their compatriots be increasingly eager to return the violence?(CONTINUE)
Robert Zubrin: Radical Environmentalists and Other Merchants of Despair
“We have never been in danger of running out of resources,” says Dr. Robert Zubrin, “but we have encountered considerable dangers from people who say we are running out of resources and who say that human activities need to be constrained.”
In his latest book, Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism, Zubrin documents the history of dystopian environmentalism, from economic impairment inflicted by current global warming policies to the Malthusian concern over population growth. “Just think how much poorer we would be today if the world would have had half as many people in the 19th century as it actually did. You can get rid of Thomas Edison or Louis Pasteur, take your pick.” (CONTINUE and see the interview)
In his latest book, Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism, Zubrin documents the history of dystopian environmentalism, from economic impairment inflicted by current global warming policies to the Malthusian concern over population growth. “Just think how much poorer we would be today if the world would have had half as many people in the 19th century as it actually did. You can get rid of Thomas Edison or Louis Pasteur, take your pick.” (CONTINUE and see the interview)
Monday, June 11, 2012
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Eco-Fascist James Hansen Admits Global Warming is Not Man-Made
In August of 2000, James Hansen co-authored a study on global warming as projected into the coming decades.
The study, entitled Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario , pointed out that “rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases . . . not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols.”
After conducting the study, Hansen concluded that it was not man-made CO2 that was causing global warming.
However, Hansen still pushes that the method of controlling emission output should “focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.”
The consensus, Hansen claims is that “the warming is at least in part a consequence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs)”, yet without evidence supporting that global warming is caused by man, the assertion is purely conjecture. (CONTINUE)
The study, entitled Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario , pointed out that “rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases . . . not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols.”
After conducting the study, Hansen concluded that it was not man-made CO2 that was causing global warming.
However, Hansen still pushes that the method of controlling emission output should “focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.”
The consensus, Hansen claims is that “the warming is at least in part a consequence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs)”, yet without evidence supporting that global warming is caused by man, the assertion is purely conjecture. (CONTINUE)
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Guest Post: The Trouble with Rand Paul
Rand Paul just endorsed a man who is deeply hostile to human liberty.
Perhaps that’s Rand’s idea of playing politics? Come to the table, strike a deal, get what you can. Trouble is, it’s tough striking a good deal when the guy on the other side of the table believes that the government should be allowed to claim — without having to produce any evidence whatsoever — that certain people are terrorists, and therefore should be detained indefinitely without any kind of due process.
That’s textbook tyranny.
"Yes, I would have [signed the NDAA]. And I do believe that it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda. Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues but you don’t have a right to join a group that has killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That’s treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail. If I were president I would not abuse this power. But people who join al Qaeda are not entitled to rights of due process under our normal legal code. They are entitled instead to be treated as enemy combatants."
Mitt Romney
Except, if the government had any evidence they were really members of al-Qaeda and engaged in a war against America they could be charged with offenses under current laws and tried in front of a jury of their peers. As was proven when Judge Katherine Forrest struck down the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA as unconstitutional, the real detention targets are people like the ones who brought the case — writers, investigative journalist and whistleblowers: people like Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, and Birgitta Jonsdottir.
Rand Paul might have done some good work trying to filibuster the Patriot Act, but endorsing Mitt Romney goes... (CONTINUE)
Perhaps that’s Rand’s idea of playing politics? Come to the table, strike a deal, get what you can. Trouble is, it’s tough striking a good deal when the guy on the other side of the table believes that the government should be allowed to claim — without having to produce any evidence whatsoever — that certain people are terrorists, and therefore should be detained indefinitely without any kind of due process.
That’s textbook tyranny.
"Yes, I would have [signed the NDAA]. And I do believe that it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda. Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues but you don’t have a right to join a group that has killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That’s treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail. If I were president I would not abuse this power. But people who join al Qaeda are not entitled to rights of due process under our normal legal code. They are entitled instead to be treated as enemy combatants."
Mitt Romney
Except, if the government had any evidence they were really members of al-Qaeda and engaged in a war against America they could be charged with offenses under current laws and tried in front of a jury of their peers. As was proven when Judge Katherine Forrest struck down the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA as unconstitutional, the real detention targets are people like the ones who brought the case — writers, investigative journalist and whistleblowers: people like Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, and Birgitta Jonsdottir.
Rand Paul might have done some good work trying to filibuster the Patriot Act, but endorsing Mitt Romney goes... (CONTINUE)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)