Green pies and Dumb Pamphlets: Eco-nuts' newest weapons

Since using facts and science doesn't work, eco-nuts have to resort to lying and intimidation to further their anti-Capitalist agenda. The entire global warming environmental wackjob scam is really about anti-capitalism and elitism, after all. The science doesn't measure up. Follow the cash trail and you'll see what this really is all about.

Two eco-nuts used green pies and pamphlets as the newest weapons in the fight to intimidate anyone who doesn't buy into the global warming scam, and unwittingly revealed the true motive (emphasis mine):

A female audience member ran on stage last night and threw a green pie at New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who had just begun a lecture on environmentalism in Salomon 101. The woman had been sitting in the south side of the auditorium's front row when she pulled the pie out of a Brown Bookstore plastic bag that had been tucked in a red backpack and leapt out of her seat.

At the same time the woman threw the pie, a male accomplice seated a few rows back ran down the aisle and onto the stage, throwing small pamphlets explaining the actions into the crowd.

After the pie hit Friedman and splattered on his face and torso, the two jumped offstage and ran out of the southeast exit of the building, followed closely by a man trying to catch them. […]

The pamphlets thrown by the male accomplice identified the pair as the "Greenwash Guerillas," who wrote that they were acting "on behalf of the earth (sic) and all true environmentalists."

One side of the pamphlet contains an excerpt from a September 2006 review of Friedman's book, "The World is Flat," written by Raymond Lotta for the journal "Revolution," which styles itself as the "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA." The review is highly critical of Friedman, who the review claims cannot see his own errors while "seated in the business class of his analytical jetliner."

The other side contains five bullet-points explaining why "Thomas Friedman deserves a pie in the face," which include reasons like "his sickeningly cheery applaud for free market capitalism's conquest of the planet," and "for helping turn environmentalism into a fake plastic consumer product for the privileged."

A pie in the face because someone supports free market capitalism? They gave themselves away without even knowing it. What's really interesting is the whining about environmentalism being "a fake plastic consumer product"... for the privileged.

This little incident, by the way, took place at Brown -- an Ivy League school. Think this wackjobs might be just a teensy bit privileged? How about the Goreacle? The celebrities who want to "go green"? Those are some pretty privileged people, wouldn't you say? And of course, while they love to preach about the importance of stopping global warming, actually practicing what they preach is completely out of the question.

When the biggest supporters of global warming are some of the most privileged people on the planet, enjoying the benefits of capitalism daily, do they really have much room to complain?

Here's video of the pie-throwing from Hot Air. Check out the terrible aim:

Thomas Friedman Hit in the Face by a Pie

Of course, the HuffPo loonies couldn't be happier:

Friedman says he is a geo-green. Whether the earth is flat or round he does not care. He is no geo nor green. In fact he does not care a thing about the environment. Friedman is a neocon zionist warmonger, and will propose anything that serves that purpose.

Today a pie, tomorrow maybe something he truly deserved. This is a result of frustration to the absolute short sighted policy of greed and power that has stretched the mob to it's edge. I predicted that this will start happening. You can't keep stamping down legitimate policy change and not expect an eventual backlash. Hide behind your walls 2% of America and pay those security companies. It is only going to get worse. Honestly what do expect?

Ooh, would that pie had hit him square in his know it all corporate loving puss!

I second the motion that Friedman is a pompous gasbag and I too resented his stubborn and pedantic stance on the war. But, if they were my children, those pie throwers would've gotten a spanking. Demonstrate without wasting food. (Part of me wishes I was still young and foolish enough to do something so ... goofy.)

Could not have happened to a more deserving fellow. Profiting on crap is all he is doing.

He deserves a fist in my opinion. I like to see him send his daughters to the war he promoted. He is one SOB.

Why his daughter and not him? He can get his fat ass shot off just like everyone else. I say take all of them, Wolfewitz, Pearle, Feith, David Broder and that other old coot from the NYT and all the rest who sold the f-ing war, including Friedman, and send them to the war they love so much.

Good.
Friedman was a cheerleader for Bush's Iraq war.
The scumbag should donate his speaking fees to veterans' groups.

You really are a clueless little authoritarian twit, aren't you. Throwing a pie is as harnless an expression of disapproval as rotten tomatoes aimed at a bad actor or actress. These were once common demonstrations of disgust, but now in Authoritarian Amerikka, we're not allowed to demonstrate without being corralled into invisible "Free Speech Zones" while the farthest right has hijacked every talk radio station in America and rallies millions to smear, harrass and harangue liberals, a word they have actually turned into a pejorative by sheer force of their bullying nastiness. Yet if you try to call in and point out that thatese baboons who have hijacked the entire AM radio dial and allowed to lie 24/7 by major corporations without challenge or question, you will be shouted down as intolerant for correctly describing the thugs as "rednecks." So we haven't seen the equal application of free speech for 15 years of redneck ruin bullying us into silence.

I have an idea to demonstrate Free Speech in its most creative sense: Let's build and display in the public square of every city actual working replica of guillotines, using the "platform" to educate the public as to what happens when a country gives away its entire budget surplus to billionaires in tax cuts, handing out loanshark prosperity then yanking the houses from under them.

You have to have money to get your point across,you have to fly,you can't promote your agenda from the basement of your home.These people you bumrap are trying to improve the world unlike almost all Republicans who are in a race to destroy the environment,kill all the brown people they can,ruin the economy and oh yeah ,give themselves a tax break.

Bummer. That's cheating. No shortcuts allowed. It's gotta be real pie if it's gonna be a real protest.

I could go on with those for a while, but you get the general idea. If these eco-nuts really wanted to nail eco-hypocrites, though, they really should start with the king of the whole movement: the Goreacle himself.

Hat Tips: Moonbattery and Michelle Malkin

Julia Roberts doesn't wear deodorant.

Um, ew.

Money quote:

I don't actually use deodorant. I don't like to share that with a lot of people.

Yet she doesn't mind saying it on the Oprah Winfrey show.

And of course, this came up because we should only use organic products to fight global warming.

Me, I'll keep using my deodorant... and all kinds of other products, too, that aren't organic. I don't want to walk around all smelly and nasty so that the Goreacle can line his pockets with his global warming scam. No, thank you.

Hat Tip: Conservative Grapevine

In honor of Earth Day...

... here's your Goracle lie for the day.

Most of us with a modicum of common sense already know that Al Gore's fictional film, An Inconvenient Truth, was full of crap. I call it fictional because that movie was so full of lies, manipulations, and, well, crap that there's no way you could call it a documentary.

ABC news points out just how fake it actually was -- they used computer generated images from the fictional movie The Day After Tomorrow. Newsbusters has the transcript:

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)

(Voiceover) Wait a minute, that shot looks just like the one in the opening credits of 'The Day After Tomorrow."

KAREN GOULEKAS (VISUAL EFFECTS SUPERVISOR)

Yeah, that's, that's our shot. That's a fully computer generated shot. There's nothing real in there.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)

(Voiceover) Audiences expect Hollywood to twist fact into fiction. But Gore's documentary does the opposite, using a fake shot to make a real point, that ice shelves are disappearing, and vanishing ice means global warming.

KAREN GOULEKAS (VISUAL EFFECTS SUPERVISOR)

That was one hell of a shot. I think it's great that he used it.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)

(Voiceover) It seems the decision for now is left to the audience. Can the same created image educate and entertain us about our planet in change?

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) And it raises another question for you to consider. Is it wrong for a documentary to use a fabricated Hollywood shot to make a point, even if there's science behind it? Well, we tried to ask Al Gore and the movie studio, but neither responded to our calls.

Interestingly enough, this clip was cut from the video ABC posted on their website. Wonder why they felt they needed to do that.

Of course, if global warming wasn't a huge scam, then the Goracle wouldn't need to use fake Hollywood shots to push his point. If the science was accurate and reliable, he wouldn't have to just make stuff up. But he's got an agenda to push, dang it, and he'll do whatever he needs to do! Who cares if the ice in Antarctica is actually thickening? Global warming is real, because Al Gore says it is!!

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

Name That Date!

All right everybody, it's time to play Name That Date! I'm going to give you an AP article that ran in the Washington Post. You tell me if you can figure out when it ran. Ready?

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

So, when was this article published?

1999?

2003?

2007?

For those of you who guessed 1922, you've got it!

Here's an image of the article:


86 years ago, the arctic ice was melting, which Al Gore swears is due to global warming "climate change" and not natural climate fluctuations. But if this was due to radical climate change and not just natural fluctuations, wouldn't all the ice have melted and seas risen and continents flooded already like the Goracle said it would, after 86 years of arctic ice melting?

But, you know how the global warming alarmists are -- don't let facts or common sense get in the way of furthering that agenda! We MUST abolish SUVs and use only "ecologically-friendly" (read: poisonous mercury filled) lightbulbs and tank our economy, or else mankind will PERISH!!

Maybe, just maybe, the climate does get warmer for periods of time. And then it cools down. And then it gets warmer again, and so on and so forth... regardless of what we do. After all, the single largest emitter of methane in the world is cow farts. I'm all for being responsible towards the environment -- I grew up learning all about how to reduce, reuse, and recycle -- but false alarmism to further an agenda gets us nowhere, solves no problems, and only causes harm to the planet by ignoring real problems for fake ones.

You can go here to read the article in greater detail.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

Global warming alert!

Uh-oh... the Goracle better start changing his tune. Maybe he can use global cooling as his new tool for implementing his screw-the-United-States-into-the-economic-Dark-Ages agenda, because it looks like his global warming theory is slowly, slowly falling apart.

Just a few days ago, we saw that the polar ice supposedly melted by global warming is back.

And now, this:

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."

China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.

In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

Professor Oleg Sorokhtin, of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is recommending that everyone stocks up on their fur coats -- solar activity is apparently entering an inactive phase.

Gee, there's a thought: perhaps the warming and cooling going on in our solar system (unless we are also somehow responsible for the overall warming going on in virtually every other planet) is caused by the sun.

Maybe, just maybe, it's time to quit with the hysteria and just start being sensible. You can care about the environment without having to buy into the global warming scam. But then, if we were to do that, the Goracle and the U.N. bureauweenies wouldn't be able to keep driving forward their agenda! Sniffle.

Oh, and here's one more fun quote from that article:

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.

Hat Tip: The Jawa Report

Global warming strikes again!

Global warming has struck yet again! The Goracle has proved that he truly is able to predict what the weather will be like 10+ years from now, and if we simply bow down to him and put ourselves into the Economic Dark Ages, he will be able to save all of our lives.

Who needs the Obamamessiah when you've got the Goracle?

In case you're wondering what it is that has cemented the reality of global warming, here it is.

All that arctic ice that the Goracle's acolytes were hyperventilating over, that caused the crying over polar bears that were drowning and dying, and the whining that we would soon see 50 foot tidal waves putting the coasts of the United States underwater, the arctic ice that had supposedly melted and gone away for good?

Well, um, it's, uh, back.

Satellite data shows that concerns over the levels of sea ice may have been premature.

It was feared that the polar caps were vanishing because of the effects of global warming.

But figures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the “lost” ice has come back.

Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year.

The data flies in the face of many current thinkers and will be seized on by climate change sceptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

...

Vast swathes of the world have suffered chaos because of some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades.

Central and southern China, the USA and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms.

Even the Middle East saw snow, with Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman and northern Saudi Arabia reporting the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan snow and freezing weather killed 120 people.

In Britain the barmy February weather came to an abrupt halt at the weekend as temperatures plunged to -10C in central England.

Experts believe that this month could end up as one of the coldest Februaries in Britain in the past 10 years.

The freezing night-time conditions look set to stay around -8C until at least the middle of the week.

Maybe that consensus isn't as ironclad as the Goreacle has led us to believe (but who actually believed that it was?).

But then again, this is probably due to global warming, too. According to the Goracle's global warming fanatical followers, everything is caused by global warming! Extreme heat? Global warming. Extreme cold? Global warming. Polar ice caps melt? Global warming. Polar ice caps swell? Global warming. Too many hurricanes? Global warming. Not enough hurricanes? Global warming. An ant is killed by some kid with a magnifying glass? Global warming!

So fear not, ye followers of the Church of Climate Change. I'm sure the apocalypse caused by global warming will still come in ten or so years time if we continue to refuse to bow to the will of the Almighty Goracle.

Hat Tips: Right Wing News, Ace of Spades and The Q and O Blog.

Scientists petition UN to stop hysteria over global warming

One hundred scientists from around the globe aren't drinking the Goracle's Kool-Aid, and have petitioned the UN to stop pushing the global warming hoax, and the hysteria associated with it.

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

...

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

The list of signatories is impressive. But what would they know compared to the Goracle, a politician who was a C student in science? Besides, abandoning the global warming hoax means abandoning the perfect excuse to inflict socialism and economic ruin on Western Civilization -- and of course, blame the United States for yet another catastrophe. Why would the Goracle and the bureaucrats at the UN possibly give that up, no matter how much the science disagrees with their agenda?

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

Another global warming tragedy

If by tragedy, you mean yet another example of how global warming is all a giant scam, and people who keep doing stuff like this, and end up making idiots out of themselves, only to prove their own theory wrong.

These are not the first people to try and prove that global warming is true by hiking through the Arctic, where the polar ice is supposedly melting.

The result, however, is the same (emphasis mine):

A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.

But the latest trek got off to a bad start. The day they set off from Ward Hunt Island, a plane landing near the women hit their gear, punching a hole in Bancroft's sled and damaging one of Arnesen's snowshoes.

They repaired the snowshoe with binding from a ski, but Atwood said the patch job created pressure on Arnesen's left foot, which led to blisters that then turned into frostbite.

Then there was the cold _ quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.

"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said.

She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen's foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze.

The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.

Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.

"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

See, one of the things that comes with global warming is unpredictability -- now I get it! Extreme cold = global warming. Lots of hurricanes = global warming. No hurricanes = global warming. Blizzards = global warming. Any kind of weather, anywhere, is caused by global warming!

What I can't help but wonder about is how these out-to-prove-global-warming-true-explorers (and these two are definitely not the first ones, and probably won't be the last) ever thought anything different would happen. I mean, when they sat around thinking about swimming through the arctic circle, did they really believe their own propaganda, and think they wouldn't freeze? And even if they did believe their own propaganda, why did they not realize the game was up when their gear froze?

Maybe then they just sat around and started praying to the Goracle. Instead of facing Mecca, they face Malibu. Global warming and environmentalism is the religion of choice for moonbats, after all.

A good quote from American Thinker:

I hope the two recover fully and come to realize that it can still be really, really cold in the arctic, no matter what Al Gore tells them.

...

I hope they are now letting those school groups know that it is foolish to plan to swim in the Arctic beacuse it gets really, really cold there.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery.

The Goracle won.

Yawn:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.

Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.

For those wondering how it is screeching apocalyptic rhetoric on global warming without a stitch of legitimate scientific research helps lead to world peace, here's the money quote:

Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

Excuse me while I go throw up all over my new DVD of An Inconvenient Truth.

Previous: Al Gore to win the Nobel Peace Prize?

Al Gore to win a Nobel Peace Prize?

There was a lot of buzz going around that Al Gore might be the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize:

The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize could go to a climate campaigner such as ex-U.S. Vice-President Al Gore or Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, reinforcing a view that global warming is a threat to world security, experts say.

The winner of the $1.5 million prize, perhaps the world's top accolade, will be announced in Oslo on October 12 from a field of 181 candidates. The prize can be split up to three ways.

"There are reasonably good chances that the peace prize will be awarded to someone working to stop the dramatic climate problems the world is facing," said Boerge Brende, a former Norwegian environment minister.

Brende and another Norwegian parliamentarian nominated Gore for his Oscar-winning movie about climate change "An Inconvenient Truth" and Watt-Cloutier, who has highlighted the plight of indigenous cultures facing a quickening Arctic thaw.

The Goracle was supposed to appear this week in a fundraiser for Barbara Boxer. But Babs sent out an e-mail saying that the Goracle wouldn't be able to make it because of some kind of environmental "mission". Al Gore: The Indiana Jones of the Climate Change Movement!

I just got a call from Vice President Al Gore. He told me that he needs to travel abroad tomorrow for an exciting and urgent mission that could result in a major breakthrough in the fight against global warming.

Unfortunately, this means that we must postpone our Thursday, October 11th event with him until Friday, November 9th. I wanted to be sure to e-mail you tonight in case you were planning on attending.

While I am really disappointed that we won't see Al Gore until next month, I am thrilled that he is continuing to provide critical leadership to address one of the most pressing issues of our time. You should know that only the most urgent global warming mission has called him out of the country.

I look forward to seeing you on November 9th so we can all hear first-hand about Al Gore's latest exciting initiatives. We will be back in touch in the coming days with more details about the rescheduled event.

Thank you so much for your continued friendship and support!

Barbara Boxer

A lot of eyebrows were raised, because this week is when the Nobel Peace Prize recipient will be announced. Is the Goracle going to win?

His spokesperson, Kalee Kreider, says no.

That cancellation coupled with the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize, which Gore is rumored to be nominated for, is set to be announced tomorrow in Oslo, Norway created huge buzz among the political class. If Gore won the peace prize, the argument goes, it would provide him with a huge platform from which to enter the presidential race.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider threw cold water on the rampant speculation, however, in an email exchange with The Fix earlier today.

"The events in California were postponed because of a request to participate in senior level meetings on the climate crisis in Asia," Kreider said. "However, early Thursday morning these meetings were postponed." As a result, Gore will resume his planned trip in California today and tomorrow will be a "normal long business day" according to Kreider. On Saturday, Gore is set to return to his home in Nashville.

As for the draft efforts, Kreider said that "we truly appreciate all the enthusiasm out there for the former vice president, but he does not have any intention to run for President."

You know, I never thought about a Nobel Peace Prize win catapaulting Al Gore back into the presidential race, a truly creepy thought. It's like Halloween or something -- you know, how Michael Myers never really dies?

Even with the statement from the Goracle's spokesperson, he could still win. I can just imagine the statement from the committee now, something probably as vapid and inane as the statement they made for Jimmy Carter back in 2002:

"(The 2002 Nobel Peace Prize) should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current (U.S.) administration has taken. It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States." -- Nobel Committee Chairman Gunnar Berge on giving Jimmy Carter the Nobel Peace Prize

So, I thought I'd have a little fun and see if I could guess what kind of statement we might get for why the Goracle would win the Nobel Prize.

"Thanks to Al Gore, polar bears will no longer be drowning, therefore free to continue to kill and maim any humans that come into contact with them, therefore contributing to world peace, as humankind is an inherently violent and unpeaceful race."

What would your statement for why the Goracle won the Nobel Peace Prize be?

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

More proof of global warming

Since, you know, any kind of odd climate change is automatically attributed to global warming, and we're all going to die if we don't bend to the Goracle's will and put the United States in the economic Dark Ages.

NYC just tied the coldest day in August, with a temperature low not seen since 1911:

A day after tying the record for the coldest high temperature during the month of August ever in New York City, temperatures were expected only to warm up slightly, before finally climbing back to normal by the end of the week.

The city along with the rest of the tri-state region is feeling the chilly effect of a cold front sweeping through the region, accompanied by cool rain showers.

Tuesday's high temperature in Central Park was just 59 degrees. The normal high for Tuesday was 82 degrees. The normal low was 67.

Must be further proof of global warming. No doubt about it.

1998 is NOT the warmest year on record

NASA has rather quietly fixed the numbers behind a "ground-breaking" discovery: a chart that showed that 1998 was the warmest year in American history. Get that? Warmest. year. ever.

But now, we're finding out that those numbers were wrong, something GISS head and enviromoonbat extraordinaire James Hansen, who created the graphs along with NASA’s Reto Ruedy, had no official announcement or comment to make on.

It wasn't until Steve McKintyre, who operates the blog Climate Audit asked to see the algorythms Hansen used to generate the data, which was refused to him. So McKyntire reverse-engineered the numbers and found a Y2K bug. He notified Hansen and Ruedy of the problem, who said they would fix it.

NASA released the corrected figures, and boy, are they sure different:

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The really fun part is that NASA and GISS didn't report this.

You would think that they would, considering the current global warming "debate". But because according to the Goracle, Hansen, and other enviromoonbats like them there is a "consensus", there's no need to. Throw any scientific data at them you'd like to, and it won't matter, because according to these guys, the debate is over anyways.

Agree with the Goracle and you'll get more money.

Another interesting thought -- how accurate could temperature data be in the 19th century? The 18th? The 17th? I mean, we can't go back in time and test data from 1781 or something using the superior technology we have today to find out what temperatures were like then. So when it comes down to it, how do we really, truly know what the warmest years are? I'm no science whiz, so if there is some way to accurately find out temperatures from like, 1824 then by all means, let me know. I just find it hard to believe that, even with the corrected data, we can be certain that these years are the warmest years ever in American history.

Oh well.

Somehow, I don't see this going onto the cover of Newsweek.

Others commenting:
Moonbattery
Iowa Voice
Newsbusters
Blue Crab Boulevard
Tigerhawk
Wake Up America
Hot Air
American Thinker
Q & O
Macsmind
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
IMAO
And of course,
Climate Audit

Rolling Stone calls ethanol one of America's biggest political boondoggles

Shocking, huh? I thought Rolling Stone existed to echo the favorite bleatings of the left wing.

Apparently, they're straying -- the Goracle will be pissed that he wasn't consulted first (emphasis mine):

American refiners will produce nearly 6 billion gallons of corn ethanol this year, mostly for use as a gasoline additive to make engines burn cleaner. But in June, the Senate all but announced that America's future is going to be powered by biofuels, mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022. According to ethanol boosters, this is the beginning of a much larger revolution that could entirely replace our 21-million-barrel-a-day oil addiction. Midwest farmers will get rich, the air will be cleaner, the planet will be cooler, and, best of all, we can tell those greedy sheiks to fuck off. As the king of ethanol hype, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, put it recently, "Everything about ethanol is good, good, good."

This is not just hype -- it's dangerous, delusional bullshit. Ethanol doesn't burn cleaner than gasoline, nor is it cheaper. Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of our gasoline consumption -- yet it consumes twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn crop, causing the price of corn to double in the last two years and raising the threat of hunger in the Third World. And the increasing acreage devoted to corn for ethanol means less land for other staple crops, giving farmers in South America an incentive to carve fields out of tropical forests that help to cool the planet and stave off global warming.

So why bother? Because the whole point of corn ethanol is not to solve America's energy crisis, but to generate one of the great political boondoggles of our time. Corn is already the most subsidized crop in America, raking in a total of $51 billion in federal handouts between 1995 and 2005 -- twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as much as soybeans. Ethanol itself is propped up by hefty subsidies, including a fifty-one-cent-per-gallon tax allowance for refiners. And a study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies amount to as much as $1.38 per gallon -- about half of ethanol's wholesale market price.

I wonder if they came up with that all by themselves.

Bravo to them for pointing out the obvious -- that ethanol is not the miracle solution enviro-moonbats keep saying it is. And an even bigger bravo to Rolling Stone for not swallowing it without any argument like a good little moonbat.

Baby steps, folks, baby steps. There's always hope.

Hat Tip: Iowa Voice

Did global warming cause this, too?

As Newsbusters noted, the recent floods in England have been attributed to global warming by many media outlets. Indeed, any kind of weather changes seem to be attributed to global warming. Active hurricane season? Global warming. Mild hurricane season? Global warming. Severe winter? Global warming. Mild winter? Global winter. Flooding? Global warming. Droughts? Global warming.

No matter what happens, it seems to be the fault of global warming. Yet, the American media has been strangely silent about the deaths of at least 70 Peruvian children due to freezing weather:

At least 70 children have died during a spell of freezing weather in the Andean regions of Peru, officials have said.

The children, all under five years old, died of pneumonia and other respiratory illnesses over the past three months.

They lived in rural areas at high altitude, where temperatures in some cases are reported to have plummeted to as low as -20C (-4F).

Peruvian Health Minister Carlos Vallejos said almost 2,000 medics had been deployed in the affected areas.

He told the BBC he expected the situation to get worse before it improves.

Forecasters in Peru are predicting the cold spell will continue until September.

Even low-lying jungle regions are facing unusually cold weather, with temperatures dropping to 10C (50F).

Many adults have also died during the harsh winter, and thousands of people are suffering from pneumonia and other respiratory infections.

As Newsbusters noted, Google and LexisNexis have no record of American media covering this, one of the worst cold-related disasters in Peruvian history. They were happy to cover flooding in England, something that could easily be a symptom of global warming. But something that punches a hole in that story gets overlooked, regardless of the scope. Children are dying in Peru, but it doesn't fit into a neat little liberal agenda, so it gets overlooked.

Unless, of course, someone gets some kind of miraculous brainwave on how to say that this cold snap was caused by global warming, instead.

Hat Tip: Newsbusters

You WILL believe in man-made global warming!!

This is how the Goracle's global warming movement has always worked. Agree, or suffer the consequences. This is just the first time someone has made the mistake of admitting it publicly (emphasis mine):

During a Capitol Hill hearing yesterday, Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson about the strongly-worded letter written July 13 by Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) that was sent to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar," Mr. Eckhart wrote. "If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

"Statements like this are of concern to me. I am a believer in cooperation and collaboration across all sectors," Mr. Johnson assured. "This is an area I will look into for the record."

When Mr. Johnson confirmed that EPA is a member of ACORE, Mr. Inhofe asked if "it is appropriate to be a part of an organization that is headed up by a person who makes this statement."

Late yesterday, Mr. Inhofe announced he will send letters to the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and EPA, urging them to "reconsider their membership of ACORE."

In a written response sent to Inside the Beltway last week, Mr. Eckhart apologized to "all the public who were offended" by his choice of words. He said he intended his letter to be a "private communication" in the context of "personal combat and jousting."

However, this column earlier this week published another letter Mr. Eckhart sent in September to CEI President Fred Smith, saying "my children will have a lesser life because you are being paid by oil companies to spread a false story."

He said he would give CEI, which advocates "sound science," 90 days to reverse its "position" on global warming, "or I will take every action I can think of to shut you down," including filing complaints with the Internal Revenue Service "on the basis that CEI is really a lobbyist for the energy industry."

Funny thing is, Mr. Lewis and CEI weren't disputing that climate change exists. He just has a different opinion what causes it.

And this was the reaction from the president of ACORE, a tax-payer funded organization which over 400 organizations pay into, including the EPA and the federal Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Energy.

What I don't understand is how these "scientists" are so damn sure. Since when is science so cut and dry? When has a scientist ever been 100% sure of anything?

But people like the Goracle and this Michael Eckert aren't drinking the global warming Kool-Aid for the science. Notice how the only way to combat global warming is by putting the economy of the United States in the toilet? Notice how the United States is the country which must sacrifice the most in order to "Save the Planet"?

I don't think so.

Thankfully, I don't work for a government agency or department, so I don't have to worry about Mr. Eckert trying to destroy my career or having to think a certain way.

Hat tip: Moonbattery

The real reason Al Gore invented global warming

It all makes perfect sense now!!



Hat Tip: Newsbusters