Sometimes these entries just write themselves.

Here’s a clip from 2005 commenting on Bush’s inauguration…

“Democrats have criticised the $40m celebrations as a tasteless display of excess, saying tradition dictates that wartime inaugurations are restrained affairs.”

And here’s another from the NYT in 2005:

“Some critics say spending so much on these parties seems ill-timed both because of the Iraq war and the tsunami catastrophe in Asia. Anthony D. Weiner, a Democratic congressman preparing to run for mayor of New York, sent President Bush a letter on Tuesday suggesting that the millions in inaugural funds be sent to the troops in Iraq.

“Precedent suggests that inaugural festivities should be muted - if not canceled - in wartime,” Mr. Weiner wrote, noting that in 1945 Franklin D. Roosevelt limited the celebration to a cold luncheon at the White House.”

Both wars are still ongoing, we’re in the “biggest financial mess since the Depression”, and Obama’s party is expected to cost 25% MORE, at least $50 Million.  Yet there are no complaints from the left.

I am not surprised that the man who spent $712 MILLION dollars on his campaign is continuing to burn through other people’s money.  For the record, Hillary spent $221 million, and McCain spent $312 million.  Obama spent 228% more than McCain alone…..and 34% more than Clinton and McCain COMBINED!

Where are all the calls for prudent, frugal behavior now?

Hypocrisy?  You betcha.

A letter to the editor of the Baltimore Sun from a respected, government employed, US Naval Academy professor explains how the current trend of media determining science is “malpractice”.  I couldn’t agree more.

No proof man is causing Earth’s warming trend

January 13, 2009

by: Professor Mark Campbell, Ph.D.

According to the editorial “A New Year’s resolution” (Jan. 2), tens of thousands of scientists like me are “flat-earth types.”

I guess my doctorate in chemical physics from Johns Hopkins doesn’t give me nearly the qualifications to analyze the science associated with the global climate as an editor with an agenda.

If we are going to stoop to name-calling, an appropriate name for people with the view The Baltimore Sun endorses could be “Chicken Littles.” But instead of claiming that the sky is falling, they claim the sky is burning.

The editorial claims that there is a consensus among scientists that man-made carbon dioxide is causing global climate change; however, consensus in science is an oxymoron. From Galileo to Einstein, one scientist with proof is more convincing than thousands of other scientists who believe something to be true.

And I don’t even grant that there is a consensus among scientists; it’s just that the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical. To many of us, there is no convincing evidence that carbon dioxide produced by humans has any influence on the Earth’s climate.

Arguing that our country should decrease its use of fossil fuels is a laudable goal, but the reason to do so should be to reduce our reliance on energy from foreign sources, not to reduce the danger from some imaginary boogeyman.

The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice.

Mark Campbell

Annapolis

The writer is a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy.

“If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

Almost 5 years ago to the day, Michael Crichton lectured at the California Institute of Technology.  I have pasted an excerpt of it below.  I would have highlighted the most important facts, but every sentence is worthy of attention.

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . .

Vietnam has decided to waste $115 MILLION to prepare for the impact of global warming. The Vice Minister of natural resources and environment says the money will be spent to “assess the impact of global warming on Vietnam and map out a plan of action”.  So, the money isn’t actually going to build a seawall, or move people, or reduce emissions, or DO anything in particular.  But, it will certainly create a market to get some of that money.  “Scientists” that supposedly support the theory of AGW will be CLAMORING to get their hands on that money.  And, since anything and everything is blamed on global warming, it will dry up fast.  And at the end of the 6 years, they’ll realize they just wasted every penny on a hoax.

For one thing, the 3 ft fear mongering figure is exaggerated.  Many respected scientists think that number is at the extreme end of the scale.  It is implied that sea level rise is going to happen like a tsunami, and no one will have see it coming.  Millions will be affected, blah blah….like it all happens in one weekend.

But you see, sea level doesn’t work like that.  It changes by millimeters each year.  You can certainly see it coming.  The only way it will kill you, is to act like the victims of Boris Karloff’s Mummy, and just stand there and scream.

Global Warming, Climate Change, Eco-disaster…whatever you call it, it’s a hoax. The Global Warming Alarmists have fooled the media, but they have not fooled me. I don’t believe Human Released CO2 is a major contributor to temperature change on this planet.  However, those with big egos are convinced that we evil humans, with our electricity, and horseless carriages, and domesticated cow farts, are irreversably changing our planet forever.  I don’t have a problem with this….I have MANY problems with this.

My argument against Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is filled with common sense issues that any non-scientist should be able to understand.  I understand that it’s too much for a politician to follow, but anyone else with a 5th grade education should get it.

1. The Climate has always “changed”. Never in recorded history has the climate remained constant.  30-40 years ago, some scientists were concerned about Global Cooling, the last few decades have seen that change to Global Warming…and now that it’s been cooling againg for 10 years, it’s Climate Change.  Fancy how they keep moving the target.  They’ve finally hit it on the head.  The climate will ALWAYS change, regardless if we act or not.  Again egos….how can one believe we can put a thermostat on our atmosphere when we can’t control the smallest of mother nature’s forces. Can anyone make a thunderstorm?  How about a rainstorm for droughts, or a dry spell for flooded regions.  Can anyone change direction of a tornado, or a hurricane?  Can you make it snow (And I don’t mean the resorts’ snow machines), or make it stop snowing?  Can you create Arctic Ice or stop a volcano?  Can you explain ALL facets of our environement which you so confidently think we can control?  The answer to ALL of these questions is NO! Why on earth is it possible to control temperature through CO2 control alone.  It’s a ridiculous argument.
2. I don’t believe our temperature data is complete with all of the abnormalities in collecting the data. There are 1221 USHCN climate stations in the USA.  Anthony Watts created the project http://www.surfacestations.org to compile data on each of the weather stations throughout the US.  What he huas found is startling.  A HUGE number of these temperature devices have been placed in locations that could never give an accurate picture.  In Forest Grove, OR, you can see their weather station less than 10 ft from a building (that stores heat in it’s bricks, and releases it at night), it’s next to a window air conditioner unit that blows hot air on it all sunmmer long, and nearby parking lots that also store heat in the day and release at night.  Even more amazing are the examples when we have documented construction near a station.  Anthony DIRECTLY coorelates a new parking lot with temperature increase for that station.  BUT it’s being BLAMED on CO2!  The records are unreliable, and shouldn’t be trusted.
3. CO2 is their only enemy. Wonderful carbon dioxide gets the blame for all of it.  Without it, all animal and plant life would cease.  With it, we all flourish.  History shows CO2 levels lagging behind temperature rises (by about 800 YEARS!).  But now we’re told it’s the CO2 that drive the temperature.  That’s bass ackwards.  There must be something else at work.  I believe the Marxist, anti capitalist, environmental (anti-human) movement has found their golden goose egg.  By controlling all forms of CO2, they can control ALL industry, driving, even exhaling….and hasn’t that been their goal from the beginning?
4. Ice levels are at the same level as 30 years ago. Go back one year when the alarmists were saying the Arctic would be ice free in the summer of 2008.  Well, that didn’t happen (their scenarios never do), and instead the sea ice levels ROSE to 1979 levels when we started recording them!  Remember that the year of 2008 saw the Polar Bear put on the endangered species list due to the diminishing sea ice.  It’s back, so can we take them off the list?  OR, maybe we should put seals on the list since the bears can get to them easier now.  So, how did the alarmists get it wrong?  For one, they thought “new ice” would melt faster than old ice.  BUT, they neglected to consider the effect of snow cover on the ice.  Since the temperature dropped quickly at the end of 2008, the new ice formed much MORE new ice since it wasn’t insulated with snow.  Ice grew at the fastest rate EVER recorded. I guess NBC missed the scoop on that one.
   
5. Speaking of NBC…the media is clueless. Their main goal is to get/keep viewers.  They’ve found the formula for success is to scare the pants off of everyone.  That makes people pay attention and watch the news.  To promote the iceless summer, and the impact of global warming, NBC News highlighted the penguins at the North Pole.  There’s only one ENORMOUS problem with this.  All 17 species of penguins live at the South Pole.  OOPS.  This could be brushed off as a simple error by an over zealous editor, or it represents the TOTAL lack of knowledge and responsiblity held by the media as it relates to our climate.  I believe the latter.
6. There’s not enough man-made CO2 to make a difference! Carbon dioxide emissions worldwide each year total 3.2 billion tons. That equals about 0.0168 percent of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration of about 19 trillion tons. This results in a 0.00064 percent increase in the absorption of the sun’s radiation. This is an insignificantly small number. The yearly increase is many orders of magnitude smaller than the standard deviation errors for CO2 concentration measurement.  97% of CO2 is from natural sources. Only 3% is produced from human activity. When you take into account that all CO2 makes up only .033% of the TOTAL atmosphere, you realize that our addition is minuscule at best.
7. Computer models are not accurate. Not a single dire prediction made by James Hansen 20 years ago has come true.  The computer models have predicted it all wrong.  Remember the Hockey Stick that started it all?  It has been THOROUGHLY debunked.  We can’t predict weather more than a few days in advance, but the alarmists have some magical computer that can see 100 years into the future.  BS.
   
8. Who decides where to set the thermostat? While some in Siberia might welcome some warming, those in the Middle East might prefer some cooling.  Who gets to decide the perfect global temperature?  Al Gore?  The UN?  The Marxists?  Greenpeace?  Silly rabbit, Mother Nature does.