Barack Obama’s Pitch in Kentucky– Heresy

Supposedly Barack Obama’s not playing for Kentucky. You could have fooled me. He’s got 16 offices in the state next to Hillary’s 5. Hillary has no office west of Louisville. Barack Obama’s offices go from the West Virginia border to the Mississippi River. I visited one of Barack’s offices today.

So how is Barack trying to appeal to Kentuckians?

As a religious candidate.

 

In Kentucky, he is making a direct appeal to Evangelicals with flyers that mention his conversion experience and they highlight a big old cross. Remember Mike Huckabee’s supposed subliminal cross in his Christmas campaign ad? Well, the Obama campaign ditches the subliminal and goes for the in your face cross. Look at the flyer here.

The Obama campaign has consistently believed that their candidate can compete for the “religious vote”. A lot has been made about how Obama hasn’t done as well with Catholics compared to Clinton. But let’s remember one thing: Obama has a story to tell about how Jesus came into his life. You can bet we will be hearing more details about it on the stump in the fall. (if Obama is the nominee)

Meanwhile, John McCain won’t be partaking in the “Evangelical speak” or handing out these types of flyers in the south which makes you wonder if Huckabee could help McCain shore up the Evangelical base and at the same time play to the Independent middle with his populist streak.

I know the conservative policy purists will say that Obama is liberal and therefore Evangelicals won’t buy his “Evangelical speak”. Not so fast. Remember, many people vote based on an emotional connection to a candidate or if they can relate to that person. Obama may need to work on this perception that he is “elite” but when he talks about Jesus and the Bible and the fact that he’s a sinner, it makes him more real and in the process, more electable too.

Are Global Warmists Pulling a Cool Fast One?

Are Global Warmists Pulling a Cool Fast One?

By Marc Sheppard

Mounting evidence of lower temperature trends despite rising atmospheric CO2 levels is becoming a real problem for the greenhouse gas crowd.  And reports that the cooling appears to follow a period of dormant solar activity aren’t likely to ease their anxieties.

 

Indeed, without an immediate alarmist course correction, years of “the science is settled” campaigning could prove for naught, as prolonged temperature dips decimate the primary anthropogenic argument.  After all, Lord Gore has shouted the IPCC’s proclamation of a 0.3°C warming over the next decade from virtually every rooftop.  Given new data projecting the contrary, he and his green hordes will need to find a way to not only explain the error, but keep the AGW dream alive.

 

And perhaps they have.

 

On April 21st, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory confirmed that an impending phase shift in a natural climate event would likely bring colder temperatures for as many as the next 20-30 years, noting that:

 

“The shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, with its widespread Pacific Ocean temperature changes, will have significant implications for global climate. It can affect Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, marine ecosystems and global land temperature patterns.”

 

Well aware of the impact the news might have on the green-deity IPCC’s warming predictions, the JPL was quick to add that “Sea level rise and global warming due to increases in greenhouse gases can be strongly affected by large natural climate phenomenon such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation.”  JPL oceanographer and climate scientist Josh Willis explained:

 

“The comings and goings of El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are part of a longer, ongoing change in global climate. In fact, these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”

 

Just 10 days later, the results of a model study on another phenomenon, this time affecting the North Atlantic, were published in the journal Nature [PDF]. Dr Noel Keenlyside et al, of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Germany, reported that the “conveyor belt” of southern warm water known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation is entering a weak cycle.  As weak MOC cycles — which can last as many as 80 years — are associated with cooler North Atlantic temperatures, particularly around Europe and North America, the team expects global surface temperatures to decrease over the next decade.  Oddly, a similar pattern between the 1940s and 1970s may explain the cooling of global average temperatures during that period, so assuming only the “next decade” seems an arbitrary call.

 

Nonetheless, the German scientists felt compelled to explain their evident heresy against the church of the IPCC:

 

“Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”

 

In case “temporarily offset” proved too vague to the green brigade, Keenlyside clarified when explaining to Bloomberg News:

 

“If we don’t experience warming over the next 10 years, it doesn’t mean that greenhouse-gas warming is not with us. There can be natural fluctuations that may mask climate change in the short term.”

 

And for the benefit of those still concerned, his associate Mojib Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute, spelled it out in no uncertain terms:

 

“Just to make things clear, we are not stating that anthropogenic climate change won’t be as bad as previously thought.”

 

It certainly appeared to be merely a typical cover your green ass move

 

The Very Model of a Modern Solar Minimum

 

According to UK’s Telegraph the report stemmed from “initial findings from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades,” and readers were reminded that:

 

“The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998.”

 

Of course, solar activity is also essentially ignored by IPCC models, and it too saw an apex in 1998.  Isn’t it interesting how, not unlike insects scampering from light exposed by a stone overturned, greenies struggle desperately to avoid directly confronting the power of the Sun?

 

Last year, Britain’s Hadley Centre, whose decadal models actually do incorporate sea surface temperatures as well as projected changes in the Sun’s output and the effects of previous volcanic eruptions, predicted that global warming would slow until 2009 and pick up after that, with half the years after 2009 being warmer than the warmest year on record, 1998.” Still, they stood solidly behind the IPCC by predicting that “Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C warmer than 2004.”

 

Then, this past January, the Centre predicted 2008 would be the coolest since 2000, this time based upon the “strong La Niña in the tropical Pacific Ocean” exclusively.  Mysteriously, they completely ignored recent news at the time that solar activity had all but come to a stop — a factor supposedly included in their modeling.

 

But last week, rather than disputing the Leibniz Institute oceans-behavior-only model that suggests not only Hadley, but the IPCC itself erred, the Centre’s Richard Wood stated:

 

“We’ve always known that the climate varies naturally from year to year and decade to decade.  We expect man-made global warming to be superimposed on those natural variations; and this kind of research is important to make sure we don’t get distracted from the longer term changes that will happen in the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas emissions).”

 

Seemingly taking a bullet for the green team, Wood ‘fessed up to last year’s bad prediction when he told reporters that “natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period.”

 

Pretty slick — by jumping aboard the new model’s bandwagon, Wood managed to again ignore the Solar factor (Cycle 24 is delayed) while extending the bogus it’s-part-nature-but-mostly-mankind safety-net his group’s models had strung by almost 10 years. 

 

On the other hand, in addition to casting great doubt upon his own group’s models, Wood’s admission bolstered the doubt that Leibniz’s would already cast upon those of the IPCC.  And Wood notwithstanding, as Dr. Roger Pelke Jr. pointed out in his April 30th Prometheus post after reviewing the Nature piece:

 

“If global cooling over the next few decades is consistent with model predictions, then so too is pretty much anything and everything under the sun. This means that from a practical standpoint climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global climate policy.”

 

Obviously, capitulating now meant accepting the risk of jeopardizing whatever credibility all previous and future climate models may hold.  Bad move — or chess move?

 

Does Anybody Really Know What Climate Is?
 

Prior to its official release, Keenlyside expressed concerns that his report might be taken the “wrong way.”  The good doctor even attempted to trivialize dissenters by invoking the name of a favorite eco-boogieman when he lamely lamented “I hope it doesn’t become a message of Exxon Mobil and other skeptics.”  And just in case his and his colleagues’ tepid reaffirmations of their AGW pledges fell short of the green mark, reinforcements were immediately dispatched.

 

Not surprisingly, the alarmist shills at the BBC wrote that the up and down projections “did not come as a surprise to climate scientists.”  No, according to these insufferables, only the ill-informed public ever believed that “the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon.”  

 

The New York Times rolled out Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, CO. Tremberth told them that “the global climate will continue to be influenced in any particular decade by a mix of natural variability and the building greenhouse effect” and that “a cool phase does not mean the overall theory of dangerous human-driven warming is flawed.”

 

And then added what appears to be the latest greenie talking point:

 

“Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year. It does not happen that way.”

 

Is anyone else noticing a trend developing here, beyond the “we never said that warming patterns would be steady” shuffle?  Each explanation, whether by Willis, Keenlyside and Latif, Wood, or Trenberth implies that some climate forces natural are more formidable than those anthropogenic. This is yet another precarious admission, indeed – one unlikely to be made were the alternative not somehow more damaging to their cause.

 

Now consider this —  it remains an alarmist imperative to disassociate falling global temperatures and speculation of a possible impending “little ice age” with the yellow dwarf star we orbit in general and the late start of Solar Cycle 24 specifically.  For indeed, if we are moving into another solar minimum cycle and global temperatures continue to plummet while atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise, attendance at Al Gore’s Scare-Story-Slide-Shows would quickly drop to close friends and family only.  And with boat loads of very bad wealth-redistribution “climate change” legislation to pass in coming the years, a sympathetically alarmed press and populace remain essential during that time.

 

So what better way to buy time than to cloud the obvious solar connection by sacrificing their argument against a less threatening naturally occurring force?  And then attributing that force to occasional periods of cooling by collectively admitting to its mitigating impact upon AGW forces?   Especially when this little gambit allows them to continue reaping the benefits – for years to come – of the lie that an unchecked anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect threatens to literally destroy us all.

 

Just not quite as fast as they originally thought.

 

So then, are the greenies simply playing defense, as they have led many to believe – or is it we who are being played?

 

Marc Sheppard is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and welcomes your feedback.

‘I’m ready for my close-up, Rev. Wright’

‘I’m ready for my close-up, Rev. Wright’

Thomas Lifson
Kudos to Tom Blumer of BizzyBlog for obtaining and posting no less than three covers of Jeremiah Wright’s Trumpet Magazine featuring Barack Obama as the cover subject, with photos. Check them out

Blumer notes that he only has about 65% of the TUCC church bulletins, which promote the magazine and from which he evidently copied the Trumpet covers, so there may well be more covers with Obama on them.
Stanley Kurtz has been researching Trumpet Magazine  and is deeply skeptical (to say the least) at the candidate’s contention that he was shocked to discover Pastor Wright’s extreme views.
To the question of the moment — What did Barack Obama know and when did he know it? — I answer, Obama knew everything, and he’s known it for ages. Far from succumbing to surprise and shock after Jeremiah Wright’s disastrous performance at the National Press Club, Barack Obama must have long been aware of his pastor’s political radicalism. A careful reading of nearly a year’s worth of Trumpet Newsmagazine, Wright’s glossy national “lifestyle magazine for the socially conscious,” makes it next to impossible to conclude otherwise.

 

And now that we know Obama has appeared multiple times on the cover of a magazine which spouts shocking (to middle Americans) political views, it will be hard for him to credibly deny knowing what was up with Wright.

Update: Steve Gilbert of Sweeteness & Light deserves credit as the first to discover Obama the cover subject of Trumpet back in January.

 

Carbon ‘cap and trade’ policies immoral

Carbon ‘cap and trade’ policies immoral

Jerome J. Schmitt
The carbon “cap and trade” policies advocated by Al Gore and John McCain are an immoral solution to a non-existent problem. So says  Britain’s Lord Christopher Monckton, and he backs this statement up with scientific fact and analysis. See this paper.

I wish Lord Monkton could achieve a higher profile in the US since he is very articulate, passionate and on-top of all the scientific, economic and moral facts to debunk the Global Warming Hoax.  It you’re not familiar with him, he successfully sued the UK educational establishment and forced them to acknowledge that An Inconvenient Truth is riddled with scientific errors.  He pursued this suit into the teeth of the Labor Gov’t and Judicial establishment and only succeeded by highlighting the absurdity of their positions both legal and scientific.  We could use him to champion the truth here.  He said on Glenn Beck;s show that a similar suit against the US Educational establishment would cost about $6 million.

 

More on biofuels

More on biofuels

reader response

I have to respond to the article from Mr Meyer regarding his support of biofuels. Mr Meyer neglects to mention a few things about biofuels. I will make myself perfectly clear and say that I am no fan of biofuels, especially ethanol, as I consider alcohols, except for maybe nitromethanol (which is only really useful in drag racing) to be perfectly horrid motor fuels. The reasons follow:

 

1. There is less energy in a gallon of ethanol than in a gallon of gasoline. Ethanol has 76,000 btu’s per gallon and gasoline has 144,000 btu’s per gallon. This means you get much less fuel mileage using alcohol.

 

2. Transportation. While gasoline can be transported using pipelines, ethanol cannot and must be trucked using special tankers. This is much more inefficient than using our network of pipelines.

 

3. Alcohol based fuels are a net energy negative. It takes more energy to distill alcohol than the energy it provides. So in producing it, you save nothing and in fact cost the world market energy.

 

4. Lastly, despite Mr Meyer’s protestations aside, diverting what would normally grown as feed corn and human food WILL have an effect on overall prices. If world wide demand is rising and there is less of a product, the price rises. he is correct in saying it is not the ONLY factor, but it is still a factor.

 

5. Alcohol based fuels are hygroscopic. They will absorb water and therefore have a very short shelf life vs gasoline, While this not so much a problem with a daily driver, you won’t be too happy storing your lawnmower or classic car with a tank full of alcohol. In fact, race engine that are designed to burn alcohols are stored “pickled” (run for a short time with gasoline to coat the parts) in order to avoid corrosion and water.

 

6. Volatility. Ethanol is more volatile than gasoline, which means it will evaporate at a much lower temperature than gasoline. This means more of it will get sent into the atmosphere than will gasoline under the same conditions. This means that ethanol can pollute MORE than will gasoline.

 

7. Here is another point about alcohol based fuels noone has considered. Being grown, Our fuel “independence” would then be subject to the whims of mother nature. Floods, drought, disease would all play a factor in the price and supply of our newest fuel source.

 

Despite the protestations of the environmental whackos, and those with a financial stake in the industry, using alcohol based fuels is a bad deal for all of us.

 

Jim Caron

 

 

Obama: Why Hamas thinks I’m cool

Vatican: It’s OK to believe in aliens –From The Men In Pointy Hats

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers