Thursday, March 1, 2012
This bogspot commendably seeks to stamp out corruption in Congress and work for the 99% instead of handing out favors to the 1% elite that are in bed with the Wall Street and Washington elites. Sound Good? Unfortunately, the writers seem to believe that the way to help the 99% is for the elites in government to hand out favors to the 99% and "to stimulate spending." Thus, a misplaced faith in government continues unabated. Instead of scaling back government, and allowing the entrepreneurs to do their thing, the proposed reform efforts are aimed at merely redirecting the failed government programs that got us in the present mess. It is so easy to state good intentions, but rarely do we see the intentions matched by actions that will gain those worthy ends.
The Mainstream Media (MSM) is so degraded that I have recently taken to watching the Newsbusters site which reports news from a more liberated viewpoint. Plus, it features a comedy-video by Jodie Miller that happily and cryptically skewers today's political elite. Tuesday's edition was highlighted by Tom Blumer's article about Global Warming--reporting on a recent presentation by MIT Professor Richard Lindzen before the House of Commons. The professor brings a lifetime of expertise in atmospheric conditions and was introduced as "one of the world's greatest atmospheric physicists" by James Delingpole of the UK Telegraph.
Professor Lindzen remarked that "I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes.
. . .The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.
... Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.
... Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating."
Professor Lindzen thus added one more expert opinion that the hysteria over GW has been grossly overblown. And Tom Blumer points out that Professor Lindzen's comment have gone virtually unreported in the U.S. establishment press. Indeed, Blumer's search for the professor's name at the Associated Press's main national site came up empty!