Guardian Goes Full Orwell

The Guardian appears to have passed a tipping point. Look what they censored now.

ScreenHunter_1612 Apr. 24 12.19 ScreenHunter_1613 Apr. 24 14.25

Changes in water vapor and clouds are amplifying global warming | John Abraham | Environment | The Guardian

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

168 Responses to Guardian Goes Full Orwell

  1. cheshirered says:

    This comment didn’t last half an hour….

    CheshireRed
    This looks suspiciously like another ‘box ticking’ exercise to address one of the major failings of AGW theory; namely the almost complete failure of observed positive feedbacks to amplify any ‘CO2-driven warming’ to the extent required to legitimise claims of impending catastrophe.

    Without amplification, ‘runaway’ warming theory is dead. Hence, a quick shock of the peer reviewed defibrillator and bingo, there’s life in the old dog yet.

  2. handjive says:

    Back when the science was settled …

    Friday, 6 October 2000
    “Don’t count on clouds to come and rescue us from global warming, says a NASA researcher, who claims that the minimum amount of warming predicted by scientists should be revised upwards by half a degree Celsius.
    Some climate theories predict that a warmer atmosphere would evaporate more water forming thicker and more opaque low clouds over the land which would reflect sunlight and counter the warming effects of greenhouse.
    However, research published in the Journal of Climate provides some of the first substantial evidence that this is not the case.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/10/06/196029.htm

    That first sentence needs fixing:

    “Don’t expect clouds to to come to the rescue of failed global warming predictions …”

    But they did!

  3. Alan Poirier says:

    I had one deleted for mentioning that at the rate Antarctic sea ice was expanding, it would engulf Terra Del Fuega in 30 years. They have no sense of humor. LOL

  4. gator69 says:

    Can someone else try to leave the same comment? It would be interesting to see if it gets snipped again.

  5. Robertv says:

    Just wait until these kind of comments get you on the NO FLY list.

  6. Disillusioned says:

    Any bets the John Abraham, the author of The Guardian article, is the “moderator” who keeps scrubbing the comments (for supposedly not “abid[ing]” by “our community standards”?

    I’m sure Abraham is convinced he’s on the correct side of politics. He also suspects he is wrong side of science. Or, he wouldn’t keep scrubbing non-abusive, but dissenting, commentary like he does.

    It is sad to see that rag, and Unscientific UnAmerican, and others doing this form of Pravda propaganda-steering – all to keep their readers fooled.

    The fools are the ones who silence dissent.

  7. Disillusioned says:

    Climate propagandist John Abraham is pushing the 97% lie. With lies.
    http://www.theguardian.com/profile/john-abraham

  8. Jon Lonergan says:

    From the article
    “We know that clouds have a net cooling effect on the planet.”
    “Scientists describe clouds as a “positive feedback” on global warming.”
    Huh? Wouldn’t a “net cooling effect ” mean a negative effect on global warming?

    • Me says:

      Welcome to reality.

    • Chris Barron says:

      It’s a malaproprism of the binary ‘yes’ and ‘no’

      Positive feedback = Yes, it does have an effect on …..
      Negative feedback = No, it does not have an effect on …

      It is entirely misleading

    • ristvan says:

      Be clear about functions, first, and second derivatives. Clouds net cool. True. If with increased warming they cool less, that is a positive ‘first derivative’ feedback. And vice versa. If with increasing warming they watm disporportionately more, that is a ‘second derivative’ accerlerating positive feedback. And vice versa.
      Now, since the climate has not ever run away, it is clear from first principles that net second derivatives are negative. For the same reason, it is clear that all first derivatives must sum to less than about 0.75 by the Bode feedback equation. (see my math post at CE). The observational data say cloud feedback is zero or slight negative, water vapor is 0.25 (half of IPCC implied), and ECS is 1.5-1.7, half of IPCC.

      • darrylb says:

        I am not sure that everyone here gets involved in what you are presenting here, but I would like to recommend that readers also followed Dr. Curry at Climate etc.

        There has been some discussion here about her not being a full true blue skeptic.
        I don’t think she is, neither is the likes of Dr. Roy Spencer and is boss or Dr. Happer.
        They are just very honest and note that everything is blown well out of proportion and that any AGW is much less than has been hypothesized, it may be quite negligible, at least compared to natural variables.

        Dr. Curry emphasizes that there are not only unknowns, but unknown unknowns.
        As an example, how many here have read of the slow oscillation the earth may have
        to the orbital plane of the solar system? So many forcings, and so many feedbacks, and I think the marvelous thing about it all, thinking like an engineer, which I am not, is that almost all systems have negative feedbacks, which keep them equilbrium.
        My personal thinking is that all systems on the earth are always out of equilibrium, and like a pendulum are always receiving feedbacks which accelerate the system to some equilibrium point.

        Right Dr. Curry has a thread on emotional bias which definitely relates to the subject of this thread. Dana N. and Cook simply have swung so far beyond any scientific equilibrium point to have any objectivity.

        Unfortunately, so as our president.,

      • Ted says:

        “Now, since the climate has not ever run away, it is clear from first principles that net second derivatives are negative.”

        That’s been my complaint since I first heard the claims of “runaway warming.” But I’m always told that this time is different. They insist that the conditions today are utterly unprecedented, in this planet’s 4.5 billion years. Yet these exact same people insist I believe that the same amount of time is plenty for random chemical reactions to turn sterile rock into Marilyn Monroe.

        Wouldn’t that imply that atmospheric chemistry is more complex than the creation of life? And they claim to understand atmospheric chemistry well enough to “fix” it?

        • Me says:

          PPM, power, prestige and money.

        • Hugh says:

          Yet these exact same people insist I believe that the same amount of time is plenty for random chemical reactions to turn sterile rock into Marilyn Monroe.

          Well, apparently the chemical reactions were not that random. But truthfully spoken, there are not many better ways to saw one’s own tree-branch of logical thinking than doing a creationistic slur. Like, well then, humans did not evolve from one group of apes, God did it, and then we can start asking questions like “How did that god come to existence?” or “What worth has any logical thinking in a world that was created 6000 years ago to look like 13 000 000 000 years old world?” and “Why do we argue when logical thinking has no value?”

          God is not an answer to the question of origins. It is just a collection of real-life incompatible memes with little predictive power, and thus a useless idea.

          I don’t know why ‘the’ world exists. I suspect that it exists like numbers. And I don’t know why numbers exist; I can’t imagine how they could not exist. This is enough for me. I don’t know, and I know I’m not in a bad company not knowing why the world exists.

          About the derivatives I agree with you.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “And I don’t know why numbers exist”

          Numbers exist because humans invented them.
          They are man’s explanation of “how many”, or “how much”.

          All the physics, all the maths, and science in ALL its forms is no more, or less, than man’s expression / interpretation / attempt to explain, what he sees and observes around him.

        • Hugh says:

          “Numbers exist because humans invented them.”

          I don’t really think so. We just found them. They existed already and we bumped into them and created a formalism to reflect them, but we didn’t invent numbers as such, just ways to represent them. There are good reasons why I sum the same results as you do, even when we come from different cultures. Humans just find and give names to things that exist in some sense independently.

          This is an old idea, as old as Plato, or older maybe.

        • Hugh says:

          Sorry about continuing OT thread – but let’s take another way to formulate this:

          I don’t know why ‘the’ world exists. I suspect that it exists like the laws of mathematics. And I don’t know why the laws of mathematics exist; I can’t imagine how they could not exist. This is enough for me. I don’t know, and I know I’m not in a bad company not knowing why the world exists.

          Now you can argue that there are something human-related, convention-based in mathematics, like the way digits are drawn or how positional system is used to represent big numbers and rational numbers; or that we usually tend to use binary logic instead of more complicated Venn diagrams. One of worst examples being probable the continuum hypothesis, where truth can chosen, and, it appears both options generate a valid mathematical system with no apparent inconsistencies. However, it appears we cannot choose whether CH is true, false or independent, we can just find a proof which reveals a fact of the world, which exists the way it exists, whatever humans choose do.

          This is what I call ‘finding’ a mathematical fact. It is not inventing facts.

        • rah says:

          I have to go with Andy on this one. Math is a language and like all languages it was invented to communicate. Math, language, and music are all methods of communication though each is best suited for transmitting different types of messages or ideas.

          Math is in essence the language of science and engineering. That it can be used as a tool to measure, quantify, and calculate by an individual for their own purposes does not negate the fact that it is also the best method for communicating the results of those exercises to others.

          Saying that the numbers existed before the invention of math is like saying that trees or anything else in the natural world existed before it was given a name/nomenclature. That a musical composition existed before it was composed.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “There are good reasons why I sum the same results as you do, even when we come from different cultures.”

          Yes, the human invention of numbers has been honed down over many, many centuries.

          It needed to be consistent to make trade and other facets of life workable.

          As you say, numbers are the human representation of how they see the world.

          Numbers or to be more precise, counting systems, existed WAY before Plato, even if it was through barter or other trade arrangements, etc etc

        • Gail Combs says:

          Andy, et al

          Even ponies and crows can count. I have at least three ponies that can count to five.

          Crows: http://reliablesignals.blogspot.com/2011/10/crows-can-count.html

          And even pigeons
          http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/science/pigeons-can-learn-higher-math-as-well-as-monkeys-study-suggests.html?_r=0

        • rah says:

          Gail I couldn’t help but notice your first link was at a forum concerning “Animal Communications”.

        • Gail Combs says:

          rah, I could not find the actual study I was looking for and grabbed the first URL on the topic.

          However there have been several studies done, some just observing wild crows that show crows can and do count up to three with out any human training.

          The study I am thinking of was crows counting how many people went into and out of a building. Past the number three crows ‘counted’ many. The crows got confused between groups of four and groups of five individuals going into and out of the building.

          (They would land on the ground to eat if no one was in the building IIRC.)

          Darned if I can find that study again. (I took another look for it.)

        • gator69 says:

          My beagle could count. He was trained to not come to the dinner table when we were eating. We would put one treat in his bowl for each person who had dined, usually being just us four family members. But we often had company, and when we had guests, he would count the treats in his bowl, and come looking for us if the count was incorrect. Once the count was correct, he would cease and desist.

        • Gail Combs says:

          My point is that counting, the begining of math, is not a human only device. It exists outside the human mind.

          This argument is very very basic and goes back to Marx and the Hegelian philosophy and the even more ancient philosophies upon which that thought system is based (Plato.).

          The basic question is:

          Does reality exist as a stand alone objective reality or does reality only exist in the mind of man?

          Hegel accepted as real only that which existed in the mind. Objective phenomena and events were of no consequence; only the con­ceptions of them possessed by human minds were real. Ideas, not ob­jects, were the stuff of which the universe was made. The universe and all events therein existed and took place only in the mind, and any change was a change in ideas. Therefore, to account for these changes in ideas was to account for change in the universe….

          This by the way IS THE ACTUAL FIGHT!

          Leftists believe that reality is defined by what THEY THINK and AGREE TO. That is why there is such an emphasis on ‘97% Consensus.’ This is why presenting a boatload of facts does not dent an Activist’s skull. All that matters is the IDEA and the CONSENSUS. Reality has no place in their skulls.

          It is also why there is such emphasis on completely protecting children from the reality that actions have consequences. If a child instead of learning “If I touch a hot stove I get burned” learns “I got burned because Mama let me get burned and it is ALL HER FAULT!” You have the makings of an airheaded socialist and not a reality based individualist.

        • gator69 says:

          The 97% meme is proof that Progressives are lousy at math, and telling the truth.

        • Gail Combs says:

          OH, they lie at the drop of a hat Gator, we all know that. But a reasoning adult, when presented with facts will change their mind if you hit them over the head with reality enough times. Progs/Fabian Socialist trained Useless Idiots are trained to be immune to reality.

          There was a really classic example that I failed to save. (Drat it!)

          When the fire fighters were clearing the towers, (9/11) one guy was arguing with the fighter that the computer work he was doing was really really important and he could not leave….

          I see this sort of idiocy all the time. You tell someone that what their child wants to do is dangerous (and why) so you will not allow the activity and they will argue with you and scream nasty names. What they WANT is more important than their child’s safety…. Go figure. (Note if the kid gets hurt or killed they will sue your pants off!)

        • gator69 says:

          But a reasoning adult, when presented with facts will change their mind…

          That is why the Progressives took over the public school system under Carter, to stop teaching humans how to apply reason and logic. Public schools teach kids what to think, and not how. It is what I call one of the most cruel forms (if not the cruelest) of child abuse.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator says: “…It is what I call one of the most cruel forms (if not the cruelest) of child abuse…”

          Agreed, it is. You not only cripple the child but you cripple an entire civilization. How much futher advanced would Western Civilization be if the *&^%(*&^M Fabians hadn’t sold the Malthusian claptrap to the US government in the 1970s? and scared them into “de-developing the USA” ?

          Would we be mining on Mars, hauling mineral rich asteroids to earth?

          Idiotic, cowardly, short sighted, grasping plodders have completely crippled the human race because they are afraid of the brilliance that might be in the individuals of the middle class and that that brilliance my upset their position at the top of the heap.

        • gator69 says:

          And that is exactly why I call it poosibly the worst form of child abuse. Not only does it cripple children, it cripples the adults that those children become. And they then abuse each successive generation, because it is a “learned” behavior that is not only endorsed by government, but also enforced by law.

        • Ted says:

          Hugh-

          Nobody said “God did it,” but you. Save your anti-Christian hysteria for an actual Christian. Why is it that basically every argumentative atheist thinks that the slightest hint of ambivalence toward Darwinistic creation ex nihlo, makes one a Biblical literalist? You’re a perfect example of the Hegelian conditioning that Gail so often writes about. There are more than two possibilities. It’s not either the Bible, or Darwin. They aren’t even mutually exclusive. While my own inclination is closer to the latter than the former, I find it exceedingly unlikely that either tells the whole story. If you think that makes me a young earth creationist, then it’s you who’s sawing your “own tree-branch of logical thinking.”

          In your knee-jerk reaction to what you absurdly call a “creationistic slur,” you entirely missed the point. Atmospheric chemistry is self-evidently less complex than the totality of terrestrial life, and by many orders of magnitude. Yet the warm mongers insist that life came about by chance, but an unremarkable shift in recent temperatures requires a (human) Creator.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Even ponies and crows can count.”

          No, they have a learnt simple one-to-one relationship pattern like a mouse in food maze.

          Counting.. putting names to these patterns, is a whole different human invention.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Andy,
          The crow observations were interesting. The crows could figure out three people go in and one comes out, one comes out and the last one comes out = three link

          Counting may be innate in many species

          When you think about it, the ability to count is a survival trait when predators hunt in packs.

  9. Paul Williams says:

    Last month, RSS showed the 60S-60N water vapor level as + 0.575 kg/m2 above the long-term mean of 27.00 kg/m2 or 2.1%.

    That is not what the theory predicts for water vapor at the temperature increase observed/adjusted to date and it should be closer to +1.4 kg/m2 if Trenberth was right.

    http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r00_198801_201503.time_series.txt

    • gator69 says:

      What the long-term mean?

      Do they mean since “Beetlejuice ” was realeased? 😆

      • Lance says:

        “In the Long run, we are all Dead. John Maynard Keynes”. That said, technology can keep a “dead” body alive for decades. Propaganda can keep a “dead politician” alive for…….. well at least another election. Depends on whom you pay. The Clintons expired in 1994, but are still quite active due to massive propaganda. Obama remains somewhat liked among the parasitic class even though he has no class. Evidently, “long term” can be from picoseconds to millennia if one is willing to suspend reality long enough. That, dear friends, is the definition of Liberal survival in a natural world.

      • gator69 says:

        That, dear friends, is the definition of Liberal survival in a natural world.

        I believe you mean “Progressive” survival, as there is nothing “Liberal” about the Clintons, except their spending of other people’s money.

        • Me says:

          Well that is a liberal here in Canada, appearantly, but lately it means government.

        • gator69 says:

          The leftist Progressives donned the false cloak of “Liberal” after they were associated with Hitler, and communists, but they are truly wolves in sheep’s clothing, as their precious coat of arms attests.

          The root word of “Liberal” is “Liberty”, but Progressives do not believe in liberty, as they are oppressors. I believe in individual freedoms, I am a Libertarian and have the values of our founders, who wrote…

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

          Do not insult Liberals, as we are those that fight opression, and Progressives.

        • Me says:

          And you Americans think Canada is socialist state already, when we are complaining there is a problem, you have it way cheaper down there.

        • gator69 says:

          If only Skeeter had quit the thug life. 😉

        • Me says:

          Why do you think Chu wanted European gas prices, they are nuts, I don’t understant how the Europeans put up with it.

        • Me says:

          Yes, Gator I understand it, but like I said earlier, the power hungry will use whatever word that suits their need. Just because it once had a meaning, doesn’t make it mean the same anymore.

        • Me says:

          It is a means to their end now and nothing more. but right now I see a liberal as what they are.

        • Me says:

          And don’t claim to be a libertarian if you want to impose any of your views on anyone else. A libertarian would want to be left alone and leave others alone.

        • gator69 says:

          When have I tried to impose my views, except in the defense of inncocents? I will reiterate my view, as defined by Jefferson…

          The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.
          -Thomas Jefferson

          You can count me among the Libertarians, I was a conservative until I fully realized that conservatives legislate morality, often with disastrous results.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Only statist conservatives try to legislate morality. Libertarian (or Constitutional) conservatives are not statists.

        • gator69 says:

          I am unaware of any non-statist conservative politician.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Conservatism does not denote statism, and neither does liberalism denote statism. It comes a shock to many, but …
          – Statists come in both conservative and liberal garb.
          – Libertarians come in both conservative and liberal garb.

          It is the role individuals of these disparate groups believe the government should or should not play, concerning legislation of beliefs/morals, about everything from the bedroom to health care, to economics, which determines whether or not one is a statist or libertarian. (Not one’s beliefs/morals – but the role the government should or should not play).

          Again, there are libertarian liberals, and conservatives. And there are statist liberals, and conservatives.

          A wonderful, very quick (10 question) quiz that ranks where you are on the continuum (of the four quadrants – conservative/liberal and statist/libertarian):
          http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

        • gator69 says:

          The test confirms what I said, I am a Libertarian. You still have not shown me a consrvative politician who is not a statist.

          Show me a conservative ploitician who is not a statist, and I will show you a Libertarian

        • gator69 says:

          Get your language straight first.

          There are Conservatives, Prograssives, and Liberals. What you keep calling a Liberal is actually a Progressive.

          And all Conservatives and Progressives are statists.

        • gator69 says:

          See above.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Concerning non-statist (libertarian, or Constitutional) conservative politicians, there are very few. Most Republicans are establishment, and therefore statists. Here is one self-described conservative libertarian, albeit now retired.

          “The Advocates for Self-Government is one of the freedom movement’s leading organizations. I wish them continued success in promoting liberty.” — Ron Paul, The Congressional Record, June 30, 2010

          http://www.theadvocates.org/libertarianism-101/libertarian-celebrities/ron-paul/

        • gator69 says:

          Get your language straight first.

          There are Conservatives, Prograssives, and Liberals. What you keep calling a Liberal is actually a Progressive.

          And all Conservatives and Progressives are statists.

        • gator69 says:

          Ron Paul surprised his Republican peers in 1988 when he ran for the Libertarian presidential nomination.

          This is exactly what I said, show me a non-statist conservative, and I will show you a Libertarian.

        • gator69 says:

          Sorry, but the root of “Liberal” is the Latin root “liber”, which means free, and Progressives/Fabians (again, wolf in sheep’s clothing) are not for liberty. I don’t care what philosophers say, the language has been corrupted to fool fools.

          Philosophers are in general leftist naval gazers, with zero skills, except naval gazing.

          Jefferson would be considered a Libertarian today, and Glenn beck identifies as a Libertarian.

          …When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
          Thomas Jefferson

          … The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
          Thomas Jefferson

          … It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
          Thomas Jefferson

          … I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
          Thomas Jefferson

          … My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
          Thomas Jefferson

          … No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
          Thomas Jefferson

          …The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
          Thomas Jefferson

          … The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
          Thomas Jefferson

          … To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
          Thomas Jefferson

          Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
          … I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property – until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

          And my personal favorite:

          The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.
          -Thomas Jefferson

          How dare you insult Jefferson by calling statists “liberal”. And the fact that you fall for calling oppressors “liberal”, of any sort, is telling.

        • gator69 says:

          Response above.

        • Disillusioned says:

          ” Get your language straight first.”

          I’m not the one having difficulty in discerning and understanding the differences between a modern term and an older term, both of which contain a root word, but which have completely different meanings today. I understand perfectly well that John Locke’s Classical (libertarian) Liberalism has nothing to do – nothing at all – to do with the ubiquitous, modern use of the terms “liberalism” or “liberals”. Early last century (long ago) progressives hijacked the term “liberal”. It’s been almost a century in use now; news flash – they aren’t going to be giving it back. Let the lefties have it, and move on. It is what it is.

          “Liberal” today only means libertarian if one adds “Classical” in front of “Liberal.” But, 99% of the population don’t know what a Classical Liberal is. So, it is moot. All they know is that “liberal” is the term for lefties. If a libertarian wants to go around calling themselves liberal – even a John Locke Classical Liberal – they shouldn’t be surprised when 99.9% of the people assume they’re a proggy/lefty. A huge part of “getting the language” is understanding what the present vernacular is, and using it. That practice keeps misunderstandings down to a tolerable minimum. In today’s vernacular, you’re a libertarian. (Perhaps you are also a Libertarian, as that is how you always refer to yourself; it is not my party affiliation, so I don’t capitalize the L.).

          But suffice to say, explaining to someone what a libertarian is, is hard enough for people to understand and get correct, without trying to throw in the “liberal” tag also, (which is an archaic term for libertarians, and which leads to confusion).

          “The test confirms what I said, I am a Libertarian.”

          I’m sure it confirmed you are a libertarian (small L); it doesn’t deal with party affiliation. And, from reading your posts, never did I doubt that. But there’s more to the quiz than that. Your red ball dropped either to the right, left or in middle of the top half.

          The quiz, which was written by the libertarian group Advocates For Self Government, has four quadrants, plus a centrist blob in the middle – not simply two halves (not just statist vs. libertarian). You will also notice that Advocates For Self-Government are using the ubiquitous, 20th/21st century modern usage for liberal/left to refer to lefty/proggies.) 😉

          “And all Conservatives and Progressives are statists.”

          Of course all progressives are statists. That’s easy. (I don’t understand your use of caps, as they are not political parties.) Nevertheless, the fallacial part in your statement is that you just bumped off an entire quadrant of REAL individuals (the entire top right quadrant on the quiz graph that are libertarian (non-statist) conservatives. I exist. I’m not a statist. Ron Paul exists. He’s not a statist. Dr. Paul was about as far from statistism that I have seen in Congress. I have watched several interview with him; there are dozens of YouTube videos with him talking about the evils of statism. He was hated by both sides, mostly because he was not a statist, and did not go along. Dr. Paul has referred to himself as a libertarian “conservative” (small L – not a Libertarian – he remained Republican after 1988, after realizing how badly 3rd parties fared in elections).

          Yes, there are plenty of statist conservatives. Which is concerning. But you just can’t make such a sweeping statement about all of them. Conservative values don’t mean for every conservative that the government should legislate from the pulpit, or what goes on in the bedroom, etc. Non-statist conservatives do exist. Ron Paul is one. I am one. His personal beliefs (and mine) which are very conservative – did not (and do not) necessarily reflect the way he voted, because he didn’t believe the federal government should be legislating morals.

          And neither do I. Libertarians don’t. Both liberal and conservative libertarians don’t think the government should be legislating morals. And, I agree, that unfortunately there are far too few of us. And, far too few of us who see the evils of big government, statist corportism dominating our lives.

          So, yes, there are statist Christian conservatives, with whom I love, but highly disagree, who think that government interference is a good thing (as long as it reflects their religious beliefs). And of course, then there are the proggy statists – members of the Church of CAGW, who think their religious beliefs should be implemented/regulated implemented also. They’re both statists.

          So, gator, what I’m saying is that statism is *not* about whether one is liberal or conservative, or about what issues people believe in. Statism is about how much they believe the government to should be involved. This gets people tripped up all the time.

          Today’s Libertarians may be the closest to John Locke’s Classical Liberalism today. Show me a group closer and I might join ’em. 😀

          “You still have not shown me a consrvative [sic] politician who is not a statist.”

          No, I did. I pointed to Ron Paul when you first brought it up, and then again. (Again, wouldn’t it be nice if we could name many more?) 🙂 I can at least agree there are way too few – we need many more small-government, libertarian-minded representatives of We The People in our government. (I liked the talk at the Tea Parties I went to, but the jury is still out with some of the Tea Party freshmen, now that they are in Washington.)

          Semantics aside, what I have to say next I think is very important – if we want to get anywhere in the future. …

          For the top-left quadrant on that graph (the liberal libertarians), there are some ex-hippies who didn’t go to the dark side and become big-government statists, and Democrats like Rosa Koire (Democrats Against Agenda 21), who have become disillusioned about the growing government influence in our lives. I think all of us need to stop focusing on left vs. right as much and begin focusing on liberties vs. government machine taking over (liberties vs. statism/tyranny).

          When/if we can do that, there can be many more numbers, I believe, to fight the Agenda. The Agenda is using both political parties. Both the left and right have groups of people becoming disillusioned more and more, and who are beginning to understand there is a bigger Agenda. (We need to work together. IMHO)

          FWIW, here is the Advocates for Self Government ABOUT page: “http://www.theadvocates.org/our-mission/
          A true a libertarian would agree with most of what that page says. I’d be curious what, if anything on that page, you might disagree. Since you see yourself as a modern day Classical Liberal, you may enjoy looking around on their website. 🙂

        • gator69 says:

          When did I call Paul a statist? I explained he is a Libertarian.

          If you cannot explain your position concisely, you are trying to convince youself, and not me.

          Show me a conservative who is not a statist, and I will show you a Libertarian. Period.

          He who controls language, controls thought.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Oops. I assume the erroneous ” in the URL above did not create the link. I’ll try it again.
          http://www.theadvocates.org/our-mission/
          It’s an excellent site for people wanting to learn about libertarianism.
          I might as well link again to th political quiz again, also. One can retake the test and give different answer to the questions, and see how much that affects the outcome (on the 100 diamond, 4 quadrant graph).
          http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php#

        • gator69 says:

          How small is your tent?

        • Disillusioned says:

          “When did I call Paul a statist?

          Oh, good grief Gator! I never said that! You claimed all conservatives are statists.
          , and said to show you a conservative politician who is not a statist. For Pete’s sake, I even quoted you for Pete’s sake. And I did that.

          ” I explained he is a Libertarian.”

          No argument there. He is both. Take the quiz again, and take a close look at that graph. Conservative and libertarian are not mutually exclusive. But, clearly not all conservatives are libertarians.

        • gator69 says:

          I proved my point. You claimed that not all conservatives are statists, and I said that if you show me a conservative who is not a staist, I will show you a Libertarian. And I did.

          You don’t seem to understand that you agree with me. 😆

        • Gail Combs says:

          Disillusioned and Gator, interesting discussion. Actually I think you are both correct.

          Disillusioned is correct in saying the language, thanks to the news media and schools, has changed the definition of the word ‘Liberal’ To the man on the street Liberal = Fabian Prog/Socialist/Communist. Even E.M. Smith now prefices the word with classical to avoid confusion.

          Gator is correct in that we should not play their word games and more to the point, drag the darn sheepskin back off the wolf and expose the games it is playing.

          Disillusioned is correct that as men of good will who believe in personal liberty we should shelve the petty differences and stand shoulder to shoulder against our would be slave masters.

        • gator69 says:

          Disillusioned is correct that as men of good will who believe in personal liberty we should shelve the petty differences and stand shoulder to shoulder against our would be slave masters.

          That has been my point all along!

          When you dismiss an actual liberal, by mocking that title, you lose an ally.

          Simples! 😆

        • Disillusioned says:

          “If you cannot explain your position concisely, you are trying to convince youself, and not me.”

          It sounds like you’re trying to convince yourself of that, rather than read what I said. This isn’t my first rodeo. I came to these understandings long, long before today. Believe what you want.

          If you want concise, I’ll try and be more concise… just this once.

          – Statism is *not* about whether one is liberal or conservative, or about what issues people believe in. Statism is about how much one believes the government should be involved in all aspects of our lives.

          – Libertarianism is the opposite of statism.

          -There are people on both the right and left who fall under both categories.

          – It is a fallacy that all conservatives are statists.

        • gator69 says:

          It is a fallacy that all conservatives are statists.

          Let’s try again. I asked you to name a consevative politician, that is not a statist, and I would show you a Libertarian.

          You answered Ron Paul, who ran on the Libertarian ticket.

          Ronald Ernest “Ron” Paul was born on August 20th, 1935 in Pittsburgh… and ran as the presidential candidate representing the Libertarian Party.

          http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/

          Why can you not agree, that we agree? 😆

        • Disillusioned says:

          Gail: “Disillusioned is correct that as men of good will who believe in personal liberty we should shelve the petty differences and stand shoulder to shoulder against our would be slave masters.”

          Bingo! I don’t want to be right just to be right. I want exactly what you want. (And, I want a few pit bulls like Gator standing there with us.)

          Ron Paul, who is both a conservative and libertarian, has been trying to get that message out for a long, long time. Folks like Ron Paul would work with people like Rosa Koire. I feel just sure of it. But it is a crying shame there are so few libertarian-minded souls on both sides of the political aisle. I haven’t seen a lot of efforts to bring libertarian factions from both the left and the right together.

          But, not all is lost – I have met disillusioned Democrats, independents and Republicans of similar accord at Tea Party gatherings, who all spoke to me of similar concerns. (I don’t have to convince myself – I *KNOW* they are out there; I have met them. Denying they exist does no good.)

          I think there needs to be some sort of a summit to bring disparate factions of libertarian minded people together. Otherwise, the two-party system will continue banging out puppets for the Agenda. (I am sure that the MSM, along with the two parties in power, would do all they can to crush them.) IMHO

        • gator69 says:

          I’m right there with you buddy! The middle is where liberty resides, both right and left wing extremists are the enemy.

          If you disagree with Jefersonian ideology, it doesn’t matter what you call yourself, you are a statist.

        • Gator, I have plenty of experience with left wing extremists. Whom do you consider the extremists on the right? Fanatical defenders of the Church dogma? Radical sons of the landed gentry? Diehard monarchists?

          Whose vocabulary are you using to define “The Right”?

        • gator69 says:

          I am speaking of those who would impose governance outside of this model (I can’t believe I am rererererererepeating myself again and again and again and again and…)

          The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.
          -Thomas Jefferson

          Jeffersonian principles. Easy peasy. Simple.

          You should read his stuff, it’s pretty darn good!

        • Gator, I’ve been busy the last few days but I know there is an interesting discussion of positions, terms and meanings in this thread that I will read in detail as soon as possible. I am quite familiar with your writing. Even without running a detail matrix of positions, I assume our worldviews overlap to a large degree.

          You respond dependably to the use of “liberal” when what people really mean is “progressive”. I agree with you. I’ve been following the deliberate destruction of language all my life. You and I have comparable experience of living abroad and exposure to multiple languages. I’m sure you know that this is a phenomenon of American English and the political discourse in America. In Europe—and elsewhere the word—the word “liberal” retained more of its original “classical liberal” meaning, even though the assault on language started there and has been in progress long before we were born. The Guardian is a prime example of this language manipulation as it calls itself a platform for “liberal” and “left-wing” opinion.

          The usage of the terms “left” and “right” has been a weapon of the Progressives for a long time. The last time it made any sense was in the French National Assembly of 1789. I have yet to see a meaningful definition of the left-right scale and its “extremes” in the modern usage. That’s why I asked about your usage. No need to repeat (or rererererererepeat) the rest.

        • Errata: … and elsewhere the word in the world …
          ———-
          Sorry, there may be more. I have to get back to work.

        • gator69 says:

          I thought you understood CW. But I was surprised that some folks here were so unaware of the corruption of our language, and the problems it has caused (purposefully), and that we need to fix it or continue down the road to serfdom.

          I’m also working today. I’m a slave to my acreage this time of year, and after over three hours of mowing, I am nearly done, with the mowing that is. The good news is that the coyotes and bobcats are eating all the moles, the bad news is that I have to reopen all my trails before they disappear completely.

      • I. Lou Minotti says:

        This is probably the best graphic I’ve found that demonstrates how classical liberalism has been co-opted in our day and time. The “regressives” have a way of redefining perfectly good words and political systems to fit their agenda. I first came across the graphic at American Digest a few years ago, with a link to the Bastiat Institute and tumblr.com, I recall. It can now be found here:

        • I. Lou Minotti says:

          Here’s the image URL:

        • gator69 says:

          By that chart I would be a classical Liberal, as I have stated.

        • Me says:

          I guess I am still a conservative.

        • Me says:

          James had a libertarian questionnaire at his site, And as it turns out I was still yet a Conservative.

        • I. Lou Minotti says:

          Yes, Gator. I know, and good stuff. I posted this for the benefit of others who might not understand the “heirarchy,” if you will.

        • phodges says:

          Intersting chart. But it is a little ridiculous, it’s very premise is socialist. Government has nothing to do with providing services, that is propaganda swill for the idiocracy.

          It is about taking, about POWER. Classical Liberalism is a specific form of general Western Liberalism…which stems from Locke, Hume, Hobbes, etc. The founders of our Republic expressed a yet more radical subset of Classical Liberalism….they forcefully incorporated 2 notions intended to secure Natural Rights….government itself is subject to the rule of law, and the government should only have enough power to prevent any special interest from acquiring more political power than the government.

          Here is a very interesting interview with philosopher Alexander Dugin in which he examines Western Liberalism. Which today is reduced essentially Fabian Totalitarianism. In this interview he explains many trends often discussed on his blog.

          http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/03/RIR-150327.php

          While Dugin’s discussion is rather enlightening, my own position is that of a devout Jeffersonian. We have already what is practically a response to his criticisms in the US constitution, only we must limit the dictatorship of the judges and explicitly prohibit corporate personhood, as these have been the primary levers of putting our government in the hands of special interests.

        • gator69 says:

          They are not liberals! They use the cloak of “liberal” to fool fools.

          I am also a devout Jeffersonian, and it is an extreme insult to Jefferson to call Progressives/Fabians “liberal”.

          Adopting the language of the oppressor is foolish. Enough “Newspeak”.

          … language created (or co-opted) by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit freedom of thought…

        • phodges says:

          I would agree with you so far as colloquial usage, however I (and Dugin) intend a technical usage referring to regularly accepted disciplines within philosophy. Just keep that in mind if you listen to him…to Dugin Glenn Beck is a Liberal, he refers to the entire political philosophy of the west since Hobbes.

          You yourself use newspeak when calling yourself both Classical Liberal and Libertarian….they are two different things. Jefferson is a Classical Liberal, not a Libertarian. Modern Libertarians are referred to as “Neoclassical Liberals” within contemporary philosophy.

          Classical Liberalism comes from Locke, Montesque, Roussaeu….and culminated in America with Paine, Jefferson, Adams, Madison.

          Already the Neoclassical Liberals have been busy rewriting the dictionaries and histories, pretty soon Classical Liberalism will be truly dead and buried.

        • gator69 says:

          Response above.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I would rather be a Classical Liberal/Paleo-Conservative. Unfortunately the Bansters and Federal government has stolen so much wealth and mucked-up our free market system via red tape and regulation, that the modern conservative position is necessary until we undue all the theft, regs and red tape. Otherwise we are condeming those who have worked their whole lives only to find themselves destitute in their old age to a brutal death.

          In the 1950s the Classical Liberal/Paleo-Conservative position was still possible. It is going to take a lot of work and pain to back track to before 1913 when the cancer eating out our country metastasized.

    • Dyson spoke wisdom. There are to many unknowns and variables for current science to predict climate.
      And oh ya, the science is settled and under attack by science deniers.

  10. This paper, just published in March, says we don’t understand how clouds influence climate:

    “Fundamental puzzles of climate science remain unsolved because of our limited understanding of how clouds, circulation and climate interact. One example is our inability to provide robust assessments of future global and regional climate changes. However, ongoing advances in our capacity to observe, simulate and conceptualize the climate system now make it possible to fill gaps in our knowledge. We argue that progress can be accelerated by focusing research on a handful of important scientific questions that have become tractable as a result of recent advances. We propose four such questions below; they involve understanding the role of cloud feedbacks and convective organization in climate, and the factors that control the position, the strength and the variability of the tropical rain belts and the extratropical storm tracks.”

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n4/abs/ngeo2398.html

  11. Why would anybody read the Guardian? That rag is as emetic as ipecac.

      • Me says:

        The Liberals do it all the time, so Robert Downey Jr, good for you and stand your ground.

      • Disillusioned says:

        I don’t know the interviewer, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, from Adam’s house cat. But his implied connections were already in the barrel, shot one after the other, without pause, very suspect. Paraphrasing:

        – “What did you mean when you said you can’t go from a $2,000 hotel suite to a prison cell and come out a liberal”?

        “Are you still abusing drugs”?

        Downey Jr. picked up on it immediately, was clearly uncomfortable with that left toin at Albuquerque, and although the interviewer prefaced his new line of questioning – which was a hard-left segue from the Ironman questions – with, “I don’t want to pry” and “we don’t have to talk about it”, the interviewer kept prying anyway.

        Ambush journalist. I would have gotten up also.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Most journalist are ‘Ambush journalists’ and most have a leftist Agenda.

          Rosa Koire who is self-described as a flaming liberal has several videos of examples of ‘Ambush journalism’ where she was interviewed by phone and what she said was twisted so it in no way resembled anything she actually said.
          http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/video-and-smear-articles.html

          An example.
          Q. Are you still beating your dog?
          A. I have never beaten my dog.

          Q. Are you at home to day?
          A. Yes

          Interview as presented:
          Q. Are you still beating your dog?
          A. I have never beaten my dog.

          Q. Are you at home to day?
          A. Yes

          Hope Forpeace was planning on doing that type of ‘interview’ with Tony but he outsmarted her.

        • Disillusioned says:

          I especially enjoyed the “Diane Sawyer” simile as Downey Jr. exited through the doorway.

  12. Eliza says:

    OT but I wonder if the volcanoes in Southern Chile which erupted during 2011 and consequent declines in temperatures, account for the increase in Antarctic ice which continues to today. If so, the more recent eruptions could make it worse.

    • rah says:

      As spectacular as the recent eruptions in Chili were, they were still small potatoes. Now if Calbuco kept erupting you might have something there.

  13. Gail Combs says:

    Gator when I said:

    Leftists believe that reality is defined by what THEY THINK and AGREE TO. That is why there is such an emphasis on ‘97% Consensus.’ This is why presenting a boatload of facts does not dent an Activist’s skull. All that matters is the IDEA and the CONSENSUS. Reality has no place in their skulls.

    I probably should have said that the Prog/Socialist Fabian rank and file believe in what Holdern and Erhlich said in their text book: Human Ecology: Problems & Solutions Chapter 10 Synthesis and Recommendations (School kids have been fed versions of this crap since before the 1970s)

    Holdern and Erhlich, and their malthusian buddies have scared the crap out of many people and offer a return to serfdom and absolute control by totalitarion dictators as the solution. The Useful Idiot rank and file ‘socialists’ have bought this whole package hook, line and sinker. CAGW is and never has been the real fight. ” options for mitigation and adaptation.” is where the fight has ‘progressed to.’

    3. A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environ­ment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdevel­oped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries. This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. [ENTER Agenda 21 and Transit Villages ] Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.

    4 . Once the United States has clearly started on the path of cleaning up its own mess, it can then turn its attention to the problems of the de-development of the other DCs, population control, and ecologically feasible development of the UDCs. It must use every peaceful means at its disposal to persuade the Soviet Union and other DCs to join the effort, in line with the general proposals of Lord Snow and Academician Sakharov.

    5. Perhaps the major necessary ingredient that has been missing from a solution to the problems of both the United States and the rest of the world is a goal, a vision of the kind of Spaceship Earth that ought to be and the kind of crew that should man her. Society has always had its visionaries who talked of love, beauty, peace, and plenty. But somehow the “practical” men have always been there to praise smog as a sign of progress, to preach “just” wars, and to restrict love while giving hate free rein. It must be one of the greatest ironies of the history of the human species that the only salvation for the practical men now lies in what they think of as the dreams of idealists. The question now is: can the self-proclaimed “realists” be persuaded to face reality in time?
    http://www.cfact.org/2014/05/31/john-holdren-in-his-own-radical-words/

    And of course the Club of Rome came up with the solution to the question of ” can the self-proclaimed ‘realists’ be persuaded to face reality in time?” by manufacturing the CAGW con job.

    So if you already KNOW CAGW is a con job but you also know it is the ‘White Lie’ that is needed to scare the recalcitant rank and file “realists” in to agreeing to serfdom, then you will be completely immune to any facts about CAGW because that is and never was where the argument is.

    Remember that Progs want to move along to a discussion on HOW to implement Holdern’s ideas to “de-develop” the U.S. and “reduce” its population since that is where their heads actual are. That is what the IPCC is actually about, and not Climate. That is what the treaty, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, that Clinton signed and got ratified is about. The USA has AGREED to Holdern’s proposal to de-develop the USA and that is why he is now Science Advisor and busy implementing his vision.

    The IPCC mandate is:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

    So it never was about understanding the climate it was never about whether humans influence climate.. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘ and this is the change wanted by the Globalists like the Fabians, the UN, the World Bank, the WTO.

    THIS, a predicted Malthusian catastrophe, not CAGW is the real fight and the Progs will keep the rank and file ‘realists’ spinning their wheels attacking the shadow, CAGW, while they implement their options for mitigation and adaptation under our noses.

    (And yes, that idea just jelled after application of enough caffine.)

    • gator69 says:

      This is not news to me. Progressives have always believed that ‘the means justify the ends”, as long as it is not their end.

      And because “Conservatives” have joined them, I realized that I am neither

      • Gail Combs says:

        Agreed I can not stand either political party in the USA and think the US government should spend the next fifty years doing nothing but repealing laws.

        • gator69 says:

          Yep! Just as long as they don’t start with the 21st Amendment! 😉

          They can start by abolishing the Department of Education, and then the IRS and EPA.

        • Gail Combs says:

          If Holdern wants to ‘de-develop’ something he can ‘de-develop’ the whole darn bureacRATic mess that FDR put together and everyone has added to ever since.

    • I. Lou Minotti says:

      Gail, thanks for your work helping to expose UN Agenda 21 for what it really is–modern-day Malthusianism repackaged in an environmentalist wrapper. It was actually Bush the Elder that planted the seeds of America’s destruction when he signed the Rio Accords in 1992 on Prince Charles’ yacht. Congress rebuked him temporarily until Clinton later imposed its principles on America through executive order #12852, which established the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. It was J. Gary Lawrence, the one-time UN advisor to the PCSD who wrote a novel defense of Agenda 21 that “purposely recommends avoiding the term Agenda 21 and suggests a cleverly named alternative: ‘smart growth.'” See pages 2-3 of the following:

      http://www.unedforum.org/publications/millennium/mill%20paper2.pdf

      To this observer, the issue goes far beyond being “a predicted Malthusian catastrophe.” It is instead a planned Malthusian catastrophe! On page 1 of “The Green Agenda,” we are told “[w]e need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination . . . [s]o we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts . . . [e]ach of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” ~Stephen Schneider, Stanford University.

      http://www.green-agenda.com

      What better place to impose this Malthusian/false environmental drivel than the public school systems in America by those already brainwashed in “progressive” academia?

      • gator69 says:

        Common Core on Climate Change…

        However, it is clear not only that human activities play a major role in climate change but also that impacts of climate change—for example, increased frequency of severe storms due to ocean warming—have begun to influence human activities. The prospect of future impacts of climate change due to further increases in atmospheric carbon is prompting consideration of how to avoid or restrict such increases.

        https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/common-core-climate-indoctrination/

        That is not science, that is pure BS, and what kids are now being taught.

      • Gail Combs says:

        To understand what is really going on you have to understand the goal: A two class system of serfs and elite aka neo-feudalism. This was the system throughout much of history and the elite want it back in place.

        As I showed in my SWAG about Karl Marx the Aristocracy lost out to the middle class in 1600 – 1800 and I think the French Revolution scared the heck out of them.

        Fast forward to 1970 and the amount of evidence discovered confirming the Milankovitch theory. As Nigel Calder has said Kukla and Matthews alerted President Richard Nixon to a possible comming Ice Age. On top of that warning was the hidden food crisis.

        The 1974 CIA report: “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems” says:

        … Since 1972 the grain crisis has intensified…. Since 1969 the storage of grain has decreased from 600 million metric tons to less than 100 million metric tons – a 30 day supply… many governments have gone to great lengths to hide their agricultural predicaments from other countries as well as from their own people…

        The report also goes on to show the results of a global famine:

        pg 9
        The archaeologists and climatotologists document a rather grim history… There is considerable evidence that these empires may not have been undone by barbarian invaders but by climatic change…. has tied several of these declines to specific global cool periods, major and minor, that affected global atmospheric circulation and brought wave upon wave of drought to formerly rich agricultural lands.

        Refugees from these collapsing civilizations were often able to migrate to better lands… This would be of little comfort however,… The world is too densely populated and politically divided to accommodate mass migration.

        [Page 18 talks of coming glaciation. ]
        Scientists are confident that unless man is able to effectively modify the climate, the northern regions… will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow. That this will occur within the nexy 2,500 years they are quite positive; that it may occur sooner is open to speculation.

        [page 22 states:]
        The climate of the 1800s was far less favorable for agriculture in most areas of the world. In the United States during that century, the midwest grain-producing areas were cooler and wetter and snow lines of the Russian steppes lasted for longer periods of time. More extended periods of drought were noted in the areas of the Soviet Union now known as the new lands. More extensive monsoon failures were common around the world, affecting in particular China, the Philippines and the Indian Subcontinent….

        This is the same time period that Holdern’s book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions (1973) was published. So that book just echoed the real thoughts of the US government and the rest of the Elite at that time. (The Club of Rome was founded in 1968) We have got to get the human population and its growth under control.

        So let’s take it that the Elite are well aware that CAGW is a Hoax. What is their real worry? – The same one the rest of us have Global Cooling caused famine and bumping along in either a big or a little Ice Age for the next 65,000 years.

        Now go back and look at what happen to the French Aristocracy during the Little Ice Age.

        I can not read their minds but what we see is NOT what is actually discussed in the Bilderburg and other conferences. The want complete control and drastic population reduction because they are scared wittless.

  14. gator69 says:

    I would agree with you so far as colloquial usage, however I (and Dugin) intend a technical usage referring to regularly accepted disciplines within philosophy. Just keep that in mind if you listen to him…to Dugin Glenn Beck is a Liberal…

    Is this the totalitarian creep to whom you are referring?

    Most Americans don’t know anything about Alexander Dugin. They need to, because Dugin is the mad philosopher who is redesigning the brains of much of the Russian government and public, filling their minds with a new hate-ridden totalitarian ideology whose consequences can only be catastrophic in the extreme, not only for Russia, but for the entire human race…

    What Russia needs, says Dugin, is a “genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism.” On the other hand, “Liberalism, is an absolute evil. . . . Only a global crusade against the U.S., the West, globalization, and their political-ideological expression, liberalism, is capable of becoming an adequate response. . . . The American empire should be destroyed.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380614/dugins-evil-theology-robert-zubrin

    No wonder you are so confused.

    • I. Lou Minotti says:

      A modern-day Rasputin, I would venture. By the way, Zubrin’s 2012 book “Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism” was one of my first resources when I started looking into the CAGW/Agenda 21 issue for myself. As a relative novice, I would recommend it to anyone and everyone.

  15. Eliza says:

    OT again but most you tube “global warming” streams are returning skeptical positions maybe your days are ending LOL. I have not seen ONE pro global warming film.

  16. rah says:

    Well gator and disillusioned according to the last quiz I’m Libertarian leaning toward conservative. I could not agree that there is not a time when a draft may be needed. after all over 60% of all of those that served in the US military during WW II were drafted. I could not agree that all drugs should be available to all adults. And I could not agree that Brother and Sister or even 1st cousins should lay together ie: All consenting adults.

    • gator69 says:

      Hey Rah! I will be honest and say that you and I disagree on those points. But I am glad to hear you sided with Liberty.

      • rah says:

        On the economic side, I was 100%. In fact that quiz was really very good for as brief as it was. It asked about the exact three aspects of the pure libertarianism platform that I don’t agree with. And yet I ended up in the libertarian quadrant because of the economic issues.

        This is not to say that I can be expected to vote Libertarian in elections. I will if the candidate satisfies me AND most important, if I believe that candidate has a reasonable chance to win. Elections are not just about voting for who you want and in fact for me these days are rarely about that. More often it seems I am voting against the ones I don’t want and thus compromise to sent my vote to the candidate I feel has a chance of winning that is contrary to the one I generally abhor.

  17. Gail Combs says:

    Disillusioned says “…I think there needs to be some sort of a summit to bring disparate factions of libertarian minded people together. Otherwise, the two-party system will continue banging out puppets for the Agenda. (I am sure that the MSM, along with the two parties in power, would do all they can to crush them.) IMHO…”

    Actually that is exactly what happened. The Rasmussen polls in ~2009/2010 showed the Tea Party was challenging the Progs and the controlled opposition aka the Repugs. One Rasmussen poll showed the USA was now split, 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 with the Tea Party grabbing a third of the voters. Therefore a ‘study’ was run The Blair-Rockefeller poll by The Diane D. Blair Center of Southern Politics & Society, Clinton School of Public Service @ the University of Arkansas.

    A report was writtened titled Tea Party Distinguished by Racial Views and Fear of the Future: Findings from the Blair-Rockefeller poll By Angie Maxwell, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science

    Of course the news media grab the report and ran with it without bothering to look at HOW the poll was taken.

    Topic Report:
    Tea Party distinguished by racial views and fear of the future
    By Angie Maxwell, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science

    Following the post-inaugural rise of Tea Party groups throughout the country, the Blair-Rockefeller Poll allowed participants to indicate whether they identified with the growing movement. 10.6% of the national poll defined themselves as Tea Party members. Tea Party members are predominantly white, middle class, educated, Christian males over the age of 45. Though the unemployment rate of Tea Party members is less than the national average, Tea Party members seem to feel that their situations are going to get worse. This “fear of falling” has driven them to become politically engaged as voters and politically knowledgeable. Their policy preferences are very distinct, with negative views toward health care reform, specifically, distinguishing them from Republicans.
    Tea Party Demographics

    The large national sample of self-identified Tea Party members available in the Blair-Rockefeller Poll reveals detailed characteristics of this burgeoning and homogenous movement. 91.4% of Tea Party members are White, and 85% are Christian. 37.4% of Tea Party members believe that “the Bible is the actual Word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word,” as compared to 29.7 % of Non-Tea Party members (Figure 1).

    And when asked how often they attend church services, Tea Party members are more likely to attend church MORE than once a week. There is a distinct gender gap within the party with 57.8% of Tea Party members being male, while 42.2% are female. Almost two-thirds (63.2%) or Tea Party members are over the age of 45.

    Nearly half of Tea Party members (49.9%) are middle class, with an annual household income of 40 to 100K, another 13.9% make over 100K. Tea Party members are less likely to fall below the poverty level than Non-Tea Party members. The majority (65.3%) of Tea Party members have some college training, with 27.5 % having earned a Bachelor’s Degree or higher (Figure 2)….

    Notice that the Tea Party are well educated and politically knowledgeable. Also notice the Christian bashing in the report. But the real lies come in the way the questions are worded:

    TABLE 2. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TEA PARTY WHITES & NON-TEA PARTY WHITES NATIONWIDE
    Question (Answer) Tea Party Whites Non-Tea Party Whites

    Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that minorities have job equality with Whites, even if it means you will have to pay more taxes? (not the responsibility of the federal government) 84.5% 66.9%
    Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that minorities have schools equal in quality to Whites, even if it means you have to pay more taxes? (not the responsibility of the federal government) 69.3% 46.2%
    Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that minorities have housing equal in quality to Whites, even if it means you have to pay more taxes? (not the responsibility of the federal government) 83.0% 63.4%
    Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that minorities have health care services equal to Whites, even if it means you have to pay more taxes? (not the responsibility of the federal government) 81.4% 53.2%
    Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: We have gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country? (strongly agree or agree) 62.8% 39.4%
    Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
    Our society [read government – G.C.] should do whatever is necessary to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. (strongly disagree or disagree) 30.7% 12.3%
    Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President? (strongly disapprove) 69.3% 19.0%
    Thinking about Barack Obama’s religious beliefs… Do you happen to know what Barack Obama’s religion is? (Christian) 31.5% 49.4%
    Thinking about Barack Obama’s religious beliefs… Do you happen to know what Barack Obama’s religion is? (Muslim) 38.8% 16.7%
    Number of observations = 2469
    Source: 2010 Blair-Rockefeller Poll

    TABLE 3. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TEA PARTY REPUBLICANS & NON-TEA PARTY REPUBLICANS NATIONWIDE

    Question (Answer) Tea Party Republicans Non-Tea Party Republicans
    Do you favor or oppose increasing taxes to reduce the budget deficit? (strongly oppose or oppose) 88.8% 74.2%
    Do you favor or oppose allowing homosexual couples to legally adopt children? (strongly oppose or oppose) 71.8% 53.7%
    Do you favor or oppose allowing homosexual couples to legally marry? (strongly oppose or oppose) 79.9% 62.6%
    Do you favor or oppose enacting tougher immigration laws like the one in Arizona? (strongly favor or favor) 92.8% 77.6%
    Do you favor or oppose employers and colleges making an extra effort to find and recruit qualified minorities? (strongly oppose or oppose) 56.5% 43.3%
    To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The economic stimulus plan is helping the country as a whole. (strongly disagree or agree) 91.5% 66.6%
    In general how do you feel about the recent approach to health care reform?* (strongly oppose) 77.0% 42.5%
    To what extent are you concerned that the recently proposed health care reforms may lead to health care rationing?* (very concerned) 81.3% 37.4%
    To what extent are you concerned that the recently proposed health care reforms may lead to Euthanasia (“mercy killing”) of elderly Americans?* (very concerned) 68.9% 32.0%
    To what extent are you concerned that the recently proposed health care reforms may lead to benefits to people who do not work hard enough to deserve them?* (very concerned)
    54.8% 31.4%
    Number of observations = 1202

    ….Toward 2012

    Though the Tea Party only constitutes 10.6% of the population, they will remain a significant subset of the Republican Party if they maintain such high levels of voter turnout and political sophistication. They are demographically homogenous, as are their policy preferences. Their unification extends beyond fiscal conservatism and concern for the American debt. Tea Party members are social conservatives, and they are particularly united in their opposition to President Obama. Their extreme racial views will make them less appealing to American Independents and centrists.….

    So Angie Maxwell an Assistant Professor comes up with the ‘conclusion’ that the Tea party has “extreme racial views “ based on asking leading questions starting with Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure…. and also asking Christians their views on homosexual couples and illegal immigration. Given the questions the results are known. The MSM does not look at the actual questions and just reports the Tea Party has “extreme racial views “ when the actual fact is they are against GOVERNMENT interference and race has nothing to do with their views. The Constitution and their religion determines their views not racism.

    Now Rassmussen reports that the Tea Party label is Toxic.

    • gator69 says:

      The Tea Party movement was a real threat to the control freaks. The Tea Party was pulling Democrats and Independents away from the statists, so they had to be stopped.

      The problem WE THE PEOPLE are having is how the questions are framed. Take for instance “gay marriage”. Marriage is a religious “rite” and should not be a “right” of citizenship. If couples want spousal rights and certain tax incentives, have the government issue “civil unions”, and write the laws to reflect this state document. The government has no “right” to tell churches that they must change their beliefs and desecrate sacred “rites”. But the statists want to control everything and everybody, so they divide WE THE PEOPLE to meet that goal.

      There are simple solutions to these issues. It starts with minding your own business, and not trying to run or ruin the lives of others.

      • rah says:

        The Tea Party isn’t dead yet. See bill boards they have obviously sponsored all the time while on the road. I have a Don’t Tread on Me flag flying under my Stars & Stripes on my 30′ flag pole.

        • gator69 says:

          I Fly two American Flags, the Stars and Stripes and the Gadsden. I have had a Gadsden flag on my truck before the Tea Party was even an idea. I had one in my bedroom as a kid, and have never been without one that I can recall.

          The Gadsden Flag can be flown at the same height as the Stars and Stripes, as it is an official American flag.

        • rah says:

          The night of the last Presidential Election I went to sleep in the truck sleeper at the Pilot Truck stop in Waco, TX. off of I-35. Next morning when I heard the results I went in and got my coffee and took off headed home. Didn’t take phone calls. Didn’t eat a thing. And didn’t stop until nearly 700 mi and 11 hours later when I got to the Flying J truck stop at Charleston, MO off of I-57 where I intended to take my 10 hour break and get something to eat.

          I went into the Huddle House restaurant at the truck stop and ordered a chocolate milk to drink as I looked over the menu. The girls working there were obviously exuberant over the election results and it just turned my stomach. I got up and went to the counter to pay for my milk and there was another trucker there. CNN was on the TV over that counter going on and on about the election. The other trucker, his eyes moist, just looked and me and shook his head and said “unbelievable”!

          I knew I wouldn’t be able to sleep and so I took off to drive the remaining 5 1/2 hours home. To hell with the log book. That day I just didn’t give a damn. When I got home I took the Stars and Stripes down. My flag pole remained bare for a couple months. Then my wife asked me about it and when I explained why she said “Honey, that just isn’t you”! So I ordered the the Don’t Tread on Me flag and when it came the stars and stripes and it went up together and have remained flying, lighted at night, ever since.

          Come Memorial Day, The 4th of July, Flag Day, and Veterans day I’ll break out my 6′ x10′ Stars & Stripes and fly it over the Gadsden.

      • rah says:

        gator69 says:The Gadsden Flag can be flown at the same height as the Stars and Stripes, as it is an official American flag.
        ————————————————————————————————————
        And yet Obama denied the US Navy SEALS the right to use it!

        • gator69 says:

          Stastists, especially on the left, hate any and all reminders of the principles of our founding.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gadsden Flag History

          By 1775, the snake symbol wasn’t just being printed in newspapers. It was appearing all over the colonies: on uniform buttons, on paper money, and of course, on banners and flags….

          In October [1775], a merchant ship called The Black Prince returned to Philadelphia from a voyage to England. On board were private letters to the Second Continental Congress that informed them that the British government was sending two ships to America loaded with arms and gunpowder for the British troops.

          Congress decided that General Washington needed those arms more than the British. A plan was hatched to capture the cargo ships…..

          To accompany the Navy on their first mission, Congress also authorized the mustering of five companies of Marines. The Alfred and its sailors and marines went on to achieve some of the most notable victories of the American Revolution. But that’s not the story we’re interested in here.

          What’s particularly interesting for us is that some of the Marines that enlisted that month in Philadelphia were carrying drums painted yellow, emblazoned with a fierce rattlesnake, coiled and ready to strike, with thirteen rattles, and sporting the motto “Don’t Tread on Me.”….

          The US Navy and Marines used the Gadsden symbol when fighting for freedom from British rule in 1775. They have the HISTORIC RIGHT to continue using that symbol — Obama has his head wedged!

      • rah says:

        Hey Gator.

        You said: “The Gadsden Flag can be flown at the same height as the Stars and Stripes, as it is an official American flag.”

        I have always kinda paid close attention to the US Code and military regulations governing the display and traditions of the flag. You damned well better know that stuff when you go before a military promotion board. And I can’t find where it says the Gadsden flag can be flown as the national standard anywhere in the code. Can you help me out here? Scroll down at the link provided and you’ll find Title 36 Section 10 of the US code which governs the usage and display of the flag. http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html#36

        • gator69 says:

          175 – c: No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America…

          The Gadsden Flag is considered to be a flag of the United States of America. It has always been one of our flags, the Stars and Stripes is another.

  18. rah says:

    I have read in some histories that the idea for that flag came from a painting on the drum of one of the first two Companies of Marines formed that Benjamin Franklin happened to see early on in the revolution. He thought the rattlesnake was a perfect symbol for the colonials. But the actual history goes back further than that: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/the-rattlesnake-as-a-symbol-of-america-by-benjamin-franklin.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s