Thursday, October 29, 2009

NY-23: Doug Hoffman Surging According to Leftist Poll

So much for Newt Gingrich's prediction that Hoffman can't win and only Scozzafava has a chance. According to a new poll out by the Daily Kooks blog Bill Owens is at 33% Hoffman at 32% and Scozzafava at a mere 21%.

Now I never understood how such a far left partisan organization has suddenly become a legitimate polling outfit. However, this poll does indicate two things. 1, If Hoffman is only down 1% by a liberal biased poll (they always show the Dems over performing) then in reality he is either ahead or very much in the game. The extremists at are sending out desperate emails that liberals need to stop the "Sarah Palin wing of the party" from gaining power. Notice how they are not concerned about the Gingrich wing of the party. 2, Scozzafava is the one who is the third party spoiler, not Hoffman. Both Owens and Scozzafava have lost ground since the last Kos poll, while Hoffman has surged. This is why the Democrats are now targeting Hoffman and ignoring Scozzafava. If she would drop out and Support Hoffman then there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Hoffman would win easily.

At this point it is clear that the motives of the RNC, NRCC, and Gingrich have nothing to do with holding a seat. They are actually the only obstacle to winning the seat. In fact, their only motive to keep spending money on this race is to make sure that Hoffman loses to Owens. This way they can blame the whole debacle on conservatives while sending a message that conservatives are not welcome in any future campaigns. Keep in mind that there is another special congressional election in California where there is a strong candidate, David Harmer who is supported by everyone in the GOP. He is very close to pulling off an upset in this Democrat leaning district. However, without more substantial backing he will probably come up slightly short. The NRCC is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to lose in election in New York while they can be using that money to win an election in California. They are truly contemptible. Not one more cent for the NRCC or RNC. We must only donate directly to conservative candidates.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Chris Daggett's Running Mate Frank Esposito Voted For Obama

While most people outside of New Jersey haven't given much thought to the Lt. Gov. candidates, it might be worthwhile to set the record straight. After all, due to a law passed by the New Jersey legislature in 2005 this will be the first year that the office of Lt. Governor will exist in this state. We already pointed out that Sierra Club endorsed, sales tax increase, Chris Daggett is spoiling the election for Chris Christie by claiming he will be more fiscally conservative. Well, it seems that his running mate Frank Esposito voted for Obama last year.

So let me get this right. Conservatives who are disenchanted with some of Christie's views are supposed to vote for someone who voted for Obama? The only purpose of Daggett's candidacy is to reelect Corzine.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Chris Daggett is a Liberal Environmental Wacko

New Jersey voters don't be fooled. It is pretty clear that without Chris Daggett on the ballot, Chris Christie would be the next governor. Jon Corzine has never polled above 42% even in the best poll results. Chris Daggett is the only person who could keep Corzine in office at this point. He is trying to hand the election to Corzine. Although it is quite clear that Christie is not a red meat conservative, he is our best option and is infinitely better than Corzine. Liberal publications and the Republican establishment are trying to label Daggett as an insurgent conservative challenger similar to Doug Hoffman in New York. We have already proven how preposterous that claim is on every level. Daggett is no Doug Hoffman.

If you take a look at Daggett's website, you will discover his unequivocal validation of the extreme left wing hoax of Anthropogenic Global Warming. While there is no doubt that Christie is less than perfect on environmental issues, what he espouses on his website is less liberal that Daggett's platform. Even if we were to make a decision to lose an election for ideological purity lets lose it on a conservative. Daggett is more pro global warming legislation, pro abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research than the moderate Christie.

Daggett's website is full of liberal fallacies about fossil fuels and global warming. This is perhaps the most important issue for conservatives. He even uses the Obama Marxist dogma of "creating green jobs". Energy in general and oil, coal, refineries (which are important to New Jersey), and nuclear power in specific are the lifeline of our economy. Any limitation on them is a direct and profound blow to our prosperity and liberty. There is no issue that is used to retard our economy and infringe on our choices in life more than the global warming hoax. Anyone who buys into it to the extent that Dagget goes is a liberal. Chris Daggett is nothing bought a front for the Democrats.

The bottom line is that there are definitely some concerns about Christie's commitment to conservative issues. However, there is no way that such concern can sincerely come from a Sierra Club endorsed, super liberal former NJ EPA head, pro gun control leftist. The only motivation of such a candidate is to elect Jon Corzine so he can implement more of Daggett's radical economy destroying environmental agenda.

Doug Hoffman Vs Chris Daggett

As Doug Hoffman continues to surge in the NY-23 congressional race, the liberal establishment Republicans are continuing to peddle disingenuous defenses of their support for ACORN Republican Dede Scozzafava. The clowns at the NRCC are now comparing Doug Hoffman's candidacy to Chris Daggett's spoiler run for governor in New Jersey, which might cost Republican Chris Christie the election. They claim that just as conservatives are playing spoiler for Christie by running on ideological purism versus electoral realism, they are similarly deluding themselves in supporting Hoffman over Scozzafava. This argument is so preposterous and is false on every premise. Lets look at the facts:

1. There already has been a primary in New Jersey and Christie won it handily. Conservatives tried to win with Steve Lonegan and were unsuccessful. Frankly, I liked Lonegan and would have voted for him, but Christie won an election of Republican voters. If Daggett has such a big mouth and really represents conservatives he could have run in the primary. NY-23 was a different story. Being that this is a special election, there was no primary and the people never had a say in choosing their nominee. Scozzafava was picked by a few local party bosses with absolutely no transparency. This is what we are protesting with the Hoffman candidacy.

2. When choosing whether to run a conservative challenger against the "mainstream" establishment Republican candidate, it is very important to consider the demographics of the given electorate. New Jersey is a very Democrat state with a strong inertia against electing Republicans to statewide offices. NY-23 is a Republican district (not the most conservative, but definitely more Republican) and has elected a Republican to congress every time since the Civil War. While some might argue that it is less likely to succeed in electing a real conservative to statewide office in New Jersey, it is a natural fit for NY-23. In fact, if Scozzafava would just drop out Hoffman would crush the Democrat.

Furthermore, there is no way that we can succeed in New Jersey with a significant percentage of the Republican vote splitting two ways, but we can still win in NY-23 even with a split vote. Again, if the radical leftist Scozzafava would just drop out then we would definitely win. As for their claim that Hoffman cannot win, well there is a new poll out that actually has Hoffman leading everyone.

3. There is another egregious fallacy to the premise of this argument. The RNC is claiming that Scozzafava is like Christie while Hoffman is like Daggett. This cannot be farther from the truth. Scozzafava is not just a RINO. She is a Nancy Pelosi radical leftist who is supported by ACORN and the Daily Kooks blog. In fact, there is no assurance that she would even caucus with the Republicans. It is clear that with her super liberal record, there is no doubt that the Democrats would offer her incentives to be a powerful Congressman in the majority than a no name official in the minority. Christie on the other hand is about as conservative a candidate that we can get elected in New Jersey at this point. There are definitely flaws with Christie but at least he is against tax increases and is pro life. Despite his many flaws he is no Scozzafava. Christie might be a moderate but Scozzafava is a Pelosi/Obama Marxist. Also, we had a crack at it in the primary but unfortunately came up short.

Now let's take a look at the other side of the equation. Chris Daggett is no Doug Hoffman. Hoffman is one of us. A true tea party leader, movement conservative, army veteran, businessman, and across the board rock solid conservative patriot. It is scandalous to compare Daggett to Hoffman. Daggett is an absolute social liberal, being pro abortion, pro embryonic stem cell research, and pro gay marriage.
Daggett is more like an Independent than a conservative. Even on other issues where he might claim to be conservative, he will never be a movement conservative. Anyway, I never trust someone who is so liberal on social issues to be so conservative on fiscal issues. I've seen that trick pulled off too many times with local candidates. So please. If I am going to play spoiler and vote for someone who will cause the Republican to lose let that guy be a real conservative like Doug Hoffman. It is also important to point out that New Jersey is an incumbent election. Therefore, Daggett is not only splitting the Republican/Conservative vote, but also the anti-incumbent vote as well.

Update: Public Policy Polling (a Democrat polling outlet) is now reporting that Daggett is siphoning off more votes from Corzine than Christie. This just goes to show that Daggett is more of a third way type of candidate than a conservative. So much for the NRCC drivel.

We need to push back against these liberal Republicans. They are worse than the Democrats because they are preventing us from using the only viable political vehicle we have to succeed. The Democrats can't effect our primaries and internal affairs. RINO's can. Let's help Doug Hoffman defeat all these liberals in one shot.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Most American Deny the Global Warming Myth

Well, Well, Well

Despite the full usage of all information dissemination venues, from media and entertainment to education and corporations working full time to convince people of the biggest lie of all time, most people don't buy it. According to a new poll by the liberal Pew Research center only about a third of Americans believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Read the full report here.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Conservative Senate Candidates Polling Strong

There is a new Rasmussen poll out today with very striking data. It polls hypothetical general election match ups between Democrat Senatorial candidate Kendrick Meek vs Republican Marco Rubio or Charlie Crist. The results are as follows:

Charlie Crist- 46%

Kendrick Meek-34%

Marco Rubio-46%

Kendrick Meek-31%

These results are profound and striking for one simple reason. In light of the current conflict with the RINO GOP establishment in the special election of NY-CD-23, these results must be disseminated to debunk a common misconception. There is a narrative that has been promulgated by the RINO cesspool that the more liberal the Republican candidate, the better chance we will have in the general election. This Florida poll totally disproves this fallacy. Think of it this way. If Rubio is able to poll better than the “supper star”, 100% voter ID, popular, incumbent Gov. Charlie Crist, then there are few places in which a moderate will definitely be more electable. Certainly, in NY-23 where we have a radical leftist who is virtually unknown to most voters and is unhinged, the conservative stands a better chance of winning. The fact of the matter is that if Scozzafava would drop out, Doug Hoffman would crush the Dem.

Update: Nevada Senate Election

There is a new poll out in the Nevada Senate race polling a hypothetical match up with Dingy Harry and Sue Lowden or Danny Tarkanian. The results are:

Tarkanian- 46%
Reid- 41%

Lowden- 47%

Now I am not accusing Lowden of being a RINO in the likes of Scozzafava or Crist. However, it is clear that Lowden is the more establishment candidate who might be conservative on some issues but will not be down for the struggle as a movement conservative. Tarkanian on the other hand, is a tea party activist and passionate conservative. The numbers say it all. Tarkanian, who has never been elected to public office before is polling just as strong as the state Republican Chairman.

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Global Warming Is a Hoax

Editors note: This commentary was submitted as a college research paper as a response to a debate concerning the theory of anthropogenic global warming

A Man Made Hoax

Chilling the Hot Air of Global Warming

When I was a young boy I used to debate my little brother over a wide array of issues ranging from food to sports. After a while I became really frustrated at his constant changing views. He was a moving target, impossible to debate. He seemed to contradict himself every day. It was even more frustrating that whenever I would categorically annihilate his premise he would proceed to cover his ears and shout me down. He would repeat his obsession over and over again and tie everything into his newfound obsession.

Eventually, I realized that there was something deeper occurring. My little brother didn’t care about those issues too much after all. He was simply seeking attention, but I was too young and naive to decipher his intentions. Today I see the same behavior exhibited in public policy debates. Nowhere are these Sophomoric debating “techniques” more prominent than in the debate (or stifling of debate) over the ability of humans to influence the climate.

I am appreciative of the opportunity our professor has granted us in debating this issue. However, I have a problem with the premise of the question. The question is predicated on the assumption that human beings are incontrovertibly warming the globe. The only uncertainty is, should we destroy free enterprise, capitalism, productivity, increased prosperity, and liberty and replace it for socialism and a new world order? Or should we all die from the coming Armageddon? I vote for the third option. The climate has constantly cooled and warmed for millions of years before industrialization and has more to do with sunspots and other natural phenomenon as we will discuss further.1, 2

Before I present my argument I would like to point out observations about the other side of the debate. These observations in themselves serve to contradict the forces of the global warming industry as much as the exculpatory evidence to human culpability. Just as my little brother would modify his position to better reflect the evidence which was contrary to his original opinion, so do the forces of the “global warming movement”. I’m only 24 years old, but I have seen in my lifetime the term of “global warming” being modified to “climate change”. Is this presumably due to the direct repudiation from the recent cooling trend? 3 After all, a theory built solely upon anecdotal evidence of warmer years (in the northern hemisphere) will only last as long as the warming years persist.

Inasmuch as the warming has leveled out since 1998 and seems to have given way to a cooling trend, the term global warming has become a liability.4 Therefore the climate alarmists cover their bases by calling it climate change. This broader term includes any cooling, warming, drought, flood, excess of hurricanes, or plethora of storms which can all be attributed to human involvement. What bothers me is why these alarmists are so vociferous about their theory to the extent that they are willing to take it on faith? In their minds there is but one culprit irrespective of opposing anecdotal evidence. If there is a warming trend it is due to man-made global warming and if there is a cooling trend, well…it’s also the fault of man-made global warming. A UK group researched and compiled a list of 598 “catastrophes blamed on global warming. 5 Many of them are so self contradictory and humorous that it is hard to comprehend how these people can be taken serious. They range from brain size shrinkage to turtle feminization in Costa Rica to deformed railroad tracks. Today, some of the climate change peddlers will admit that we are indeed in a period of cooling, but have no fear they portend, the warming will return in 15 or twenty years. 6

It's also important to understand why there is such a concerted effort to expunge all exculpatory evidence to human cause of climate change. Why is there a concerted effort to censor all scientists and climatologists who disagree with that theory? 7 Recently, a former EPA employee blew the whistle on the government agency for suppressing an internal report that was skeptical of man-made global warming. 8 This report would have been a vital counter to the information fueling Congress to enact Cap and Trade legislation. This is a piece of legislation that would limit our rights like no other bill. It will potentially cost each household thousands of dollars per year. 9

There is more censorship in the news just this week. Later this month, “Not Evil Just Wrong,” a documentary which is skeptical of global warming is set for its international premiere. In this film there is a video clip of an interview with Stanford University Professor. Stephen Schneider, a prominent global warming alarmist. The interview contains embarrassing clips of Schneider concerning his strong warning of global cooling in the 1970’s. Instead of helping to disseminate this documentary as widely as Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” was propagated in colleges, Stanford University is prohibiting the use of any content that was filmed on campus. 41

There is even more dishonesty emanating from the global warming camp. In light of recent anecdotal evidence disproving the past anecdotal evidence (for the millionth time in our history) many of the pro intervention scientists have retracted their previous theories. 10 These scientists are immediately shunned and thrown off the Marxist plantation. 7

A year after the devastating hurricane season of 2005, Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center declared that he was open to opposing views about the cause of the violent storms. Mayfield was widely regarded as the hurricane hero for nailing the 2005 hurricane predictions. After these comments, there was a firestorm from environmental groups for Mayfield to resign. 32 (Epilogue: 4 year later, he was proven correct because the hurricane seasons have been extremely docile despite “global warming”. Then again, they might be correct because after all, fewer hurricanes prove global warming as well.) Al Gore’s chief climate partisan advisor, James Hansen, went as far to say, “Some of this noise won’t stop until some of these scientists are dead”. 31 If there is a consensus, then why the censorship?

Another age old trick of the global warming crowd is to have the media widely disseminate consensus from supposed climate “experts”. There has been a much touted letter circulated by the environmental group Ozone Action which offers the names of 2,600 alleged climate experts confirming man-made global warming to be fact. Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) carried out an analysis of those names and concluded that 90% of these “scientists” are not qualified to be called experts on climate issues. While there were landscapers, gynecologists, hotel owners, and linguists on the list, there was only one climatologist. 30

There is another incredible historical fact that is marvelously lost upon those who buy into this global warming business. Back in the 1970’s major newspapers warned about (you guessed it) global cooling and the coming of the next Ice Age!! A 1975 New York Times article predicted a major cooling period to be “inevitable”. 11 They are now at the forefront of the warming hysteria. Time Magazine placed a headline “Another Ice Age?” on the cover of a 1974 edition. 12 How is it that the very same crowd who warned of the peril of global cooling should now be taken on faith about our cause of global warming? I guess that is why they have altered the terminology to climate change.

Regardless of the alleged problem, why is it that the proposed solution is always more government, more regulation, less productivity, and less freedom? We can’t even choose our toilets, showerheads, bags, and light bulbs for goodness sakes! Their solution is never more capitalism and individual liberty. After all, if you take their argument to its logical conclusion, we should increase productivity during global cooling to forestall the next Ice Age. Why drastically regulate all facets of production, especially the production of oil, coal, and building of oil refineries, while causing every consumer to spend thousands more every year for a theory that is constantly evolving and self contradictory? Also, why do they oppose nuclear power, which is the cleanest efficient power that actually works? 13 If this is about protecting the environment and not about growing government then why not push for nuclear power? There are only a small number of environmental groups that are intellectually honest enough to support nuclear power.

As someone involved in the field of public policy the answer to all these questions is simple. If we were debating about some specific bio-physical aspect of a rare type of caterpillar we could expect a fully objective scientific debate. There would be no politically charged agenda. Unfortunately, in this case we are not simply dealing with a debate over the environment and climate.

It is my assertion that if you look at the source of those who are disseminating climate alarmism many are advocating a socialist agenda. This is true of all the UN international organizations and American politicians who advocate this alarmism. The Americans who push global warming (climate change) are usually associated with either a left wing agenda or with companies that stand to benefit from government regulation. (The government will ostensibly force us to buy products from selected companies. I guess there is capitalism associated with this movement after all!!).

The international organizations, while also extremely left wing, have an additional agenda of weakening the productivity and super power status of the US. This is clear from the fact that there is not nearly as much of a movement against China and India to cap their “carbon emissions”. In fact, such countries don’t even have commonsense anti- pollution controls in place. The UN is only interested in attacking the US and Israel. Amazingly enough, we are giving Brazil money to drill offshore while maintaining a moratorium on our own domestic drilling! 14 Doesn’t fossil fuel burning anywhere in the world effect the climate of the whole globe?? (Then again, the Southern Hemisphere was never warming so maybe they are fine with “polluting” that part of the globe. 21)

The answer is quite simple. These people are not “greenies”. They are watermelons; green on the outside but dark red on the inside. They are pure red with the ultimate agenda of capping our productivity and raising the cost of living, while limiting our individual liberty in the hope of full government control over much of our endeavors. It is no coincidence that Earth Day is celebrated on April 22nd, Vladimir Lenin’s birthday. This is truly what our framers wanted to protect us from in the “pursuit of happiness” clause of the Declaration of Independence.

When it comes to these issues there is always a money trail. Again, there is no money to be made on caterpillar research. There is certainly isn't much grant money available for contesting the global climate change orthodoxy. There is however, a fortune to be made in influencing government to get involved in the energy sector and so much of our economy. The amazing fact about the Brazilian story is that George Soros, the biggest financier of left wing environmental politics, is a huge investor in the Brazilian oil company Petrobras. 15 Can somebody say hypocrisy? By the way, how much was the carbon footprint of Barak and Michelle Obama's Olympic trip?

The fact of the matter is that the earth’s climate has been changing for years. There were massive ice ages long before our contrived carbon footprint. Even this past century has seen periods of warming and cooling every few decades. The first quarter of the century was a cooling period, while the next quarter was a warmer than average period. During the 60’s and 70’s there was such a sustained cooling trend that the media warned of a new Ice Age. 1 In fact, the past few years have actually been a cooler period than usual. From China to Alaska, South America to Australia, there has been record cold during the past few winters. 16 Even America’s northeast, which hasn’t experienced the cooling that other regions have, is expected to have a cold winter this year. 17 New York City has already experienced their coldest June in over 100 years. 18 Despite claims of massive hurricanes being created by global warming, 2009 is turning out to be yet another year with a lackluster hurricane season. Just over a year ago there was a full panic mode over the prediction that the Arctic would not be fully covered with ice this summer. 39 Well, even the New York Times is now reporting the latest National Snow and Ice Data Center finding that Arctic ice has indeed spread over the summer. 40

Meanwhile, the same day that the Commodity Weather Group is predicting the coldest winter in a decade, the liberals are out there with their climate fascism. Noted meteorologists Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. John Kerry just introduced a prelude to a Cap and Trade style legislation in the Senate EPW Committee. 19 They always have perfect timing. The real irony is that they are predicting a shortage in oil needed to heat our homes because of a cold winter. This shortage has been artificially contrived because of the very same leftists who restrict our access to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power in the name of global warming! What a plan of action! They cut off all sources of energy production because it will allegedly warm the globe, thereby freezing us when reality confronts us with a record cold winter.

It’s humorous to watch the global warming activists scramble to explain away the recent cooling trend like Squealer in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. “This is just an anomaly. Have no fear; the warming will come back in 20 years.” Even noted climate scientist Richard Kerr declared in a May 2008 edition of Science Magazine, “Worldwide temperatures haven’t risen much in the past decade…. If you are a climate-change activist pointing to year after year of mounting climate crises, you might want to rethink your approach.” 20

Another astounding fact about the global warming alarmism is that even according to their own calculations it is not global. 38 There is no evidence of a warming phenomenon in the southern hemisphere over the past few decades. 21 In fact, the Antarctic ice caps have been expanding. 22 Thus, by using the same dubious, disingenuous assertion that we can ascertain a widespread pattern of warming in the arctic based on the current models, we can also assume a cooling pattern in the southern hemisphere. I call it disingenuous because “Global temperature” is a contrived concept. All we have are averages from different thermometers. How do we fairly assess the distribution of weather stations and records? From 1989-1992, while the Soviet Union was collapsing, there was very sparse reporting from Siberia which is the coldest part of the northern hemisphere. 33 This was during the heart of the warming period that is alleged to have been averaged into “global temperatures”. Also, there are a disproportionate amount of temperature records from urban areas, which tend to retain heat better than rural areas. Furthermore, many of the older thermometers weren’t as accurate. Thus, if we suddenly deploy better technology and new sensors that are more accurate and comprehensively distributed, (say around the 1990’s) there could automatically be a “heat wave” without any other factors aside for the variation in methodology.

Now, even if we agree with the assumption that there is a warming pattern in the north, how can it be attributed to mankind? The whole assumption of the global warming extremists is that by releasing the dreaded CO2 in one part of the planet, it will cause warming anywhere. So how could there be a neat demarcation between the two hemispheres in regard to alleged temperature trends? Doesn’t this sound more like a solar phenomenon? Or could it be, as Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl theorized, “The evil oil companies must have bribed the troposphere of the southern hemisphere to ignore global warming”. 21

A further amusing refutation of the man made theory came from data shown by NASA’s Mars Surveyor and Odyssey missions in 2005. They revealed increased CO2 levels on parts of the surface of planet Mars together with warming temperatures and melting ice caps. 23 In fact, most of its atmosphere is carbon dioxide as well as its ice caps. Now unless the Martians work for George Soros’s Brazilian Petrobras oil company or they drive SUVs, I don’t see how this can be attributed to man-made carbon footprints. Even more, it disproves the myth that increased carbon in the atmosphere is a cause rather than an effect of a warming period. It also gives credence to the theory that it is based predominantly on cyclical activity of the sun. Indeed just like there have been Ice Ages on Earth long before the SUV and deodorant, there have been receding ice ages on Mars. What didn’t exist until recently was the modern day leftist.

A further preposterous UN report in regard to the cause of “climate change” was widely disseminated in 2006. This 400 page report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN concluded that 18% of CO2 emissions are caused by; you guessed it, cow flatus! 24I admit that I am not a rocket scientist and I never did well in math, but how does that add up? There are thousands upon thousands of acres of heavy industry factories in addition to millions of trucks and SUVs. All of them according to the left causes global warming. Yet, a whopping 1/5 of global warming is caused by cows?? Also, there were probably many more bison in the northern hemisphere before the industrial industry than cows. I could only imagine the percentage of CO2 emissions coming from Mexican food restaurants!

The scandalous thing is that as more exculpatory evidence surfaces, the global warming extremists become even more radicalized and dangerous instead of moderating their views. There has been a long held conviction in the fringe global warming community that we need to implement population controls. This is the ultimate vision of these extremists. Well, President Obama has now appointed one of these extremists as his “Science and Technology Czar”. John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, co-authored a book, “Ecoscience” which proposes the most radical controls on human life. 25, 26 Thus, we now have the most vile extremism at the highest levels of government. People need to wake up and begin to realize that this global warming hoax has a real troubling slippery slope.

It is particularly essential to expose the hypocrisy as well as the associations of those at the top of the political food chain who are peddling this lie. This helps reveal their exact intentions and motives. We are able to determine that indeed they are not concerned of Armageddon. Depending upon the player, it is usually one of three motives: the spread of socialism, seizure of more political power, or what I call crony capitalism. The crony capitalists are those who own or sit on boards (like Al Gore) of companies that stand to benefit from government regulation and prohibition of certain commodities and consumer goods. If they really believed in what they propagate, they would be more judicious in their approach and less contradictory in their behavior.

The bottom line is that there has always been an increase of CO2 levels associated with warming periods long before the industrial revolution. There have been higher levels of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere many years ago. There have also been much longer and more profound warming periods such as the Roman and Medieval warming periods long before the burning of fossil fuels. 2 Even since 1895, when NOAA has kept official temperature records, we have had warming periods in the 30’s. More record high temperatures were set in the 30’s than in the 90’s.

In a stunning development in the summer of 2007, NASA revised their historical data of annual average temperatures. The data is very telling. The 1934 (before much of the modern industrialization) records were revised to show that it was slightly hotter than 1998. 34 Five of the top ten years occurred before 1940. The years 1996, 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004 were actually cooler than average. 35 It is interesting to note that 1934 was at the height of the dustbowl and 1998 was at the height of the El Nino spike. If the profundity of the assumptions fueling the alarmist’s policies is taken to their logical conclusion, we should be breaking every high temperature record and breaking no low temperature records.

The medieval warming period took place between the 11th and 14th centuries and was much warmer than the warming trend of the 1980’s and 1990’s. This was followed by what was known as the “Little Ice Age”, which lasted until the 18th century in the north Atlantic. 27 It is documented that medieval Catholic priests would go out to the fields to pray for warming so the crops would not be destroyed. It’s too bad the liberals weren’t around back then. They could have advised them to breed more cows and the problem would have been solved in a few years. 28 It is a clear understanding of cause and effect and the UN is certainly not helping their case with their indictment of cows. There is already a movement afoot to implement population controls to save the planet. The least we can do is leave the cows alone.

So devastating is the medieval warming period to their cause that David Deming, Professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Geosciences, was told by one alarmist, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. 36 Facts are stubborn things. These scoundrels like comparing us to Holocaust deniers, but they are scheming reality deniers and kings of censorship.

Just as they censor opposing views they attempt to cover up their own research. In the 1980’s, scientists in the UK established the Climatic Research Unit, which was funded by US taxpayers to assemble the first comprehensive historical temperature analysis. Led by Phil Jones, they came out with the infamous “hockey stick” model which claimed to show flat temperatures for 900 years followed by a sharp spike at the end. This study has been the guiding light for global warming hysteria despite its appalling omission of the incontrovertible history of the medieval warming period and Little Ice Age. When politely requested by a noted scientist to disclose his research data, Jones replied, “We have 25 years or so invested in this work why should I make the data available to you, when you’re aiming to try to find something wrong with it?” 37 Did the dog eat Mr. Jones’s homework, or did he get his information from a fortune cookie? It’s amusing to watch the liberals engage in projection, i.e. accusing us of being everything they are. They accuse us of being anti-science while they suppress peer review and transparency which is the gold standard of scientific research.

Based on all of the historical patterns of warming and cooling, it is much more plausible to attribute climate change to a natural phenomenon. Our atmosphere is struck by cosmic rays from deep space which create spots in the atmosphere from which cloud cover can form. When the sun goes through stages of changing patterns in sun spots, there is a net effect on the amount of cloud cover produced. More sun spots cause the earth’s magnetic field to produce a stronger shield, thereby decreasing the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere. This means that there are less “cloud spots” created, which in turn exposes the Earth to more warming by the sun. Just as the liberals can point to graphs and charts of CO2 trends, we can point to varying trends in sunspots. The difference is that their theory relies on factors that didn’t exist during any other warming period, while ours relies on factors that have always existed.

In conclusion, everyone should respect those who disagree with them as long as there is a transparent debate and free exchange of ideas. What should not be tolerated is censorship. Many others here might disagree with my opinion and have an opposing view concerning this topic. That is fine. I am simply trying to present the other side, a side which is all too often suppressed. We hear about global warming (climate change) every day due to the monolithic control of all information dissemination venues such as media, academia, and entertainment. We therefore are seldom presented with the other side. Let’s keep in mind the exculpatory evidence to human causation. Let’s not forgot the political motives and glaring associations that so evidently shape the context and framework of this debate.

Finally, let’s remember one more thing. Last November, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste”. 29 He is referring to the fact that during times of crisis (or artificial crisis), Americans are more willing to surrender their liberties. This provides the statists with unique opportunities to pass radically insidious and controlling legislation that cannot be wasted. America was founded on the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Before we proceed with policies that will threaten those ideals in an unprecedented fashion, let us not censor those who seek to defend them. Let us not accept all that is thrust upon us unconditionally by those who seek to change the climate of our constitutional republic.


  1. Anderson, Warren R. (2006). Fire and Ice. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From Business and Media Institute Website:
  2. Kemm, Kelvin. (2008). Evidence of Sunspot Involvement in Climate Change Compelling. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From Engineering News Website:
  3. Tirrel-Wysocki, David. (2008). Old Farmers Almanac: Global Cooling May be Underway. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From USA Today Website:
  4. Monckton, Christopher. (2009) Global Cooling is Really Global Warming. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From Science @ Public Policy Institute Website:
  5. Brignell, John. (2008). A Complete List of Things Caused by Global Warming. Retrieved Sept. 30, 2009, From Number Watch Website:
  6. Pearce, Fred. (2009).World’s Climate Could Cool First, Warm Later. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From New Scientist Website:
  7. Morano, Marc. (2008). Climate Skeptics Reveal Horror Stories of Scientific Suppression. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From U.S. Senate Committee on Environment @ Public Works Website:
  8. McCullagh, Declan. (2009). EPA May Have Suppressed Skeptical Report of Global Warming. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From CBS News Website:
  9. Scalise, Rep. Steve. (2009). Cap and Trade Will Cost American Families Thousands in New Taxes and Millions of Dollars. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From Townhall News Website:
  10. Morano, Marc. (2007). Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-Made Global Warming –Now Skeptics. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From U.S. Senate Committee on Environment @ Public Works Website:
  11. Sullivan, Walter. (1975). Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead; Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From New York Times Website:
  12. Science: Another Ice Age? (1974). Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From Time Magazine Website:,9171,944914,00.html
  13. Sierra Club Conservation Policies: Nuclear Power. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From Sierra Club Website:
  14. Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling: Too Bad it’s not In US Waters. (2009). Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From Wall Street Journal Website:
  15. Rosen, James. (2009). U.S. Loan to Brazilian Oil Company Riles Conservatives in Favor of Offshore Drilling. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From Fox News Website:
  16. Jacoby, Jeff. (2008). B-R-R-Where Did Global Warming Go? Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From Boston Globe Website:
  17. Zeranski, Todd, @ Schatzker, Erik. U.S. Northeast May Have Coldest Winter in a Decade. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From Bloomberg News Website:
  18. Roberts, Michael, @ Hales, Lacie, @ Goldsmith, Samuel. (2009). Wet June Makes us Seattle on Hudson. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From NYDaily News Website:
  19. Samuelsohn, Darren. Boxer, Kerry Set to Introduce Climate Bill in Senate. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From New York Times Website:
  20. Kerr, Robert. (2008). Mother Nature Cools the Greenhouse. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From Science Magazine Website.
  21. Motl Pilsen, Lubos. (2006). Southern Hemisphere Ignores Global Warming. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From The Reference Frame Blog Website:
  22. Roberts, Gregg. (2009). Antarctic Ice is Growing, not Melting. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From Website:,27574,25348657-401,00.html
  23. Ravilious, Kate. (2007). Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says. Retrieved Sept. 30, 2009, From National Geographic Website:
  24. Livestock Impacts on the Climate. (2006). Retrieved Sept. 29, 2009, From Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Website:
  25. Gore, Martha R. (2009). Obama Science Czar Holds Radical Views on Population Control? Retrieved Sept. 30, 2009, From Baltimore Examiner Website:
  26. Beers, Bob. (2009). Obama’s Population Control Czar. Retrieved Sept. 30, 2009, From Canada Free Press Website:
  27. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age on Southampton Island, Nunavut, Canada. (2009). Retrieved Sept. 30, 2009, From CO2 Website:
  28. Mandia, Scott A. The Little Ice Age in Europe. Retrieved Sept. 30, 2009, From Influence of Dramatic Climate Shifts on European Civilization Website:
  29. Goldberg, Jonah.(2009). Obama’s Fear-Mongering. Retrieved Sept. 30, 2009, From The Los Angeles Times Website:,0,6414638.column
  30. Study Says 'Scientific Consensus' on Global Warming Treaty Is Just Hot Air. (1997). Retrieved Oct. 1, 2009, From Heartland Institute Website:
  31. Roy Britt, Robert. (2006). Anti-Global Warming Noise ‘Won’t Stop Until Some of These Scientists are Dead’. Retrieved Oct. 1, 2009, From Life Science Blog Website:
  32. Sandell, Clayton, @ Marlantez, Liz. (2006). Ignoring Science? Retrieved Oct. 1,2009, From ABC News Website:
  33. Blick, Dr. Edward F. (2007). The Religion of Global Warming II. Retrieved Oct. 1, 2009, From Twin Cities Creation Science Association Website:
  34. McIntyre, Steve. (2007). A leadership at the US Open. Retrieved Oct. 1, 2009, From Climate Website:
  35. Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly. (2007). Retrieved Oct. 1, 2009, From NASA Website:
  36. Deming, David. (2005). Global Warming, the Politicization of Science. Retrieved Oct. 1, 2009, From Science and Environmental Policy Project Website:
  37. Michaels, Patrick J. (2009). The Dog Ate Global Warming. Retrieved Oct. 1, 2009, From National Review Website:
  38. Horn, Art. (2009). Global Warming is Neither. Retrieved Oct. 7, 2009, From Energy Tribune Website:
  39. Blair Delivers Warning on Global Warming. (2008). Retrieved Oct. 7, 2009, From CBS News Website:;currentVideoInfo
  40. Revkin, Andrew C. (2009). Over the Summer, a Spread Of Thicker Arctic Ice. Retrieved Oct. 7, 2009, From New York Times Website:;currentVideoInfo