Friday, February 19, 2010



See Nothing, Hear Nothing, Report Nothing

"Avoid the term 'global warming,'" advises New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. "I prefer the term 'global weirding,' because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes."
Friedman, who proves that anyone can be a climatologist, goes on to explain that with global warming, "The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous. The fact that it has snowed like crazy in Washington -- while it has rained at the Winter Olympics in Canada, while Australia is having a record 13-year drought -- is right in line with what every major study on climate change predicts: The weather will get weird; some areas will get more precipitation than ever; others will become drier than ever."
No matter what happens, blame global warming.
But as Friedman and other dogmatists peddle their propaganda, the case for man-made global warming is collapsing like a weak roof in a Beltway blizzard. In fact, we might call it "man made-up" climate change.
Phil Jones, the former director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and a central figure in the ClimateGate scandal, now admits that for the past 15 years, there has been no "statistically significant" warming. Furthermore, he says the warming trend that began in 1975 is not unlike two previous periods since 1850, and the Medieval Warm Period could have been a global phenomenon similar to the latter three. Yet Jones, who said he has had trouble "keeping track" of information supporting the infamous hockey stick graph, is still a believer in man-made global warming and he calls the last 15 years a blip in a long-term trend.
Meanwhile, John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a former lead author on the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is also questioning his faith. "The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change," he said. Christy's doubts, like those of other researchers, stem from problems with thousands of weather stations used to collect temperature data. Urbanization and changes in land use, equipment relocation and other factors have compromised the data. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming," he said, "but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."
These are truly stunning admissions, coming as they do from "the consensus," and cast grave doubt on what we have long been told is "settled science." For their part, U.S. media outlets have reported exhaustively on these developments... scratch that. No, they haven't. As Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters notes, "Despite the seriousness of these revelations, much as what happened when the ClimateGate scandal first broke, with the exception of Fox News -- and a lone report by CNN -- America's media have almost totally boycotted this amazing story."
Similar revelations regarding data manipulation by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have surfaced with little or no fanfare.
Many of these same media outlets, however, found plenty of time to cover the "news" that Tiger Woods has broken his silence, or the fact that Hollywood director Kevin Smith was kicked off a plane for being too fat. As of Tuesday, CNN had reported it 14 times. Light on substance and, er, heavy on fragrance.
This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award
"[I]t is inappropriate to look at any particular short period of time to discern the long-term trend." --NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, when asked whether she agreed with Phil Jones' assertion that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995
File this one under "Keen Sense of the Obvious." Using short-term observations to make long-term predictions is exactly what the "global warming consensus" crew has been doing for the last 15 years.
Casualties of the Changing Climate
As the case for man-made global warming goes up in smoke, there were more defections from the movement this week. United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer announced his unexpected resignation, effective July 1. True, he took quite a bit of heat for the abject failure of the Copenhagen summit in December, but he probably just wants to spend more time with his family.
Also, The Wall Street Journal reports, "Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won't renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases. The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions."
Businesses aren't the only ones running away from cap-n-tax regulations. Arizona announced that it, too, will suspend its participation in the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, which aims to reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2012. The initiative is spearheaded by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, but Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer says she won't bind her state with any emission-control plan that would raise costs for businesses and consumers.
As Terence Corcoran of Canada's National Post notes, "It's hard to tell right now which part of global warming policy is in the fastest free fall -- the economics, the politics or the science."




He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.


“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

- Leo Rugiens

No comments:

Post a Comment