The Rabid Conservative

Don’t get me wrong and don’t start tazing me until you read what I say here – wondering how many people have come to the realization already ahead of me.  Whatever if they do – I’m writing it anyway, in my own unique idiom.

Or I’ll just blame it on my antiquated computer.  Seems to be the going excuse this week.

• Action: Obama goes to Copenhagen to pitch for the Chicago bid for the Games.  Outcome: Chicago gets eliminated handily in the first round.  Obama Fail Score – 1
• Action: Obama gets on the stump for the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races.  Outcome: Seats held by Democrats flip to the GOP.  Obama Fail Score – 3  (one for each)
• Action: Obama goes back to Copenhagen to vehemently speak for unity on Climate Change.  Outcome: The so-called Copenhagen Accords fall dismally short of desired goals.  China stonewalls the talks, makes Obama look like a jerk, the US like idiots, and the greens lap it up as more anti-American fodder.  Obama Fail Score – 5 (that gaffe was so bad, it made Baghdad Bob look credible)

So now, the next big PR flop-portunity comes to bear – the Massachusetts senatorial special election and while Scott Brown has already urged Obama to stay away from the Bay State, it would seem that Obama has actually learned something – if you don’t want to come away with egg on your face, yet again, do yourself and your party candidate a favor – don’t show up.  He hasn’t showed up in Massachusetts.

He’s still too busy with all of those closed-room debates on the health deform bill, which were supposed to be broadcast on C-SPAN.  Obama Fail Score – 6 (or is it 13, since he promised it, what, eight times?)

Either way, with more than 50% of Americans ready to chuck an egg at the Amateur-in-Chief, it would seem he’s learnt a little something.   But I can’t wait for him to go back into campaign mode later this summer.  I still have six eggs in this carton yet to toss.

So, in the week of a very underreported story with regards to the climate change, farcical, summit-y thing going on in Copen-HAH!-gen, with the half-dressed protesters outside parading in the snow and complaining that the earth is too hot, President Obama arrived to try and convince the world, through his metro-sexual machismo that we’re all going to die of heat stroke.  Despite the rising populations of polar bears who have a very different take about their habitat going away, deceptive pictures of large power plant exhaust stacks burping out ginormous amounts of the greenhouse gas that we call “steam”, and Al Gore’s personal testimony to liberal hypocrisy by reading a piece of literary rubbish, barely fit to be called art (unless we talk about art as something that can be drawn or somehow applied to toilet paper, while living it up from the only “carbon-neutral” which has a carbon footprint visible from space, the rest of the nations of the world are buying the concept of man-made global warming as little more important than the tale of wolf, cried out by a shepherd boy. 

So, as Obama celebrates a so-called win by urging China to give up on its emission inspection sovereignty, the rest of the summit goers are packing up this circus and heading for home, calling the “Copenhagen Accords” a dismal failure.  And with the same look in his face that he had when he picked up his soapbox and left Copenhagen the last time, after an epic fail to convince the IOC of bringing the 2016 games to Chicago, Obama’s attempt to strong-arm the Chinese into agreeing with him has had less than optimal results (if you are a global warming kool-aid drinker). 

The thing here is, do we honestly expect the Chi-Coms to play fair and nice regarding any treaty that could affect their economic windfall?  After all, they continually cheat in the marketplace through the Chinese government subsidizing any tariffs placed on them by import nations, continue to devalue their currency, use slave labor, and pollute without any regard – why should they consider any policy that will undermine what they have going – a delicate balance of economy even more elusive than Tiger Woods’ love dodecagon (or is it a tetradecagon now?)

So as Alaska reports record snows and weather patterns in Washington D.C. threaten to layover an already cranky, health-care weary Congress beneath a ton of flurry white, uh, global warming, the world begins to wonder just exactly what this climate change stuff is all about and whether they can actually control the world’s temperature to the arbitrary 2°C ceiling.  And as the world ponders this, we, once again, see that the celebrations coming from ObamAd, Inc not in direct alignment with reality.  We, on the other hand, sit on this side, laughing at the buffoons who can’t seem to prevent a summit on an imaginary problem any less farcical than a skit on Saturday Night Live (perhaps they should fly Stuart Smalley in). 

Oh, and by the way, Mr. President, we’re keeping score over here too.  And right now, you got another big, fat, zero in your column.  In other words, Obama – 0, Copenhagen – 2…brother.

I’ve made up my mind; don’t confuse me with the facts. – Unknown

Recently, I became aware of a project that analyzes the US Historical Climatological Network and the Global Historical Climatological Network, taking a physical site survey of all the monitoring stations out there that track temperature trends over the course of years.  The USHCN has about 1200 of them out there, which the GHCN has about 30-ish.

The survey found that nearly nine out of ten of these stations were positioned in such a way where there temperature data could be corrupted by things like radiating or reflecting heat from buildings, exhausts or other shadow producing objects.  As a matter of fact, government regulation that manages these sensors require their placement where they could not be biased.

Many of these sensors were put in place and later, their surroundings encroached upon by development.  These encroachments and biases for the sensors, under the control of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), are generally undocumented.  But the biggest problem here is that the sensors are being relied upon by NCDC and GISS to report on rises in global temperature, part of the body of evidence used to advance the case for global warming and climate change.

Simply put, government climate scientists are relying on data from sensors that are being biased by things like air conditioner exhausts, parked vehicles nearby, and radiating heat from stone and brick walls.  Maybe they are unaware of this, but the study at Surface Stations.org represents a serious problem with provided data.  Commentator Anthony Watts put up this website which is using a grassroots effort to catalog and photograph all the monitoring stations through photographic survey – putting them into a database.

But it would seem that Watts’ research is being largely ignored, with climate change people calling him a crock. 

Sound familiar?

Recently, we were all made aware of scientists in the climatology world who knowingly tried to tamper with data in order to present supportive evidence for man-made climate change, rather than actually reviewing that the data shows a falloff as of late.   But rather than come clean on the data and, more importantly, their reasoning for wanting to tamper with the data, the guy at the center of this, University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit director Phil Jones is stepping down.   Penn State professor Michael Mann is also under the microscope.   Investigators are looking into the matter, but it seems to me that Jones and Mann will get flushed so as to turn the spotlight away from one of the biggest hoaxes in the last 20 years.

And then, there is the unfair handling of evolution scientists in the entire Intelligent Design debate.  These scientists ignore the body of creation-based science, because it requires the involvement of a supernatural God.  While God goes unmentioned in much of the creation-based evidence, the evolutionist argument outright dismisses anything coming from I.D. simply because it involves God. 

And I always thought the purpose of science was to observe and record everything, not just the things that were convenient for the ones recording the results.  But as of late, that is suspect.

My post though isn’t necessarily to beat up on the global warming alarmists, yet again, since I’ve already done that on a few occasions.  My point here today is to make note that there seems to be something very wrong with the scientific community today.  It seems that the body of minds that we’re counting on to provide us insight to what the truth is, win, lose, or draw, is being affected (and subsequently polluted) by people who are concerned by agenda.

We saw this before, all throughout history.  Perhaps the most poignant example that comes to my mind is when the Church (and then the public) ostracized Galileo when he noted that earth was round and not in the center of the known universe.   It’s one of lifes great ironies that Galileo was a man of very deep faith who believed that the mysteries of nature can never contradict with the Holy Writ (scripture) and yet was persecuted by the Inquisition and confined to house arrest; his only crime: being a scientist that was true to his conviction of the truth.  (oh and calling Urban VIII a "thick-headed" man)

I wonder how Galileo would accept how humans have taken to science.  Perhaps in the same way as Cardinal Bellarmine and Pope Urban VIII received his views.  The saddest thing is that it took over 150 years after Galileo died before the Church was forced to conclude he was right and then nearly 350 years before he would get anything close to an apology from the Church.

Not like anyone is really apologizing for having an science-interfering opinion these days.