Global Warming: The Play-Doh theory

The climate change cult are like spoiled children playing with the global warming theory to fit any need

Climate Cult’s Play-doh Theory |Photo Credit Flicker

The scientific philosopher Sir Karl Popper who literally wrote the book on empirical falsification of the scientific method observed:

A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.

Throughout its tortured existence, the global warming theory’s promoters have consistently and on a regular basis sought to disprove this common sense observation. The climate cult never found any situation that does not prove their theory. The global warming theory is as malleable as Play-Doh.

Whenever a previously held “settled science” conclusion is falsified by actual physical events or observation, the cult simply morphs new revelations to fit the theory. This may mean modifying the theory to fit current circumstance, re-calibrating the theory down without re-calibrating the dire hyperbole, or simply embracing current circumstances as being “consistent with” the theory.

When North America descended into winter, weeks prior to its official start date which was just a continuation of the past few years of colder than “normal” conditions earlier than normal, the cult just modified the narrative to fit the inconvenient conditions.

This habit of selective adaptation of the theory is why it is always important to remember what the theory actually called for prior to the modification. In the case of recent colder temperatures earlier than normal we need only go back to  the 2007 IPCC report which plainly defined what “global warming” was going to cause:

Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and milder winters (see Table 3-10).

In the above mentioned table 3-10 the IPCC explained how sure they were of their forecast for warmer winters.

Read my entire article at Broadside News

Global warming and the new robber barons

FROM-BBN

Perhaps the global warming theory’s greatest hypocrisy is using anti-capitalism to turn a profit.

AL Gore| PHOTO CREDIT Britbart News

There is no shortage of hypocrisy tied to the man-made global warming meme in fact the entire “movement” is perhaps the greatest example of hubris ever inflicted on humanity. It is not even necessary to dig into the details of the agenda to see this arrogant stupidity on display, the actors are more than willing to parade their false piety through the streets for the world to marvel at.

The current poster child for the “movement” is the actor Leonardo DiCaprio who appropriately enough is best known for flying the bow of the Titanic. This of course qualifies him to lead a sinking movement as the designated UN’s Messenger of Peace when he is not riding the waves to the World Cup in a yacht owned and paid for by a fossil fuel enriched UAE billionaire.

It is fitting that DiCaprio should live such an hypocritical lifestyle as he seeks to unseat the Godfather of all hypocrisy: the Tipperless Al Gore. Gore, who famously added to his activist-generated millions by selling his profitless TV network to a nation whose sole existence is derived from pumping “bubbly crude” from the sands of the Middle East, was also in attendance at the freak show “people’s” parade on Saturday – well at least until he exited stage far left in his giant gas guzzling SUV.

As the marchers disembarked this weekend from their thousands of chariots of exhaust spewing busses the entire affair was as disconnected from reality as the theory that reportedly spawned it, which in itself is a deception. The “scientific” theory did not create the movement, the movement created the scientific theory. Anti-capitalism not the plant fertilizer carbon dioxide is the precursor to the “man-made” global warming theory

Read entire article  here

The global warming theory is bleeding out

FROM-BBN

Global warming alarmists are running out of sharks to jump and the world can’t help but notice

Daniel’s Woods|Photo Credit JD Brown

When a scientific theory is based upon false conclusions and incorrect assumptions inevitably all that flows from it will stray further and further from reality creating the need for even more outlandish propositions to sustain the initial assumption. History is full of  false or ignorant scientific conclusions leading to disastrous results.

In December of 1799 a relatively healthy George Washington contracted what by today’s standards would be considered a minor case of pneumonia. He and his three attending physicians basically “bled” himself to the point that his weakened condition killed him. None of the learned men including the “Father” of our country believed that they were doing anything but adhering to the “consensus” best practice for treating his illness.

Bloodletting was based on an ancient system of medicine in which blood and other bodily fluid were regarded as “humors” that had to remain in proper balance to maintain health. It is claimed to have been the most common medical practice performed by surgeons from antiquity until the late 19th century, a span of almost 2,000 years

Today we look at practices such as “bleeding” as being akin to witchcraft.

Modern day learned men have reached the conclusion that the Earth’s systems also exist in a delicate balance which must be maintained lest we throw it into irreparable chaos. This is how it is possible for a scientific community to decide that a small amount of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will set the world ablaze with ever more dire consequences.

As their beliefs grows less sustainable due to reality trumping their theory they must grasp at ever more outlandish reasons for the failure of their beliefs. Perhaps the best example of this “grasping at straws” approach to science was recently expressed by  Professor Ted Shepherd of Reading University:

The heat is still coming in, but it appears to have gone into the deep ocean and, frustratingly, we do not have the instruments to measure there. Global warming has certainly not gone away.

Global warming has not stopped, according to Shepherd, it has just gone to a place where conveniently it can not be measured. It is like asking the dealer for the new Ferrari based on money in the bank nobody has access to or can prove is there; and this is science?

The Czech physicist Luboš Motl has an excellent description of where the climate change cult finds itself as their theory crumbles around them.

The people believing in the climate hysteria have become so irrational about so many things that they’re ready to abandon certain beliefs even if they represent the foundations of what they have been previously saying about the essence of the world for many decades! When you think about it, what really matters isn’t whether they are left-wing or right-wing. What matters is that they are obsessed by this particular incoherent network of implausible assertions about the man-made carbon dioxide, the climate, and the hypothetical consequences of tiny changes of the temperature that may occur. The alarmists’ opinions don’t really have to agree with their scientific knowledge; they don’t have to agree with the most general philosophical framework that they used to hold dear. This harmony isn’t necessary because they have switched to the climate hysteria as the new #1 foundation of their belief system. The climate orthodoxy has become as important for them as the Islamic terrorists’ reading of the Quran is for these terrorists. Everything else is secondary.

The multitude of excuses for the pause in global warming which often times contradict the very foundation for the theory itself is proof of what Motl is saying, which is that climate change hysteria is now far more important than the scientific theory itself. I would argue that it always has been.

Read entire article at Brenner Brief

The white man brought climate change to the New World

Melting glaciers in Glacier National Park as a poster child for the claim “white man brought climate change”. But just how old are those glaciers?

Glacier National Park | Photo Credit Wiki Media Commons

Melting glaciers ranks near the top with the polar bears as a symbol used by the climate cult to “prove” global warming, man-made of course. The hyperbole over melting glaciers has gotten the cult in trouble on more than one occasion.

There was Al Gore’s famous assertion in An Inconvenient Truth that the snows of Mt Kilimanjaro were melting which turned out not to be caused by carbon dioxide induced warming but rather a real environmental problemdeforestation around the mountain. Then there was the IPCC claiming in their “authoritative” fourth assessment report (FAR) that the Himalayan Glaciers would be gone by 2035.  A claim that was not only false but showed just how shoddy and unscientific the IPCC and their fellow cult members truly are.

When it comes to the United States and glaciers, there is nothing more iconic than Glacier National Park, so of course the cult and all its minions latch onto the receding glaciers in GNP as “proof” of man-made global warming.

For example a recent USGS “report” on glaciers in Glacier National Park is little more than a propaganda sheet on “global climate change.” However they do make this rather cryptic and unsubstantiated claim:

While the glaciers that carved GNP’s majestic peaks were part of a glaciation that ended about 12,000 years ago, current glaciers are considered geologically new, having formed about ~7,000 thousand years ago. These glaciers grew substantially during the Little Ice Age (LIA) that began around 1400 A.D and reached their maximum size at the end of the LIA around A.D.1850.

Perhaps the most important item of note from the above statement is that there are no citations as to the studies which back up the age of the current glaciers. In the rest of the report there are citations to recent studies which predict the continuing demise of the glaciers, but when it comes to scientific studies about the age of the glaciers, there is nothing. That is alright I have some.

But before we get to that let’s take a second to dissect the above paragraph. The last ice age ended 12,000 years ago yet according to this USGS report the glaciers in Glacier National Park are not from that period, they are, they claim, 7,000 years old. Even if this statement is true there is a serious gap of time there.

Left unstated but obvious, is that for five thousand years, from 10,000 BC until 5,000 B.C. there were no glaciers in Glacier National Park. This is no small matter, although 5000 B.C. is ancient history it is not before humankind. In 5,000 B.C. the Mesopotamians were beginning to actually record history and on a more local note the so-called “native” Americans had migrated over the land bridge from Asia to North America at least 10,000 years before and recent studies show that they may have come some 25,000 years ago.

So our Native American ancestors who populated the region around Glacier National Park must have lived in a climate similar to the one we are warned of in our future. They lived in a time when there were no glaciers in Glacier National Park.  That of course is if the glaciers in Glacier National Park are really 7,000 years old, but are they?

Well perhaps some very tiny bit of the glaciers formed that long ago, even the most recent USGS report notes that “These glaciers grew substantially during the Little Ice Age (LIA) that began around 1400 A.D…” but the USGS is being modest. You see the USGS study on the Glaciers in Glacier National Park is quite extensive,

Let me give you a few excerpts from this study that speaks to the age of the glaciers in Glacier National Park.

Read entire article at Brenner Brief

The AFP finds climate change in underground pipes

Angono Petroglyphs | Photo Credit: www.photobucket.com

When I read the headline "Climate Change threatens 5,000-year-old artwork in the Philippines" on a nAFP  article my first thought was that it must be about sea level rise threatening the ancient artwork which are carvings known as petroglyphs.  As I read the article I quickly realized my first assumption about sea level being the danger was incorrect when I came to this:

The carvings are in mountains about 90 minutes' drive from Manila that only a few decades ago were entirely forested.

Obviously sea level rise was not an immediate concern so I continued reading the article searching for the climate change which was "threatening" the artwork. The article was filled with interesting facts about the carvings including :

 The carvings were first documented by acclaimed Philippine artist Carlos Francisco in 1965 while he was leading a Boy Scout troop on a hike.

I also learned that the carvings were on land owned by a real estate developer who donated the hillside where the carvings are located back to the National Museum, which maintains them.  The article seems to imply a certain disappointment that more land was not set aside for the historic site since "upper-class" homes, a golf course and  a road are nearby but the "underfunded" museum is unable to adequately protect the 127  stone age carvings which are classified as national treasures.

However after reading the entire article I was unable to determine exactly what "climate change" was "threatening" these precious artifacts. Perhaps, I thought, I had missed something so I re-read the article and in order of their appearance here are all the listed dangers to the artwork.

...encroaching urbanisation, vandals and the ravages of nature are growing threats....
...But that has done little to stem the powerful tide of neglect....
...Wind and rain, as well as plant roots creeping through the stone, have also damaged the soft rock where the carvings are etched....
...vandalism is also a constant worry.

People have scrawled their names on the rock and there are slash marks on some carvings that archaeologists have determined were only made recently.

Mining at a nearby gravel pit a few years ago also shook the ancient site...

... new housing developments nearby would mean more underground pipes, which could weaken the hillside.

Nowhere in the article is there a connection between "climate change" in any of its alleged manifestations and the ancient Philippine carvings.

Interesting enough the carvings were put on an endangered list back in 1996 before the "ravages" of climate change were well understood.

The World Monuments Fund, a New York-based private group that works to protect historical sites, placed the Angono Petroglyphs on its list of endangered monuments in 1996 and has provided help in their preservation.

So I went to the World Monument Fund's web site in search of the "climate change" that was responsible for its inclusion on their list. Here is what they have to say about the dangers confronting these world archaeological treasures.

....Almost immediately after they were brought to public attention, the National Museum of the Philippines made several molds of the carvings. Subsequently, the site underwent cleaning and preliminary conservation during the 1980s. By the early 1990s, the Angono Petroglyphs were threatened by regional development pressure. After investigations, the importance of the site was fully recognized and measures were taken to protect the area and the carvings.

Although granted protection from total destruction, there was fear that new road construction and blasting into the hill behind the petroglyphs might have threatened the cave’s stability. The reshaped earth also raised concerns about the increasing threat of water damage to the site. Uncontrolled vegetation and fauna had causes erosion of the petroglyphs over time.

The website goes on to explain the wonderful work that the WMF has done to help protect the site, but nowhere in their history of involvement with ancient carvings as in the AFP story is there anything at all remotely resembling a "climate change" danger to the artwork.

Although this is an extreme example, it has become all too common in the world's media that there need be no true direct link to any real climate event let alone scientific evidence to "pin" climate change on negative occurrences.  If, as in this case, mankind's advancement plays a role in the event then it seems to be almost accepted media practice to just blame "climate change" knowing that an indoctrinated citizenry will translate it all to mean "man-made global warming caused this."

The truth never needs such methods,

The fact that the UN's IPCC uses inaccurate and unproven climate models to promote fear in order to obtain influence for their agendas is reprehensible but to be expected from a corrupt organization such as the UN. But what is truly disturbing and will lead to the collapse of societies if not corrected is that once great institutions, both scientific and political not only do not call out this obvious fraudulent scam, they leach onto them for their own gain.

You cannot continue to build your foundation on lies without consequences. The fall out from the collapse of the "climate change" lie is growing in direct proportion to the height of it's promoter's influence on society. These lies are of such importance to their benefactors that historically lies of such magnitudes have led to genocide in order to protect them. For all of our advances, we are but one lie away from barbarism. If power is not taken away from the "alarmist" segment of those who wield this lie, they will use that power to destroy "deniers." We are just a few short years from inquisitions of those who do not "believe."

As the man once said "you shall know them by their fruits" the fruits of the climate change cultist are growing ever more panicky and increasingly dictatorial. The truth never needs such methods, the truth is obvious to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

IPCC WGII report relies on exaggerated climate model results

A hundred years and a hundred miiles

The global warming theological society which call themselves scientist are always Johnny on the spot to remind us that one single event or one short period of time does not climate make, at least until it works in their favor. When some dramatic weather event such as Katrina or "superstorm" Sandy occurs or we have a particularly severe drought, or a particularly wet spring, it really does not matter the weather event, these events are said to be what we can "expect" as the result of climate change.

Of course this in a very real sense is true, climate changes which causes weather events. But what these theologians mean is all of these occurrences are the result of "man made" climate change.

This is what makes the ongoing saga of the Australian Antarctic Expedition of 2013 so delightfully ironic. This "expedition" comprised of eco-tourist, climate change scientist and environmental journalist whose publications were the primary benefactors of the expedition are, as everyone is now aware, stuck in sea ice miles away from the actual continent of Antarctica.

The purpose of the expedition was to retrace the Mawson expedition of 1912 and take duplicate "readings" of that expedition in order to show how much climate change has effected Antarctica in the last century. The alleged journalist joined the alleged scientist so that they might record and report on the destruction of Antarctica by man made climate change.

One suspects that what they hoped to record and report to an anxiety filled world were scenes and readings which showed Antarctica melting away due to global warming. Scenes not unlike those shown in the attached video at their intended landing spot. Unfortunately for our intrepid modern day explorers they are still stuck in 2-3 meter thick ice over a hundred miles short of the spot where Mawson and his true explorers landed a century earlier.

You will note in the video which was made from a film shot by the original Mawson expedition upon landing that much of the landscape is rocky, not snow and ice covered and their wood sailing ship is anchored off shore in the open waters.

This very film, if it were taken today as it was intended to be taken by the Australian Antarctic Expedition of 2013, with the onlooking penguins on a rocky shore would have been used as "proof" that Antarctica is melting away. The very fact that this film taken 101 years ago almost to the day by a primitive yet truly scientific expedition compared to the now ice trapped "expedition" should be proof positive that indeed the climate does change, just not always as these nincompoops would have the world believe.

Any thinking human being and they seem to be growing in shorter supply, would look these two expeditions and ask themselves how it is possible for a "scientific" community to make such outlandish claims about climate when the photographic evidence exists to disprove it. The Mawson film is a hundred years and a hundred miles ahead of its time.

It is undeniable that the "weather" at the time of the Mawson expedition was far milder than that of the "weather" at the time of the 2013 expedition. If the "weather" over a century ago was milder than today then is that not proof that any changes in the "weather" is probably not man caused but natural?

It is not just this example, the record is filled with examples of how this "fraud" perpetrated by dupes masquerading as scientists are misleading a trusting public in order to continue an agenda not based on science but mostly on ideology and profits. Every scare tactic propagated by these childish actors is eventually retracted yet the belief lives on. A belief in a world that at least in this case existed a century ago.

I suspect that history will label this time period as "The Age of Fools."

H/T Watts Up With That

The Deep Blue Sea

Unable to find increasing warming where it had been projected,  a  new culprit for the "missing" heat in the global warming saga has been assigned, heat is now being trapped deep in the oceans.

Huge amounts of heat – equivalent to the power of 150 billion electric kettles – are being continuously absorbed by the deep ocean, which could explain why global warming has “paused” over the past 10 to 15 years, scientists have concluded in a series of reports to explain why the Earth’s rate of warming has slowed down.

Interesting isn't it how the climate science community which has for years assured us that the science was settled seem to have been caught unaware by this possibility. After all, not only did they not project this "pause" they have never said that this deep blue hide away was a  concern to their ever evolving theory.

The reason that they are now telling us that the heat is in the oceans is because it is not increasing in the atmosphere where they had said it would be and this simple but extremely large failure of their theory should be enough to end this charade, but it won't.

My question is a simple one, how did it get there? How did the heat bypass the atmosphere as projected and go directly to the ocean depths?  I mean, if the scientist who claim to know how the climate system works have been telling us for decades that global warming was going to heat the atmosphere but now that it has paused, they now tell us that it has gone deep under the waves instead, then what caused this transformation of the theory? In some ways it is like their entire theory has fallen into a previously unknown sink hole and we are supposed to just accept this new development with unquestioning faith.

I have looked at all the projections and graphs that those IPCC folks put out and not once have I seen, heard or read anything about an ocean vacation for global warming  Did the atmosphere reach some previously unknown saturation point for heat so the heat had no choice but to take a dive into the ocean?
Consider the great lengths that science and scientist went through to prove or disprove Einstein's General Theory of Relativity yet here we have the scientific community just accepting a major change in the most important scientific theory of our time as if this was common practice and indeed it is  becoming common practice.

I remember reading something that  Kevin Trenberth wrote explaining heating the Earth, he said " the incoming radiation may warm up the ground or any object it hits, or it may just go into drying up surface water. After it rains and the sun comes out, the puddles largely dry up before the temperature goes up."

Now the worlds oceans are by no means "puddles" but isn't the  theory of  the enhanced greenhouse effect based on the belief that a slight heating of the atmosphere by CO2 will cause a positive feed back of more evaporation? And this evaporation will cause increased water vapor in the atmosphere to magnify the natural green house effect? Did this happen? Have we reached some new tipping point where, rather than causing evaporation, the heat now is forced into the deep oceans?

Remember that the global warming theory is not about the sun directly heating the Earth, that they claim is constant, rather the theory depends on radiant heat being trapped by demon CO2 in the atmosphere. So to be valid this new claim can have nothing to do with increased sun heating the oceans so to speak, but rather increased air temperatures heating the oceans. Try warming a bathtub by turning up the heat in your bathroom, you will be waiting a long time. So in affect what they are saying is that we have reached a point where the atmosphere is so warm that the increasing heat rather than heating the atmosphere is now heating the oceans,  the deep oceans no less.

It is bad enough that these "scientist" can suddenly change the criteria by which their theory is measured,  they have been doing that from the beginning, now they are changing the theory's dynamics to explain that which they did not theorize or at the very least they are changing  the sequence by which their "settled science" operates.

It is not as if they were not specific about what we should expect their theory to produce. The IPCC made projections

 The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

As Richard Courtney explains (emphasis in original)

In other words,
The IPCC expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.

This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.

So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.

The IPCC and the climate change activist have to find an explanation for the "lost" heat  in their projections so they simply bury it in the ocean where it is far more difficult to monitor and where the ability to monitor is so new as to take even more decades to verify any claims. they make.

In their arrogance they expect society  to just accept all of this at face value as they continue to promote policies that devastate economic growth and propagandize their shape shifting theory to school children. Now they have finally reached what amounts to the depths of their desperate attempt to maintain credibility by burying the heat deep in the oceans where no one can see or feel it. In truth the only thing that needs to be deep sixed is this nonsensical theory that has plagued mankind for a generation.

Diminishing Returns and "THE DOUBLING"

The Ecconomist which until recently had been very much in the alarmist camp in the global warming debate but has recently taken a more neutral tone, has just published a chart purported to be from the forthcoming fifth assessment IPCC report. The chart shows their projections of climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2.

This is the measure used by researchers of how much they expect the world’s average temperature to increase in response to particular increases in levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to one table from the unpublished report, which was seen by The Economist, at CO2 concentrations of between 425 parts per million and 485 ppm, temperatures in 2100 would be 1.3-1.7°C above their pre-industrial levels. That seems lower than the IPCC’s previous assessment, made in 2007. Then, it thought concentrations of 445-490 ppm were likely to result in a rise in temperature of 2.0-2.4°C.

Here is the chart

 Given that the IPCC and other global warmists use 280 ppm as the "pre-industrial" level of atmospheric CO2, an actual doubling by their hypothesis will happen when CO2 reaches the 560 ppm level . So if this chart is their actual projection, a doubling of CO2 "from pre-industrial" levels will now cause a warming of between 2.0-2.4 deg C.

Note that the two figures that have been so much a part of the global warming narrative are starting to come into sink. First is the arbitrary "doubling of CO2" which has been the great Cassandra of the warmist for so many years and the more recent goal set in Copenhagen in 2009 to keep temperatures at  a two degree rise  globally. What a coincidence that once a political goal was set, the science followed.

The evidence is clear

The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.

James Hansen

Admittedly I have not been keeping up with the global warming news nearly as closely as I used to, I pretty much have just been keeping up with the headlines and "big" stories.

One of those recent "big" stories has been about various 'alarmist" and alarmist institutions back pedaling from their normal doomsday claims and admitting that there has been a "slow down" in warming, see quote above by the "godfather" of the global warming fraternity as an example.

Then there was the rather detailed article in the Economist a publication that previously had taken the alarmist view of global warming where they admitted, well, the obvious.

"Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar,"

It is sure nice that the fear mongers have quit denying the truth, but I have a rather simple question which I have not seen asked since this new "revelation" has taken hold of the climate community. It is simply this:

"If temperatures have remained flat over the past decade or more, what about all the stories over the past decade about the negative effects of global warming on well....everything?

I mean wasn't  it just this past fall when climate change/ global warming caused Superstorm Sandy?

Consider this story from the Washington Post. This would be considered  an attempt by the author to have an even handed look at the science regarding global warming and Superstorm Sandy.  But given the "big" story outlined above, it really is just  fiction

Here are a couple of the fair and balanced  points the writer makes:

1) Sandy should not be “blamed” on climate change. Climate change does not cause storms and did not cause Superstorm Sandy. Storms form when certain weather ingredients come together. The historic record shows violent storms, some even more severe than Sandy, have struck the Northeast repeatedly..

2) While climate change did not cause Sandy, it may have been a performance enhancer like a steroid, injecting it with somewhat more energy and power.

3) Sea level rise from manmade climate change increased the water level along the Northeast coast 6 to 8 inches and, as a result, somewhat worsened the coastal flooding from Sandy.

I might be going out on a limb here, but if temperatures have been flat for the past 10-15 years, not only can Superstorm Sandy not be blamed on climate change, there was no climate change to be blamed!

It could not have "enhanced" Sandy and whatever sea level rise they claim, can not be the result of man made climate change/global warming simply because, there has not been any and the scientist and their allies are admitting it.

So the whole premise of the story, written less than six months ago, is false. As is almost every story attributing some occurrence or event to global warming. If there has been no global warming, then all the multitude of dire events blamed on it are either total fabrications of the result of some other cause, like nature. Consider this from the once prestigious National Geographic titled

Effects of Global Warming
Signs Are Everywhere

Well when you attribute everything to something that is not actually happening, then I guess you can find signs everywhere, can't you? They go on an alarmist tangent about all that is happening to our world while temperatures  have been "flat" for over a decade.

The planet is warming, from North Pole to South Pole, and everywhere in between. Globally, the mercury is already up more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius), and even more in sensitive polar regions. And the effects of rising temperatures aren’t waiting for some far-flung future. They’re happening right now. Signs are appearing all over, and some of them are surprising. The heat is not only melting glaciers and sea ice, it’s also shifting precipitation patterns and setting animals on the move.

They tell us that some of these things are happening now, among the examples I found interesting was this

Spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.

Spruce bark beetles may have boomed in Alaska, but it has nothing to do with global warming, Alaska has been cooling over the past 15 years. But you wouldn't expect the National Geographic to have their facts correct now would you? not when the narrative is so much more dramatic.

How many stories have you read in the past decade about something being caused by global warming? Hundreds?  Thousands? You know all those increased diseases,  those endangered species,  those droughts, the excessive flooding, the heavier snowfall, more tornadoes , hurricanes. All  those thousands upon thousands of article written about what global warming was causing, not in the future but now, those articles are to put it mildly.... bogus.

As bogus as the theory itself.

Because you see the corner has now been painted into. If the scientific community has to finally admit that temperatures, despite their best efforts to fudge them, have remained flat, then everything they have attributed to "climate change" can not be true.

Oh there was a superstorm Sandy and perhaps the Arctic sea ice has melted more than it used to and perhaps in some areas of the globe there has been more droughts, or flooding or whatever.  But the scientist are now telling us that it was not the result of global warming. How could it be?

They are now telling us the globe did not warm.

Yet they still teach it to the children, don't they?

The evidence is clear. Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate. Many places have seen changes in rainfall, resulting in more floods, droughts, or intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced some big changes - oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising. As these and other changes become more pronounced in the coming decades, they will likely present challenges to our society and our environment.

The evidence is clear?

Yes the evidence is clear, the world has been the victims of the greatest hoax, no that isn't right, a hoax is not malicious enough a term for what we have suffered through at the hands of corrupt scientist, politicians and their multitude of allies. With few exceptions we, the people of the world, have been robbed, lied to and brain washed by men and women who put their monetary gain and prestige over the most precious asset in the world, the truth.

Because you see if the temperatures have been flat this past decade plus, it is not like they have not known it, is it? They hyped the theory of what they projected to happen and made wild outlandish claims about events and occurrences which they knew could not be attributed to something that was not happening, global warming.

They fed off our tax dollars, they set themselves up as the protectors of the world, they destroyed those that dissented, and they initiated policies that were not only unnecessary but actually counter productive. They wasted valuable resources, they burned food for fuel and they indoctrinated our children with lies, the list of what these frauds have done could go on for pages.

The evidence is clear, they perpetrated crimes against humanity and they have just confessed.

The Age of Lies-Alaska is Melting

FROM-Jer's Notes

I once wrote that I ceased to be liberal when I realized that in order to maintain that ideology I had to continuously deny what I knew to be the truth. What we are witnessing now is not just the denial of truths, it is the redefinition of truth.

Evil is being recognized as good and good is being condemned as evil.

And it is everywhere and it is seeping into everything. 

From The Age Of Lies

Alaska is Melting

At the beginning of the year it was publicized and widely reported that the Alaska Climate Research Center using data from NOAA weather stations throughout Alaska had determined that temperatures in Alaska had dropped significantly over the past decade.

A new report from the research center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks reveals that the 49th state of the union has cooled by 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 2000. 

The drop is described as a 'large value for a decade,' in the academic paper 'The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska.'

This was not some idle speculation but as I said a widely reported throughout the scientific community and in the popular press worldwide.

As the story from the UK Daily Mail points out, a drop in temperatures of 2.4 degrees over a decade is significant and a decade worth of data is more than just a simple anomaly. The report's  own title calls the past decade a "cooling trend". The current climate science community will often use yearly or even seasonal anomalies to alarm the public and here we have an entire decade long trend of cooling.

Furthermore we are not talking about some random decade but rather the last decade when global temperatures especially in the northern latitudes were prophesied to rise. But rather than rising it has been been proven using the "warmist' communities own records that temperatures in Alaska actually dropped significantly over the past decade. These findings have not been disputed.

 What may have happened in previous decades although possibly significant as well does not change the fact that the current climate in Alaska is experiencing a cooling trend. This is fact based on actual data and research, plain and simple. All of this was brought to the worlds attention in the first week of January 2013.

So why is it that the National Wildlife Federation at the end of January can issue a report which states the following ?(emphasis in original)

Alaska has warmed about twice as much as the continental United States and warming is severely altering the Arctic landscape including melting permafrost. In the face of this unprecedented warming, many uniquely polar habitats—like the sea ice that polar bears, seals, and walrus require to hunt—are shrinking fast.

In what time frame is this purported warming supposed to have occurred? Obviously they can not be referring to the most recent available data since again as has been widely reported, Alaska temperatures are decreasing. The NWF must simply be ignoring recent long term changes in Alaska's climate in order to make such a statement.

 The report from the Alaska Climate Research Center tells us that previous studies found that:

In general, the temperature has increased in Alaska since instrumental records are available. Stafford et al. [2] analyzed 25 Alaskan stations for the time period from 1949-1998 and found a mean annual temperature increase for all stations in the range of 1.0°-2.2°C,

So previous studies, using basically the same stations that this new study used, concluded that Alaskan temperatures had increased, at most, 2.2 degrees, at the end of the twentieth century since 1949. Why is the increase of temperatures over a 50 year period of 2.2 degrees somehow" unprecedented" while the decrease in temperatures of 2.4 degrees over 10 years seems not to be even acknowledged?

I would also point out that if both studies are correct, then the past ten years of cooling have wiped out the previous 50 years of warming.

I would suggest that the decade long "cooling trend" in Alaska is an inconvenient truth that does not fit into the "warmist" narrative. Therefore the National Wildlife Federation just ignore the most recent scientific data in order to promote their progressive agenda.

The Age of Lies.

A "Goliath" Inconvenient Truth

Just this past August (2012), the chicken littles were out in full force warning us of imminent doom as the result of the melting Greenland ice sheets.

Today, Marco Tedesco, assistant professor of Earth and atmospheric sciences at The City College of New York, reported that melting over the Greenland ice sheet shattered the seasonal record in the modern era, a full four weeks before the close of the melting season. The melting season in Greenland usually lasts from June – when the first puddles of meltwater appear – to early September, when temperatures cool. This year, cumulative melting by 8 August had already exceeded the record of 2010 (chart above, year 2012 in red). "With more yet to come in August, this year's overall melting will fall way above the old records.

Wanting to be sure we understood how big a deal this is, they even broke into the biblical references

That's a goliath year

A Goliath year, wow that is big. How "Goliath" was it?

-- the greatest melt since satellite recording began in 1979," said Professor Tedesco.

Since 1979! Since 1979? I mean we are talking about dramatic changes not recorded since the end of the Disco epoch!

BUT, a new study puts the absurdity of this alarmist claim in perspective. As the Houston Chronicle...chronicles  (emphasis mine)

The study used ice cores to study conditions during a period of natural global warming that occurred between 115,000 and 130,000 years ago, when temperatures were about 14.5 Fahrenheit degrees higher than they are today. This was known as the Eemian period.

So what happened to the Greenland ice sheet when temperatures were 14.5 degrees warmer than today? During a period of natural global warming?

During this inter-glacial time about 75 percent of Greenland’s ice sheet remained intact.

Nowhere in any literature that I have ever read are any of the alarmist scientist predicting that temperatures as the result of man made CO2, going to come close to a 14.5 degree Fahrenheit increase.

In fact since the end of the Disco epoch (1979) the illustrious IPCC says that global temperatures have increased .72 degrees Fahrenheit or less than 5% of the increase experienced in the Eemian period. The absolute worst case scenarios projected by the IPCC for temperature increases as the result of a doubling of CO2 is 11.4 degrees Fahrenheit a full three degrees lower than previously experienced according to this study.

In the abstract to the new study we are told: (emphasis mine)

The response of the Greenland ice sheet to the warmer-than-present climate of the Eemian has thus remained unclear. Here we present the new North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (‘NEEM’) ice core and show only a modest ice-sheet response to the strong warming in the early Eemian.

Or as the Chronicle writer observed in the opening to his article:

New research suggests that Greenland’s vast ice sheet isn’t as fragile as some climate scientists feared.

The work, published in Nature this week (see abstract), indicates the majority of ice on Greenland could remain intact for hundreds of years even if the planet warms considerably.

Why is this important? It is important because the fear of the Greenland ice sheet melting is among the sited as one of the largest contributors to sea level rise that the alarmist use to scare the populace and drive public policy.

Greenland An Inconvenient Truth — MOVIECLIPS.com

This narrative is embedded into our culture and has been taught in our schools for a generation, and continues to be.

What will happen in the future?

If people keep adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the average sea level around the world by the end of this century (the year 2099) could be anywhere from 7 to 23 inches higher than it was in 1990. Sea level could rise even more if the big ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica melt faster.

But the big ice sheets in Greenland will not melt faster, nor will the one in Antarctica, which is for another day.

The truth is that scientist have now shown that even if temperatures were to increase beyond the alarmist wildest claims, my home here near the Florida coast will be bulldozed under by future developers long before it is covered over by the rising Atlantic as depicted in Al Gore's fairy tale movie.

Yet people still believe in the fairy tale and that is a "Goliath" of an Inconvenient Truth.

"Very rarely" ain't never

I should be used to it, but I still am flabbergasted when reporting on the scientific community creates an alarming narrative out of something that they, in some study, show has happened before and thus is not only not unprecedented but in all likelihood is a natural recurring event.

 It would seem to me, though what do I know, that if you show that something that is occurring in nature today has occurred in the past your first supposition should be that what caused it in the past is causing it again. If, after all, you can not explain the previous occurrence what basis do you have in attributing the current event to some new cause?

Yet the scientific community consistently is so lacking in intellectual curiosity and so focused on maintaining their death grip hold on their cash cow of "climate change"  that they will immediately attribute or leave the impression that current natural recurring events are the result of man made climate change. They often do this without attempting to explain or understand the previous occurrences which could not possibly be attributable to man's influence.  

A recent example of this comes from a new study undertaken to look for

... new clues about the recent rapid ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and help scientists make better predictions about future sea-level rise.

First off let me just ask, how can you have a better basis for for predicting the future when you have no explanation for the past? At the bottom of the article we are told that this rather expensive research was needed in order to

... improve the accuracy of computer models that are essential to predict future ice loss in the Amundsen Sea sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and its likely contribution to global sea-level rise. 

This is all well and good but the fact of the matter is that in order to determine future ice loss don't you need to understand why you are losing ice in the first place? (emphasis mine)

Reporting this month in the journal Geology a team of researchers from British Antarctic Survey (BAS), the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) and the University of Tromsø presents a timeline for ice loss and glacier retreat in the Amundsen Sea region of West Antarctica. The team concludes that the rapid changes observed by satellites over the last 20 years at Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers may well be exceptional and are unlikely to have happened more than three or four times in the last 10,000 years.

At the risk of sounding naive, how could something that has ."happened more than three or four times in the last 10,000 years." be refereed to in the same sentence  as " exceptional"? I would think that, in a geological time frame, something that has occurred three or four times in 10,000 years is not all that exceptional and obviously is not unprecedented.

 After a somewhat confusing description by the lead author of the study of what the team is investigating and why:

"As snow and ice builds up on the vast Antarctic Ice Sheet, the ice flows from the centre of the continent through glaciers towards the sea where it often forms floating ice shelves and eventually breaks off as icebergs. The floating ice shelves hold back the ice on land. A critical issue for us is to understand how the 'grounding line' – the position where the ice sitting on land (glaciers) begins to float (ice shelves) – has retreated landward over time. Satellite data are available only for the last 20 years and show that since 1992 the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers have experienced significant thinning (melting), flow acceleration and rapid landward retreat of their grounding lines, with that of Pine Island Glacier having retreated up to 25 km. It's possible that the grounding lines may retreat even further inland over coming decades....

We are again informed that this is not a unique event:

" ...Our study has revealed that episodes of fast glacier retreat similar to that observed over recent decades can only have occurred very rarely during the previous 10,000 years."

The first question it seems to me that a scientist interested in truly investigating this or a journalist reporting on this would ask is "what caused the previous instances of rapid retreat?"  But the question is not addressed in the article and so far as I have been able to discover, nowhere do the scientist attempt to explain previous occurrences.

In fact the authors admit that they really do not have a clue:

. However, it is unknown if the contemporary dynamic changes are simply part of long-term WAIS retreat since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, ca. 23,000–19,000 cal. yr B.P.), or solely recent phenomena.

Putting aside that these scientist are investigating a phenomena which they have labeled exceptional based on "only... 20 years of satellite data" they can not even determine if these changes are unique or natural but wish to use their findings to "improve the accuracy of computer models that are essential to predict future ice loss... and its likely contribution to global sea-level rise."   

Well how exactly do you do that? How do you use a phenomena that you can not explain to predict future ice loss?

When the skeptic community makes the charge that climate models are based on nothing more than suppositions not grounded in scientific reality they are accused of somehow being unscientific deniers. Yet here we have just such an example of how the scientific community creates suppositions to program their climate models and thus feed the climate change academic complexes coffers for future tax payer funded research.

"Very rarely"ain't never and to use current geological and climatic events which, by their own admission, are neither unprecedented or often times even all that unique as a basis to fund research is nothing less than fraud. The fact that they can not even explain the previous events but simply label current similar events as being caused by man made influences is not only unscientific, it is immoral.

Though  immorality in the scientific community is neither unprecedented or unique.

Blast from the Past

With the recent revelations that soot is a major contributor to global warming, I thought I would re-post this blast from the past (March 2011). I am reasonably sure that the science community has now explained away 100% of global warming based on factors other than CO2. I don't know what happens when 130% of global warming can be explained by ingredients other than CO2 since the Mayan Calendar has expired....perhaps we start to cool.

"I Should have been dead five years ago"

I was reading this post over at No Trick Zone about a new study that indicates that half of recent Arctic warming is directly attributable to soot. In reading I came upon a paragraph which strangly reminded me of something a biology teacher told our class way back in Junior High (now called Middle School for some reason). The paragraph which took me down memory lane was this:

And another important factor in warming from 1980 – 1998 (there has been no warming since 1998) are the oceanic oscillations, which were in their warm phase from 1980 – 1998. That doesn’t leave much room left for CO2. Call it the incredible shrinking CO2 warming effect.

 The particular teacher, his name escapes me, was actually a PE teacher who additionally taught biology as an elective course, which makes his lecture even more ironic and not at all political correct. Of course this was back in the late sixties and PC was just beginning to rear it's ugly head. Anyway what this PE/Biology educator explained to us disinterested hooligans was this, (I paraphrase. it was a long time ago):

"Modern science tells us that for every cigarette you smoke you shorten your life by the amount of time it takes to smoke it. They say that for every adult drink you consume you additionally shorten your life span by a few minutes depending on the quantity you drink. Certain foods you eat, most of which I enjoy, will additionally shorten your life span. I have done the calculations and have determined that I should have been dead five years ago"

Of course the statement was met with a great deal of laughter and cheer being as most of us were at the very beginning of our experimentation phase of life for these and many other mind altering life threatening substances.

Which brings me back to global warming. I thought wouldn't it be interesting if someone would go through the scientific literature for the past decade or so and see exactly how much global warming could be explained by factors other than CO2. Could it be possible that there exist enough scientific literature, peer reviewed of course. to show that in fact global warming has been or is in the process of being wiped away  by the scientific literature the juggernaut of modern climate science is generating.

As strange as this may seem being that all those thermometers allegedly point in the other direction, the religion science of global warming in order to explain away so many contradictions and to create as much fear as possible may in fact have talked their way out of their own theory.

I have neither the expertise or the discipline to search all this out but I did take a little time to investigate the possibility that science, slowly but surely is scientifically destroying at least the alarmist version of global warming.

As an example I will simply point to my last post about the advancing forest taking over the tundra. Somewhat tongue in cheek I wondered:

Shapeshifting Forward...or not

Via-Jer's Notes

One of the great villains in movie history was the cop from the future in Terminator. What made him such a horrifying  character was the inability of anybody, even Arnold Schwarzenegger, to do him in. If you blasted him full of  enough assault rifle shells to give Dianne Feinstein the vapors, he would  just reform himself from the pieces. This combined with the ability to shape himself into  any person or thing  he chose, usually the cop, made him almost invincible.

If the progressive movement didn't predate the Terminator franchise I would almost believe that Progressives used the cop as an organizational blueprint on how to operate. If your policies fail or are shown to be totally unworkable just restructure the pieces into a new form with the same goals under a new name  and continue to destroy all that stands in your way.

Rush Limbaugh often says that the progressive movement is just another name for liberalism. At the risk of contradicting El Rushbo, he is wrong. Today's progressives are  yesterdays liberals but yesterday's liberals were what the early progressives shape shifted themselves into after their policies were totally rejected post World War One. The Reagan revolution helped discredit the label "liberal" so they just shapeshifted back to the progressive label two generations removed from their original formation. Long enough removed from their former negative cogitation to be but a distant memory in societal consciousness  You could say that today's progressives are your father's liberals which were your grandfather's progressives, we are just back to where we started in the label game but their goals remain the same.

This shapshifting can frustrate anyone trying to expose this destructive ideology and it is why Mark Levin did everyone a great service when he coined the phrase statist to describe all those who believe in a top down governing structure run by control junkies and elitist. But the label issue is the least of the problem, the real problem is not that they can change identities, it is that the progressive movement can easily transform through manipulation any issue or circumstance  to promote their agenda.

And they are relentless. Their ruthlessness is possible because they have no collective conscious. When the ends always justify the means as a guiding principle, then there are no limits, no moral roadblocks. There is also no remorse for failed policies since the only thing important to the  progressive mind is the ultimate goal of controlling society in order conform it to their mythical  ideal of perfection.

To the progressive mind life is not a journey it is a destination. A destination where they get to determine how societies pieces fit together and how they meaning we should behave. The progressive is not about smelling roses along the road of life, he is about planting nice orderly rows where every bush is required to bloom on specific days and with predetermined color schemes.

Those who do not prescribe to this statist view of political and societal welfare are always left wondering why and how the progressive keep getting away with it. It is like in high school when you wondered why did the "bad boys" always attract the chicks and vice versa. The daring always attract the most attention, even if in the long run it is destructive behavior and the bold and the brazen can always cower the masses. Bullies are bullies because it works...until it doesn't.

Take the global warming debate, "THERE IS NO DEBATE !" as an example. As time has passed and the evidence mounts, or rather it doesn't,  it has become ever more apparent that the premise of the theory is seriously flawed. But you see the premise of the theory is not the goal. The theory is just another means to an end and as with all things in the the progressive agenda the means in this case the theory is just a tool to be used. A scientific theory which normal people would consider to be the foundation of a scientific proposition is, for the progressives, secondary at best. In this case the goal is financial redistribution and economic control on a global scale, the "climate change" mantra is just a means to that end so fighting the battle about the specifics though necessary, has little affect on how the progressives will wage their campaign against the facts, facts having no real bearing on their overall goal.

 While we laughed at the transformation of  global warming into "climate change", the progressives just kept on building a political, academic and cultural foundation to support their statist goals. They will continually shift the argument and the premise in order to advance or progress their agenda.  This is how you end up with headlines like this:

"Biting cold brings spectre of Global Warming closer, farmers worried but wheat crop safe"

We all know that virtually everything under the sun, with the exception of the sun, is now blamed on global warming which is now called climate change, or climate disruption or severe climate events or whatever they will shift it to next. We laugh at the absurdity while they indoctrinate the children into this new "reality" and embed their false premises into our culture not to mention the text books for future generations. They progress their deceitful agenda while we shake our heads at the insanity of it all and wonder how they get away with it.

They get away with it because they are doing while we are watching. After all one of those universal truths that is so easily ignored but has been proven true countless times over the ages is that  "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." And nothing begat evil. Few are they in positions of power that actively call out the progressive agenda for the lie that it is and fewer still are those that once enacted will continue the fight rather than acquiesce to the new status quo.

For those of us who seriously followed how Obamacare came to be, at almost every juncture it was obvious that it would be stopped. There was no way it could go forward. The institutional safe guards were in place to stop it, but they just shoved right through those. The belief that "public opinion" was a check on political power in a republic did not even phase the progressives drive, they simply lied about what they were doing and carried on until they achieved their goal. Now Obamacare is the "law of the land" to quote the opposition parties most visible leader who has the legal power to shut it off but chooses to play by the political rules and traditions which were decimated in order for it to be conceived in the first place.

Just as we observers were sure that the "climategate" scandal would finally expose the charlatans and frauds of the scientific community and end global warming hoax, so too we expected that Obamacare was a step too far and finally this nightmare of power hungry elitist would be stopped, but they were not. The warmist still control the scientific narrative and the progressive politicians still control the reigns of power in DC. The skeptics are still mocked as  as a matter of societal norm as are those who believe in the Constitution. The rule of law and scientific principles are for suckers.

There is a very simple reason for this, when the end justifies the means is an ingrained principle of your ideology, you can say anything with a clear conscious. A clear conscious is progressing your agenda forward and has nothing to do with the morality of truth. Our President has made this an art form but he is just a product of the progressive ideology and tactics, not the creator of them. The creator of this shapeshifting methodology was identified long ago as the "father of lies" and the naves who practice it are those who are willing to redefine values in order to achieve their unsustainable goals or the fools and tools who follow them down a dark path to ultimate destruction.

Truth, to the progressive mind, is an obstacle to be overcome and certainly not a guide post on the road of life. Truth can be used or discarded, shaped or molded as best fits the circumstances. A drought or a blizzard, it makes no difference whatever promotes the agenda. People are both trusting and busy so they will follow the loud voice of authority who claims there is a crisis and that they have the solution.

And that in nutshell is the progressive game and to them it is a game, create the illusion of a crisis in order to provide a solution.  A solution which creates ever larger crisis which they again claim to have the answer to. A solution which always sacrifices individual liberties for progressive power and control.

How do you stop this shapshifting ideological nightmare bent on destroying personal liberty for the sake of elitist control?  Well first off you recognize that most of the people involved in the progressive movement have a very limited knowledge of what they are a part of, simply because they are just shifting with the flow of the culture around them.

A consensus is forming on the "right" that the only real solution is to take back the culture, something that the "right" has seemingly little influence in. I say seemingly  because the progressives hold on the culture is the proverbial mile wide and an inch deep. It appears as if the progressive left has a death grip on popular culture and thus the future. But I do not believe that this is necessarily so.

People, as a general rule, grow tired of the superficial and if their is anything that describes the progressive agenda it is superficial. Put plainly it can not sustain itself, it will continually fail. It takes a great deal of effort for an individual less alone a movement to continually gloss over failings. To this point in their history the progressives have been able to shapeshift after periods of failure by gloaming onto the successes that followed their previous demise to resurrect themselves. But we are reaching the precipice of a hundred years of this roller coaster ride. The bills are coming due and shifting of blame, though temporarily effective, does not solve the problem.

Just as you can shift the meaning of global warming to gin up crisis for a time, eventually you have to show results for your efforts. Nothing the warmist community can do is going to change the climate back to some mythical norm that never existed and nothing the progressive politicians can do is going to change the math of economic reality. Eventually the magician has to pull a rabbit out of the hat and the progressive illusionist are running out of rabbits to entertain the audience.

It is not that the progressives will not continue to reek havoc on the world, it is just that we are reaching the point where they must either take the next inevitable step, despotism,  or their hold on society will begin to crumble. The candy man can only so long as the candy man can.

Glenn Beck has the right idea, begin to recreate the America we want it to be so that when the fall occurs, as it must, the strongest ones standing will be where the disillusioned will go for answers. Those who scoff at the simple truths today will thirst for them in the barren landscape of economic and societal decline which is all but inevitable now.

The way you defeat the shapeshifters, is to remain solid as a rock, hold onto the truth and the simple things that have always sustained peoples over the centuries. Faith, family, community, that is the only true progressive idea that has ever worked or ever will.

After all somebody is going to have to pick up the pieces.