It's Falling Apart On You, Isn't It (Part 2: Climate Change Boogaloo)

It's accepted.

That's the mantra the proponents of the "anthropogenic global warming" theory keep trying to drum into our heads.

It's accepted as fact.

That doesn't mean it IS fact; they don't care about facts.

Only the agenda.

The problem with that is that the theory itself doesn't make any sense; the facts don't support it; and their agenda is tremendously damaging to a public which is gradually becoming aware of its ramifications.

The result?

In order to get their agenda to pass, the loons the environmental lobby has managed to get into government (worldwide, not just ours,) are willing to rely on fraud on a massive scale.

So, the first step? Make sure the climate data that's reported matches their intended conclusion.

Well, how do you do that?

First, by hanging climate sensors next to halogen lightbulbs, for example.

It also helps to have "volunteers" manning the climate stations that are willing to flatly fabricate data when they don't want to be bothered to report, or even check, the actual data.

When that still results in skepticism, they resort to trying to hide the data.

If that falls through, they have Al Gore come along and tell you that the massive snowfalls this year are due to the weather being warmer; they claim this makes sense, because warmer air carries more water. They really, really try to push this argument.

Even when it's not only not true, but OBVIOUSLY so. So much so that it almost takes no effort to counter those arguments; all it requires is a simple temperature survey. So let's do one, shall we?

Here's an article which discusses all the recent blizzards; I will specifically address February 10th.

Washington, DC's average temperature on February 10th is 37 degrees (High 45, low 29.) Record high was set in 1960, at 68 degrees, record low was -8, in 1899.

So what did it look like this year?

Well, this year, the average was 25.9 degrees - not only low, but below the average LOW temperature for DC this time of year. And they had a massive blizzard; a FOOT of snow.

If warmer air was responsible, how come the temperature is lower?

Never mind, I know they can't answer that.

That's ok. They have bigger issues at hand.

The U.N. climate chief is stepping down. "For personal reasons," of course, not the massive and ever-growing scandals.

That's ultimately a drop in the bucket, though.

What's really bad is how they're having to show their hand - and their intent - so openly.

It's called "good cop, bad cop."

First, Obama makes an empty symbolic gesture, of the type of which he seems so fond, and announces funding for several nuclear projects. Funding, of course, in the form of loans to power companies to build nuclear plants.

That's great!

Of course, they're the old-style uranium and plutonium reactors that can melt down, produce toxic waste, vent hot water into rivers, and that the greenies have quite rightly screeched about for years, instead of the non-polluting, non-heat-venting, meltdown-immune thorium reactors I've mentioned before that can be built anywhere, instead of just on rivers, but hey, any port in a storm, right?

He doesn't even have a disposal site picked out for the toxic waste, but that's not the point of this gesture, you see.

The point of the gesture is that Joe Schmoe (who I pick on a lot,) doesn't know one nuclear reactor from another, and thus can't tell that these reactors are bad, and the others are good; all he sees is "nukes."

Then, when the Republicans - and the greenies - oddly agreeing on something, complain about the new reactors, Obama can say "you've been bitching for years about wanting nukes, you got nukes, now STFU," and Joe Schmoe will think he's right.

Yes, yes, that's clearly what we've been asking for, is bad, polluting reactors from the first generation of nuclear technology - you know, from the 1950's - because nukes are inherently good; as opposed to good, non-polluting fourth-generation reactors - you know, from this year, with current technology - which are much safer, create a smaller footprint both physical and ecological, produce no toxic waste, don't vent heat, and use a far more common mineral in general supply.

Why would we want those?

They're counting on you to not know the difference.

And with the other hand, having made their good-cop gesture with their left, they produce: "In order to meet our emissions goals in ten years, we're going to have to raise gas to $7 a gallon."

Because clearly, our economy will survive that. After all, it's strong, in a robust, solid period of sustained positive growth.

You want to know what I don't get?

I don't get why the Teamsters' Union isn't screaming its bloody head off; if they use massive taxes to raise gas to $7 a gallon - it's already going up, for no legitimate economic reason - the trucking industry will cease to exist.

Of course, that would have NO other effects on our economy at ALL. No prices would get raised, no companies would go out of business, everyone but the truckers will be FINE.

Do you honestly believe that?

I don't. So I'll ask a simple question.

Given the obvious impact this would have on any hopes we have of an economic recovery, what agenda could be worth that?