Climategate

Not sure they are quite in this category but the leaked climate emails certainly show a new side to the cliqueish group of self-important zealots who want to control the world for the next fifty years or so.

Arrogance in this field is nothing new. We've had hints for awhile now, brought to light by the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen (herself a former lab researcher) then later from the chief charlatan's appearance on 60 Minutes when he proclaimed that anyone who refuses to believe what he believes is not just wrong, but a clueless nutcase.

One might think that someone with Mr. Gore's history would create more buzz with his recent geothermal meltdown on Conan (imagine Cheney or Palin saying it) but no, it simply exemplified how invested the major media is to risk noticing.

Case in point, most of them recently ignored another story detrimental to cause:

Meteorologists’ climate change survey results:

· When asked about the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) statement that “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced,” a full 50% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. 25% were neutral and only 24% said they agreed or strongly agreed;
· 52% of the meteorologists disagreed with the statement that “Global climate models are reliable in their projections for a warming of the planet.” Only 19% agreed with the statement;
· Almost a third of respondents agreed (19%) or strongly agreed (10%) that “global warm­ing is a scam”;
· When the meteorologists were asked to identify the “greatest obstacle to reporting on climate change,” their top answer (41%) was “too much scientific uncertainty.”

One might also think that people look at climate and computer models on a daily basis while laying their professional reputations on the line with each forecast would count for something, but chances are the survey will be mocked and ridiculed by those in the Manns/Jones/Cullen crowd using the same tone.

Now, just exactly where this leaves the president of the United States remains to be seen but it's almost certain he'll never be asked to comment on this story.

Getting Darker in the Western Sky

I really don't know any other way to describe such a concept:

To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.

Since about half the planet's climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

It's really not important as to how they could possibly police such a fascist scheme let alone the likelihood of it coming to pass anytime soon. The important thing is that it's not being laughed off the national stage. These nuts will be taken seriously in the coming global climate control talks.

My late grandmother once made what I thought was a strange comment when I was staying at her home as a kid--she said 'one day they'll find a way to tax the air". It didn't make sense then.

Hijabgate

Welcome to the puff outrage story of the day:

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

According to LGF the womens' plight has stirred up CAIR, who are demanding things.

But maybe there's an easier solution to this without having those women traveling around hither and yon. After all, CAIR has some previous 'experience':