SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (46510)6/21/2013 1:26:08 AM
From: average joe  Respond to of 85487
 
Wind farms: Ceausescu would have loved 'em

By James Delingpole Environment Last updated: June 19th, 2013

1121 Comments Comment on this article



Dave Vince could scarcely do better…

Wind farms are like one of those frustratingly unripened boils: you know that you shouldn't keep squeezing but they're so noxious and irritating and hideous that you just can't resist. If you've got the same problem, then I heartily recommend you read this brilliant essay on the subject by Russell Taylor.

I love his dismissal of people who claim to find wind turbines beautiful:
"….a sentiment I find as credible as a Soviet peasant admiring the Tiger tank that had just squashed his grandmother."
But what really grabbed me was his analysis at the end of wind turbines' totemic significance to the left. I've touched on this before myself. It's why I christened them "eco-crucifixes", because they're not really about viable energy or even saving the planet but rather, like "stranded" polar bears on melting ice floes, an emblem of the ubiquity and dominance of the new global religion. And it's why, in the past, I have likened them to the fortress-like cathedrals the Catholic church erected to crush the resistance of the Cathar 'heretics' in South West France.

Taylor has a cleverer take:
Wind turbines serve an additional purpose for the Left, similar to that performed by the tower blocks Ceausescu built in the middle of farmland, or the factories found on the horizon of Soviet rural scenes: they are statements of power. These steel sentinels remind country-dwellers that they are within the gravitational pull of the capital’s dark star, and that if they believe they are free to reject the beliefs of the metropolitan elite, they can think again.

The countryside has long been an object of suspicion for liberal townies, who consider it a viper’s nest of erroneous thought, inhabited by toffs, retired colonels, golf-playing Rotarians and other conservative bogeymen. The propensity of country folk to choose their own values, to observe age-old traditions and to rely on each other to get by puts them in conflict with everything the Left stands for. In the liberal worldview, you’re either one of them, one of their flock, or an enemy of the people whose way of life must be destroyed. First they banned fox hunting, then they ruined the landscape. What next? Collectivised farms? Internment camps for UKIP voters?
As a country-dweller myself I know exactly what he means. In the country, I've noticed, a lot of people go slightly mad. Not in a bad way, necessarily. Rather they acquire the endearing eccentricities of people who are untrammeled by the more restrictive conventions of life in the big city. Westminster and its antics seem much more remote from where I am now in Northants than they did in my South London days. Literally, obviously, but also metaphorically. It's one of the tensions Suzanne Collins got right in The Hunger Games (at least in the first book, before the trilogy went off): between the metropolitan elite who believe not only that they are born to rule but that we should feel grateful for it; and the rebels in the provinces who couldn't give a stuff for the effete townies with their fancy ways and their stupid laws.

The wind farm issue, in other words, is like one of those rows a chap sometimes has with his wife or girlfriend or daughter: it's not really about the thing it pretends to be about. Or at least, not mainly.

Sure there are lots of very obvious reasons why wind farms are wrong in every way, economically, environmentally, socially. There are excellent new examples every day: remember the Pitcairn wind turbine fiasco?

But these, important though they are, are surface details. The real reason, I believe, that wind turbines have such resonance for so many of us, is because of the emotional undercurrent – the more abstract problems they symbolise.

One of these is our impotence in the face of a remote, out-of-control, democratically unaccountable political class. The speech Ed Davey gave in Brussels last night affords an excellent example of this (and why we're all turning to Ukip)
“There will always be those with a vested interest in the status quo. Who seek to create doubt where there is certainty,” he said. “And you will always get crackpots and conspiracy theorists who will deny they have a nose on their face if it suits them.

“But the truth is this: while forecasts of the future rate at which the world will warm differ, and while many accept we will see periods when warming temporarily plateaus, all the scientific evidence is in one direction.

“And climate change’s long-term impact on the global economy? Well, we can be sure it will make current economic troubles look mild in comparison.”
Now either Davey knows this rubbish isn't true, in which case he's lying. Or he doesn't know it isn't true, in which case he's culpably out-of-touch and ill-briefed. Either way he is wholly unfit for public office – and the fact that he exerts such a position of power and that there's apparently nothing anyone can do stop his deranged ramblings and economically suicidal policies makes an utter mockery of democracy.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk



To: koan who wrote (46510)6/21/2013 9:29:13 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 85487
 
I just supplied you with proof the historical record had been changed. You can see it with your own eyes. You just won't let yourself admit what you see:

.... Prior to being corrupted adjusted in the year 2000, this is what the GISS US temperature graph looked like.



The 1930s was by far the hottest decade. After being “adjusted” in the year 2000, it magically changed shape. The 1990s became much warmer. 1998 added almost half a degree – ex post facto.



The video below shows (in reverse) how the graph was rotated in the year 2000. Older temperatures became colder, and newer temperatures became warmer.

Rewriting history is not a good approach to science. It was very hot during the 1930s, as anyone who lived through it can tell you. Someday Hollywood will make a blockbuster movie about the global warming hysteria of the early 21st century.

wattsupwiththat.com



zapruder.nl

......

Do you think it is a coincidence that Hansen has devoted his life’s work towards proving global warming, and that the ADJUSTMENTS always move towards support of that idea?

...........

[ The above are US, below are global. ]

.....
NASA GISS is doing Soviet style "science" where history is changed to fit the movements needs. http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-mystery-deepens-where-did-that-decline-go/



More on surface temp records:

Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? by D'Aleo and Watts
1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.
2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.
5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.
7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.
8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.
10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.
11. NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th-century “global warming”.
12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal ocean and solar changes.
13. Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.
14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”
15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP also requires a full investigation and audit.
noconsensus.files.wordpress.com

.....
More on the subject:

Message 26161432
Message 26267155
Message 26268524
Message 26361559 adjustments
Message 26389593

Message 28711590



To: koan who wrote (46510)6/21/2013 10:41:15 AM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 85487
 
Proposed CO law would make all marijuana growers use 100% solar or wind

dailycamera.com

Which leads me to wonder ... do you and Wharf Rat restrict yourself to weed grown using 100% solar and wind energy? You should. But if you're not willing, I'll be happy to sell you carbon credits. In fact, I'll sell you carbon credits offsetting your fossil fueled trips to and from AK as well.



To: koan who wrote (46510)6/21/2013 11:45:20 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
ABC Trolling For Racist, Bigoted Americans Mostly Falls Flat...Again



By Matt Vespa | June 21, 2013 | 11:24



The June 14 episode of ABC’s What Would You Do again trolled for the archetypal intolerant conservative American that are supposedly around every bend in two outrageous segments concerning a gay Boy Scout and a racist deli shop customer. The show, which uses actors to play out outrageous scenarios to see how unsuspecting passers-by react, hosted the gay Boy Scout scenario at a roadside steakhouse in Texas. This is similar to a similar sting video last week which had a gay basketball player come out to his coach and teammates.

What better setting -- if you're a liberal news producer from Manhattan -- to stage this incident being that the state is known for the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision on sodomy laws and that it's a reliably red state, producing both Presidents Bush as well as Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. Rick Perry, liberal media bogeymen all.

Three actors, “Anthony, Matthew, and Tony” portrayed Boy Scouts. One of them, Matthew, comes out as gay to the group. Needless to say, his two friends offer disparaging remarks, but the fishing expedition for bigots falls flat as the patrons at the restaurant are supportive of Nathan. They may be disapproving or ambivalent about homosexuality, but offer words of compassion to the young actor. It seems John Quinones didn’t find the anti-gay, Westboro Baptist Church types he may have been searching for.

Later in the show, John Quinones traveled to Kingston, New York, where a mosque was desecrated in 2010, in search of Islamophobes in the area. To set up the contrived explosion of intolerance, we have two actors playing Meena, the Muslim deli worker, and Oliver, the racist American. Oliver proudly wears a “God Bless America” shirt, as if patriotism was an indication of racist overtones, and doesn’t like that Meena is serving sandwiches in his country.

But again, Oliver gets dressed down by patrons who rebuke him for his bigotry.

When will ABC, or Quinones, realize that racist Americans exist, but are a small sliver of society?

You can read the transcripts below:

[iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YIU71skvtuE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""][/iframe]

[iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ueT79ZPY9IM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""][/iframe]

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) Here in the middle of cowboy country, what would you do?

ABC CREW (MALE): John, we are rolling. This is take number one.

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS) :(Voiceover) Mathew wastes no time revealing his secret.

MATTHEW: I have something to tell you guys.

ANTHONY (CONTINUED) : All right.

TONY (MALE) :Okay.

MATTHEW: You have to keep it a secret, though. Like, really. Promise?

TONY: Yeah.

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS) :(Voiceover) Will our gay scout earn a badge of support from this table?

MATTHEW :I think I like boys more than I like girls.

TONY :What?

MATTHEW :It is just like a feeling that I've had recently.

GRAPHICS: 31% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT BEING GAY IS A CHOICE.

TONY :That's so weird.

MATTHEW :I haven't even told my parents. You guys are the only ones who know. Please don't tell anyone.

TONY :Can't you like go to a counselor or something?

ANTHONY: Yeah, maybe you can, like, pray it away.

MATTHEW :I can't change who I am.

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS) (Voiceover): Quickly, this woman breaks her silence and offers spiritual advice.

RESTAURANT PATRON (FEMALE) :Listen, Christians don't hate the sinner. We just don't like the sin. But Christians still love ya.

MATTHEW : So is it okay to be gay?

RESTAURANT PATRON (FEMALE) : It's okay. You can ask for forgiveness. I believe in the Bible.

MATTHEW: What does the Bible say?

RESTAURANT PATRON (FEMALE): Well, it is throughout the Bible. It says men shall not lay with men.

RESTAURANT PATRON (MALE): There's a lot of good Christians in this world that will help you out with stuff like that.

RESTAURANT PATRON (FEMALE): If you do end up accepting it and doing that, there will be people that will accept you no matter what.

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera): Nice, nice. Shall we break it?

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS)(Off-camera): Hi, ma'am. How are you? I'm John Quinones.

RESTAURANT PATRON (FEMALE): Oh, no.

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera): I'm with "What Would You Do," the TV show. You know the show?

RESTAURANT PATRON (FEMALE): Yes, I do.

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera): You were very kind in taking time to talk to them.

RESTAURANT PATRON (FEMALE) :Yeah, I was concerned.

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera): Your eyes are tearing. Why?

RESTAURANT PATRON (FEMALE): Yeah, I mean, like I told him, I do have kinfolk that are gay. But I still love 'em.

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera): So your heart went out to him. Why say something?

RESTAURANT PATRON (FEMALE): I guess because I'm a mom. I've got children of my own.

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera): And if they said to you, Mom, I'm gay?

RESTAURANT PATRON (FEMALE): It wouldn't make a difference. I would just pray for him.

RESTAURANT PATRON (MALE): Would not make a difference.

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS) (Voiceover): With the scene in full swing, we meet others who aren't afraid to speak up and offer their own opinion.

RESTAURANT PATRON (MALE): At the end of the day, you've just got to be comfortable in who you are.

MATTHEW: And do you think it's wrong?

RESTAURANT PATRON (FEMALE): Honestly, I do, but I accept everyone for who they are.

RESTAURANT PATRON (FEMALE): I mean, if they don't accept you for who are, then they're not, they don't seem much as friends.

[...]

OLIVER: Look, I'd like to order some food. Just not from you, okay?

SOLDIER: Get out. Put the chips down and go buy them somewhere else.

OLIVER: You want me to leave this place?

SOLDIER: You have a choice to go shop anywhere, just like he has a choice to practice his religion anywhere. That's the reason I wear the uniform. So anyone can live free in this country. Leave the man alone. Buy your stuff and leave.

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS) (Voiceover): It's time to tell this soldier this is one battle he no longer has to fight.

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera): How are you, sir?

SOLDIER: How are you sir?

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera): I'm John Quinones, with ABC's "What Would You Do," the TV show.

SOLDIER: You've got to be kidding me.

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera): He was an actor. People might say that's very heroic, what you said. Is it?

SOLIDER: No, sir. No. Heroes come in many shapes and sizes, but that wasn't heroic at all. It was just being a person and standing up for someone else.

JOHN QUINONES (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera): What principles were you defending?

SOLDIER: Everyone's inalienable rights.



Read more: newsbusters.org



To: koan who wrote (46510)6/21/2013 11:56:59 AM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 85487
 
Weiner Forced To Apologize After One Of His Supporters Calls His Gay Opponent A “Dyke”…


I love watching this guy flounder.

Via Politico:

New York City mayoral hopeful Anthony Weiner apologized Thursday after an encounter with a woman that was picked up by a reporter in which the voter called his openly gay opponent Christine Quinn “a dyke.”

“Homophobia is vile and destructive and something I have fought against for the entirety of my career, including being a vocal supporter of gay marriage since 1998 and standing up on the floor of Congress for transgender Americans,” Weiner said in a statement tweeted out by campaign spokeswoman Barbara Morgan. [...]

The encounter, described by Washington Post reporter Jason Horowitz, featured Weiner asking an older woman if she was a registered Democrat.

“I am,” she said, according to the paper. “And I’m not voting for uh, what’s her name? The dyke.”

“Okay. I just need you to sign the petition to get me on the ballot,” Weiner said, according to Horowitz, who added that the candidate “then noticed the incredulous reaction of a reporter” and said to the woman, “and you really shouldn’t talk that way about people.”

weaselzippers.us