Global Warming Hoax Update

From Canada Free Press:

Global warming is likely to be less extreme than claimed, researchers said yesterday. The most likely temperature rise will be 1.9C (3.4F) compared with the 3.5C predicted by the Intergovern­mental Panel on Climate Change. The Norwegian study says earlier predictions were based on rapid warming in the Nineties. But Oslo University’s department of geosciences included data since 2000 when temperature rises “levelled off nearly completely” – John Ingham, Daily Express, 26 January 2013

The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the ­Nineties. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity. We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. – Professor Terje Berntsen,University of Oslo, 24 January 2013

These results are truly sensational. If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate. – Caroline Leck,Stockholm University, 25 January 2013

Remember the hoax wasn’t the claim that the world is warming – there is data to indicate that is true – the hoax was that human-produced CO2 was the primary culprit.  That was the hook – that was the way global socialists hoped to gain political and economic control of our lives, because they ostensibly had to control how much CO2 we emitted or the world would suffer catastrophe.  Now, after a decade of no measurable warming, a bit of actual science (not a “consensus” that the world is warming up being hitched to a claim that massive government intervention is needed to save us) is showing up in the debate…and if the world is warming, it will be far less than the alarmists expected, and may not be bad for the world.

Now, I wonder if Al Gore will give back the money he made pushing this scam?

75 thoughts on “Global Warming Hoax Update

  1. Cluster January 27, 2013 / 8:58 am

    We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system

    A rare moment of clarity and an observation of which we conservatives have argued all along. But this hasn’t stopped the agenda driven alarmists at the UN, who are still using this issue to redistribute wealth.

  2. Retired Spook January 27, 2013 / 9:52 am

    What a relief. I’ve been so worried that we were all going to burn up that I’ve barely been able to function for the last 25 years.

  3. Retired Spook January 27, 2013 / 10:00 am

    BTW, if you want to have some fun with Liberals, whenever the topic of climate change comes up, just ask them what they’ve done in their personal lives to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem — besides being “concerned”, of course. It’s especially fun when you’re talking to one who drives an Escalade, lives in a big house or travels a lot. And when you actually find one that drives a Prius and has CFL’s throughout their house, ask them how much difference it’s made in the temperature. Or, better yet, ask them if EVERYONE did what they’re doing, how much would the temperature go down? And, what if it goes down too much. Liberals are so much fun to mess with.

    • Cluster January 27, 2013 / 10:22 am

      Liberals are so much fun to mess with.

      It’s what gets me up in the morning sometimes. And I have a feeling that we will have a lot of material to work with over the next four years as they realize that their policies and intentions just won’t equal the results they all expect.

      • Retired Spook January 27, 2013 / 10:39 am

        as they realize that their policies and intentions just won’t equal the results they all expect.

        Well, except most of them don’t care about results. They care about the fact that they care — and they tried — usually with someone else’s money. Or — the old standard: this time it will be different. Classic symptoms of insanity, and most of them don’t even realize it. The funniest thing is that a number of the ones who’ve come to this blog admit, when pressed on it, that they only come here to mess with Conservatives — like somehow we care. Every once in a while you find a Liberal, like Amazona, who has examined what Liberalism really stands for, and realized the folly; but the vast majority of Liberals I know are all a sandwich short of a picnic, particularly when it comes to common sense.

      • Cluster January 27, 2013 / 10:48 am

        True. Results never really have mattered, nor has any liberal politican ever been held to account for actual results. Their intent is all that matters, because they care, so so much.

    • Amazona January 27, 2013 / 10:29 am

      And, what if it goes down too much

      I love it……………

    • ricorun January 27, 2013 / 1:16 pm

      Spook: And when you actually find one that drives a Prius and has CFL’s throughout their house, ask them how much difference it’s made in the temperature. Or, better yet, ask them if EVERYONE did what they’re doing, how much would the temperature go down? And, what if it goes down too much.

      Why is it just liberals that are concerned about climate change? Is former CIA Director James Woolsey a liberal? Is the Pentagon liberal? Anyway, I actually have done a number of things to reduce my carbon footprint. Virtually all of them were motivated more by economics than by climate change concerns, but that just shows that the two don’t have to be different. I don’t drive a Prius, I drive a scooter most of the time. It’s 250cc, so it’s freeway capable, and it gets about 60mpg. I still have my Chebby Silverado though. It’s 9 years old and I have 32,000 miles on it. I have replaced almost all of the light bulbs in the house with CFLs. Considering you can get them these days for a little over a buck apiece (in a 10-bulb pack) and they last considerably longer than incandescents, that was a no-brainer. I have laid down more insulation in the attic, installed double-paned windows and doors, and built a deck and patio cover which (in addition to their primary purpose) serve to shade the west side of the house. This place used to feel like a blast furnace in the summer, but we haven’t used the AC at all since we put them in. We use the heat very rarely as well. And since we did all the work ourselves, they weren’t very expensive. The primary patio lights are solar powered LEDs which put out enough light for dinner parties and dancing. They cost me a total of 90 bucks. We also try to be careful about limiting our “vampire power” use. Our electric bill now runs about $40/mo, and our gas around $20/mo.

      We also installed a nice, flexible dripper system for the trees and gardens, which has helped reduce our water use, but the lawns still use a lot. That’s our next big project.

      Would the temperature go down if EVERYONE did what we’re doing? Highly unlikely — given that the CO2 in the atmosphere has a half life of a century or more, even if the human contribution dropped to zero tomorrow (which it won’t, of course), it would talk a long time for the concentration to return to pre-industrial levels. But it would certainly help to reduce the velocity of the increase.

      • neocon01 January 27, 2013 / 1:24 pm


        CO2 in the atmosphere

        THAT is where you have drank the flunky’s (algors) kool aid. C02 DOES NOT!!!!!! cause warming.
        The SUN DOES

      • M. Noonan January 27, 2013 / 10:19 pm

        Go with the gravel landscape – its what more and more of us in Vegas are doing…no more lawns to mow, weeding is a bottle of Roundup. A few bushes, a couple cactus (if your climate supports them) and you’re all set…

    • ricorun January 27, 2013 / 2:24 pm

      Caroline Leck: “If confirmed by other studies…”

      Yes, that would be important. One should not rely on a single study. Speaking of other studies, this one was just published too. In it they found that the IPCC got it just about right, and the primary variable producing the warming is human GHG emissions. What is particularly notable about the study is that it was produced by an institute headed by noted (erstwhile) climate skeptic, Richard Muller, because he remained unconvinced by existing scientific analyses which concluded that carbon dioxide emissions resulting from human activity had warmed the planet in the last century and a half. Lo and behold, the results of his own study convinced him that they were right all along. Also interesting is the fact that noted skeptics Judith Curry and Anthony Watts (the latter the originator of the blog, WattsUpWithThat) were contributors/consultants to the research (although they ultimately decided not to have their names listed as co-authors).

  4. Amazona January 27, 2013 / 10:37 am

    There isn’t an appropriate thread to post this on, so I will risk going off-topic to share it because I think it is worth reading: emphasis mine

    A Sterile View of Collective Action
    Human Events
    January 23, 2013
    Newt Gingrich

    Three things in particular amazed me about President Obama’s inaugural address.

    First, I was surprised how much President Obama had to say that I agreed with. His theme of making “real for every American” the promise of our Declaration — “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” – is central to the Republican credo. What Republican could dispute that?

    He’s the only president who has ever quoted the passage in full in his inaugural address.

    President Obama may very well draw something different from that passage than we would, but that’s the heart of the argument we’re about to have.

    Second, I was surprised by all the paragraphs that were missing.

    The president made virtually no mention of the economy, at a time when millions of Americans are struggling and unemployed. All he said was, “An economic recovery has begun.”

    He said, “The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult,” but he failed to mention the oil and gas revolution taking place in the United States that offers the promise of low cost oil and natural gas for many decades to come, if we’ll only seize it.

    The president said, “A decade of war is now ending,” and spoke of “winning the peace,” but ignored the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention new danger in Mali, Algeria, Yemen, Pakistan, Iran — and for that matter, Libya. He said nothing of Mexico, where just below our border lawlessness continues to rule.

    These omissions recalled in my mind the Trotsky line: “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” President Obama won’t have the choice to ignore these matters in the real world, even if he could in his speech.

    Finally, I was amazed at the gaps in his discussion of “collective action.”

    Much of it we could agree with: “No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future.” This is undeniable.

    Nor, the president argued, could a single person “build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores.” No Republican could dispute this. In fact, no thinking person could dispute this.

    Yesterday wasn’t the first time President Obama has appealed to the importance of “collective action.” We’ve heard often from him in the past few years that “there are some things we do better together.”

    Indeed, as a Republican I would agree and extend the claim: we do virtually everything better together.

    Collective action, the cooperation and collaboration of many millions of people, is the rule, not the exception, in the modern world. It is so common that President Obama seems not to have noticed how many people are already peacefully working together every day on their own volition.

    Yesterday as he was inaugurated, thousands of Americans worked to get all the necessary food into New York City. They didn’t even have to be told.

    Somehow, without any vote in Congress, those well-fed New Yorkers could drive to the gas station and pump fuel into their cars which thousands of people collaborated to refine from oil. Still more people worked together to extract that oil from two miles below ground, and still others worked to transport it to each of the hundreds of gas stations in the New York area. All so that their fellow Americans could drive their cars wherever they liked, on a whim.

    And those cars: Somehow they were assembled from pieces made all over the world, in China and Japan, in Germany and Mexico and in the United States. Probably tens of thousands of people worked together to make each of those cars which crowd the streets of New York City.

    None of them could have done these things on their own. All required collective action.

    But the president’s definition of “collective action” runs into trouble when he limits it to things we can do “as one nation, and one people.”

    When the president speaks of doing things as one people, it doesn’t sound like he’s talking about the kind of collective action that feeds New York City, provides it with affordable energy, and builds its cars — the collective action of small groups and large groups, businesses and charities and variously associated individuals.

    The “collective action” the president speaks of is actually an inversion of real collective action, of true cooperation, of genuinely working together.

    Obama’s “collective action” transfers to the federal government, to someone else, tasks that we the people now do together, ourselves.

    The vision he describes outsources cooperation among citizens, to government — to him, and an army of federal bureaucrats.

    Those items he listed as things we must do “as one nation, as one people” are precisely the things the federal government is poorly equipped to do.

    The “networks” he referred to? They’re known as the internet, and we didn’t make it “as one nation.” Millions of us, collaborating in small groups, created it together.

    Training the math and science graduates of the future? For decades, government has failed to provide equal opportunity in education for all Americans. When we achieve that goal, it will be because government frees students and teachers and parents to choose the education that’s best for them, as charter schools have done in many communities across the country.

    The federal government is not, as President Obama implied, the only sphere for collective action. It is not the only place where we work together. Go through his speech and replace the words “together,” “one nation,” and “one people” with “the federal government,” or “bureaucrats” and you will have a better sense of why he is wrong.

    • Cluster January 27, 2013 / 10:56 am

      “Obama is outsourcing collective action” – I love it! Great analysis. Collective action is always more efficient and productive when left to work on its own. The free market is a highly efficient “collective action” mechanism.

      • neocon01 January 27, 2013 / 11:45 am

        HOAX as simple as 1,2,3

        1. T Rex in US Midwest
        2. Glaciers is US Mid west.
        3. Temperate in US Mid west

        climate changes

  5. Cluster January 27, 2013 / 11:57 am

    Speaking of material to bash liberals with. Here’s some:

    “In consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers shall submit quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives that detail the impact of programs funded through covered funds on employment, estimated economic growth, and other key economic indicators.”

    Yet no such reports have been forthcoming. Again, results simply don’t matter.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) January 27, 2013 / 12:01 pm

      The law only applies when it furthers the Left’s agenda. When it interferes, not so much.

  6. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 27, 2013 / 12:43 pm

    Mark I don’t know if you can answer the question in my last blog post, I expect you’ll run far, far away from it lest that darkness of reality creep back into the fantasy world of your belief cocoon. But here you go. A Catholic Hospital Group used as a defense against malpractice that fetuses are not people.

    How say you sir?

    • Cluster January 27, 2013 / 12:53 pm

      A note to moderator. Please leave this post from Fredierck up. It clearly shows the depth of stupidity liberals like him will stoop to, to demonize their opponent. And yet these are the same liberals that want to “unify” the country and bring “civility” to the national discourse.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 27, 2013 / 1:20 pm

        And btw I do want to unify America even though it isn’t my nation anymore. I still love the place and visit as often as I can like today I’m in DC having covered the Roe March last week.

        To unify America is going to take time but you can see which side is winning to battles currently, eh?

        I know politics are cyclical you had your time in the 80s with Reagan but do the math buddy. All the conservatives in their 20s when Nixon left were in their thirties when Reagan got back in and the parents of all those people who were in their 50s and 60s were sighing hallelujah. Now move forward to 2012 30 years hence and the 30s are now in their 60s and all the folks in their 40s when Nixon was around are almost all gone. Now you have 2 choices look in the mirror or look at the demographics of the Progressive movement. The answer is the same no matter which way you look. Out research from exit polls showed the average Democratic Party voter last November was 26.7 years old and a Latina. The average GOP voter was 48.9 years old white and male.

        My first 2016 poll was done last Tuesday right before I left for DC and we ran Biden and Hillary against a wide range of GOP candidates. The only one who came close to 50% was Chris Christie at 47% [against Biden] with Jeb Bush at 45% [also against Biden]. No GOP potential candidate came close to 50% against Hillary Though the shining light of the group was Marco Rubio at 42% against HRC. For the Palin lovers the best she did was against Biden at 18%; against Hillary she only could count 8%.

      • Cluster January 27, 2013 / 1:33 pm

        On average, the Republicans in the House were elected by a wider popular margin than Obama was. And I would say that the country is very evenly divided right now, even amongst age groups and after another year of high unemployment, anemic GDP growth, and more messy if not dangerous foreign policy blunders, people will be begging for adult conservatives like myself to come help rescue them from the idiocy of people like you.

    • Amazona January 27, 2013 / 1:21 pm

      From Freddy’s link:

      According to published reports, a brief filed by the hospital, owned by Englewood, Colo.-based Catholic Health Initiatives, said that the fetuses are not covered by state’s Wrongful Death Act.

      “UNDER COLORADO LAW, a fetus is not a ‘person’ and plaintiff’s claims for wrongful death must therefore be dismissed,” the hospital argued.

      A state district court and an appeals court agreed with the hospital. The case, originally filed in 2007, is currently on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.

      As usual, the rabidly radical Left wants it both ways. They want the law to prevail when it suits them and then they spin on a dime and attack the Church for arguing the law.

      “…lest that darkness of reality…” Oh, gag me. What a drama queen. They must give classes in overblown hysterical rhetoric in the fantasy world that has attracted misfits like Freddy. Either that or this is the only kind of psyche that needs an imaginary world in which to “function”.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 27, 2013 / 1:30 pm

        Amazona you’re making my point for me a fetus isn’t a person, but this is the very first time and clearly for material purposes that a legal representative of a Catholic hospital has used something outside the teachings to pull their fat out of a civil fire. If you can waive the sanctity of life in the womb to save a buck why can’t they look the other way on contraceptives being covered by health care. Seems a bit hypocritical, no?

      • Cluster January 27, 2013 / 1:36 pm


        It bothers you greatly that your own laws have now been used against you. If this bothers you so much, why do you continue to support Joe Biden? He claims to be a staunch Catholic. How can you support that?

      • Cluster January 27, 2013 / 1:37 pm

        Using your logic Frederick, isn’t Joe Biden a hypocrite?

      • Amazona January 27, 2013 / 3:18 pm

        A court case has to be heard based upon the law in place at the time of the alleged incident. Not on religious teaching, not on opinion, not on anything but what the law actually SAYS.

        Therefore, if the state law in Colorado says that a fetus is not a person, any case has to be addressed based upon that law. The religious teachings of any religion are valid as part of that belief system but not as a modifier of civil law.

      • Amazona January 28, 2013 / 8:28 pm

        If Colorado law really means that “…a fetus is not a person…” then prior laws meant that certain races were not really people, either.

        So if the law did not recognize black people as people, and now it does, does that mean they weren’t and now they are?

        Of course not. It means the law was wrong, just as the Colorado law is wrong.

        How utterly stupid to claim that legal status actually defines whether or not a human being is or is not a person, whether the criterion is age or skin color or any other superficial determination.

        How utterly utterly stupid.

    • M. Noonan January 27, 2013 / 10:24 pm

      Its a legal dodge, but it does appear to be in accordance with State law – I’m in favor of the various proposed “personhood” initiatives which would class the unborn as legal persons. A Catholic hospital is not, of course, the Catholic Church and if the hospital in question is found in violation of Church teaching, it will have to change its policies or be de-certified as a Catholic hospital.

      • Amazona January 28, 2013 / 12:53 pm

        I don’t think it is a “dodge”. A lawsuit has to be based on the law of the jurisdiction in which it is filed and the alleged injury took place. Pointing out that the law in this jurisdiction does not support the suit is hardly a “dodge”.

  7. Cluster January 27, 2013 / 12:50 pm


    I see you’re still stuck on stupid. So a representative with the Catholic Church voiced an opinion in opposition with the Church’s teachings. Wow. Nancy Pelosi does that every day, so what is your problem?

    Here’s one that I would like you to address. A liberal pundit has now acknowledged that a fetus is life, but chooses to kill it anyway. What say you?

    Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 27, 2013 / 1:08 pm

      Cluster my question was really not that complicated. When contraception came up in ObamaCare Catholic bishops freaked out and their hospital administrators fell in line with “religious beliefs.” Fine. Now there’s this malpractice suit that could cost a Catholic hospital company millions if they admit that a fetus is a person and they say, “A fetus isn’t a person.” I’m not Catholic I just think its a bit disingenuous to take that stance after all the bombing, and droning and candle light vigils and marches for the last 40 odd years just to save a few million bucks?

      • Cluster January 27, 2013 / 1:28 pm

        It’s obvious that the plaintiff wants it both ways Frederick. If the Church had their way, it wouldn’t be so. Why couldn’t you put that together genius?

      • Amazona January 27, 2013 / 3:20 pm

        Catholic bishops did not”freak out” but merely pointed out that Obamacare required a violation of the 1st Amendment, in that it allowed government to interfere with the practice of a religion. You bigots may sneer at outrage at being told that the State can override religious belief and practice, but your efforts to recast the reaction as “freaking out” is nothing but an example of your intolerance.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 27, 2013 / 1:10 pm

      I say if a woman wants to kill her unborn child its none of my business. That’s exactly what I’ve always said. The Boss, Cavalor disagrees with me vehemently on this issue and yet we can find common ground on so many other things that it’s a non issue. I’ll go one further did Terra really need fifty million more mouths to feed over the last 40 years?

      • neocon01 January 27, 2013 / 1:28 pm

        lil freddy schwartsputz

        I’ll go one further did Terra really need fifty million more mouths to feed over the last 40 years

        IF NOT, why dont you help save the planet? google kavorkian

      • Cluster January 27, 2013 / 1:30 pm


        Thank you for admitting that you have no problem with killing people. I will make note of that for future discussions.

      • neocon01 January 27, 2013 / 1:31 pm

        lil ferdy schwartsputz

        I say if a woman wants to kill her unborn child its none of my business.

        soooo if another hitler or muslim wants to murder every jew it is none of our business?

        would you take one step further and ask if the earth needs to feed all these jews for fourty years?

        camon freddy make that call

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 27, 2013 / 1:32 pm

        Neocon to quote a great Magis of our bench here in Hell, “You can’t kill what’s already dead.”

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 27, 2013 / 1:38 pm

        “Thank you for admitting that you have no problem with killing people. I will make note of that for future discussions.”

        Hey I did it for LBJ and Nixon and everyone seems cool with that.

      • Amazona January 27, 2013 / 1:39 pm

        “I say if a woman wants to kill her unborn child its none of my business.”

        OK—let’s take that to its logical conclusion:

        I say if someone wants to kill you, it’s none of my business.
        I say if someone wants to break into your house, that’s none of my business.

        And so on……….

        So just as no one should try to come to the rescue of the helpless innocent child being poisoned or ripped to pieces by a pathologically selfish female because its existence is inconvenient to her, I guess no one should come to your aid if you are attacked and your life is in danger. If someone feels inconvenienced by a chubby Jewish cab driver who lives in a fantasy world that includes a hive from another galaxy, and wants to eliminate him, it shouldn’t be anybody else’s business.

        It’s no one’s business but yours and your attacker’s. He has the same right to make the same decisions about your right to life, based on his own selfish goals and his own convenience, as the female does about an unborn child. If there is no inherent right to life, based merely on being a human being, then there is no inherent right to life based merely on being a human being.

        And if there is no right to private property, as Marx wished, then there is no right to private property. Someone wants what you have? It’s none of my business. Someone wants to use your body for sexual or emotional pleasure? (Yes, I know it is highly unlikely, but I am trying to make a point here….) It’s none of my business.

        And by “none of my business” I also mean “none of anyone else’s business” as well, including the government.

        The fact is, your child-killing female can only kill her child because she is stronger and the baby is defenseless—as long as there is no civilization to step in and say it IS someone else’s business.

        And we are back to the reality of the True Left—–Might Makes Right.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 27, 2013 / 1:41 pm

        Amazona it’s probably going to make you sick to read this from the New York Times Opinion page by Tim Egan but it’s right on target.

        The best quote comes from a GOP representative and it crystallizes what the problem is, Looking at the coming battles in Washington, Representative Justin Amash, Republican of Michigan, spoke more political truth in one sentence than Boehner and McConnell have in four years of speeches. “The public is not behind us,” he said, “and that’s a real problem for our party.”

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 27, 2013 / 1:47 pm

        “So just as no one should try to come to the rescue of the helpless innocent child being poisoned or ripped to pieces by a pathologically selfish female because its existence is inconvenient to her, I guess no one should come to your aid if you are attacked and your life is in danger. If someone feels inconvenienced by a chubby Jewish cab driver who lives in a fantasy world that includes a hive from another galaxy, and wants to eliminate him, it shouldn’t be anybody else’s business”

        Wow you finally get it welcome to the club. And for the record the answer to your most passionate plea for the unborn is , NO! Because it’s none of your business Amazona. Are you going to adopt the kid and spend your time and money to raise it and educate it? Go there and I’ll march with you but since you aren’t it continues to be a woman’s right to choose and will be for the next ten thousand years or until medical science makes abortions unnecessary.

      • Amazona January 27, 2013 / 1:50 pm

        If “right on target” means a bullseye placed behind some Lib’s buttocks, then I guess you could say the mental sewage of your much-admired Tim Egan MIGHT be.

        Watch out for spatter.

        What we know, and what you don’t because you have no real political center but only a gaping void of real identity which try to fill with a fantasy life in a fantasy world fueled by hate and resentment, is that the American public IS behind what conservatism stands for, but is NOT behind the cartoonish invention fed to it by the RRL and the Complicit Agenda Media.

        That’s a problem, but it’s a problem of communication and education, not of actual political ideology.

        If Americans are actually aligned with the agendas and ideology of the far Left, why don’t Dem politicians run as radical Leftists? Why do they have to disguise themselves as “moderates” or “centrists”, and why do they have to hide behind an elaborate construct of lies and personal attacks on the opposition?

        If the American public is really in favor of true Leftist governance, you people ought to be standing up, loud and proud, and declaring what you really stand for, confident that the nation will rise up and support you.

        It hasn’t happened so far. Even after being elected, Leftist politicians have to hide behind weasel words and cloak their true agendas in language that might slip past the unwary and not alert them to the reality of the movement.

      • Amazona January 27, 2013 / 1:57 pm

        I’m glad Freddy’s posts ARE kept on, at least for now, because he is for some reason coming out of the Lefty closet and admitting to the reality of the movement he supports.

        He has actually stated his belief that this should be a lawless nation, where the strong take what they want and kill whom they please according to their own personal inclinations.

        True, it’s at odds with the true agenda of the Left, which is that of an iron-fisted government exerting rigid control over every aspect of every citizen’s life, and even his thoughts, but then one can hardly expect someone like Freddy, who actually uses terms like “..a great Magis of our bench here in Hell..” with what I presume to be seriousness, to apply knowledge or logic to his spewings.

        I think every now and then we need to have a peek into the strange underbelly of the base of the 21st Century American Left, to see that while its leaders might be focused and efficient its cannon fodder is just plain freakin’ nuts.

      • Amazona January 27, 2013 / 2:06 pm

        In a wholly predictable move, Freddy ducks into the silly “argument” of “WELL, WILL YOU ADOPT THIS BABY !!!!!!!!!!”

        It’s always fun to see how long it will take these freaks to fall back on the old, tired, debunked, empty, silly, backups they try to use to justify their belief system.

        Why not say, if I want to intervene in a mugging, that I can only do so if I then agree to support the rescued victim? Why not say I should not call the police to report domestic violence next door if I am not willing to take in the battered wife and make her part of my family for life?

        And, to take Freddy’s admission that if someone wants to kill someone else it’s really no one’s business just a step farther, this is clearly an argument AGAINST any form of gun control, including background checks. Because according to Freddy, it’s just no one’s damned business if someone wants to blast a few people.

        At least we know that the denizens of this pretend world are not out there shrieking for more gun control.

        As he said when I pointed out this attitude—“Wow you finally get it welcome to the club.”

        Well, I wouldn’t say I want IN the “club”—I merely identified it as the home base of some truly disturbed people.

      • Amazona January 27, 2013 / 3:22 pm

        “Hey I did it for LBJ and Nixon and everyone seems cool with that.”

        What a crock. You did WHAT “for LBJ and Nixon” and who here is “cool with” anything about you?

      • Jeremiah January 27, 2013 / 4:33 pm

        Fredrick may be winning on the ideological battlefield, but it’s only because of mind control. Nearly the entire population has been void of any moral and rational ideas since the sixties. The left-leaning public school system will not allow any other viewpoint than the liberal worldview.

        In the end, however, Fredrick’s views are failed, to the detriment of his lost soul. And millions of others just like him.

  8. Cluster January 27, 2013 / 1:40 pm

    Using Fredeicks logic, Obama is the king of hypocrites. Claiming to a be a Christian all the while mandating the Catholic church’s offer abortion coverage including abortifacients. . What say you Frederick? Hypocritical, no? How can you support that kind of a person?

    • Cluster January 27, 2013 / 1:49 pm

      So you can be a Christian on your own terms, is that it Frederick? Just make up the belief system as you go? You’re such an idiot.

      And if you have no problem with a woman killing her unborn child, then why should anyone care about any murder? As Amazona so astutely point out? Why should society cares if someone kills you?

      Please answer that. I want to know how your brain works on this one.

    • neocon01 January 27, 2013 / 1:55 pm

      There are more different types of Christianity than just what you think is the one true path

      THIS from some gay cabby that thinks he is a dead demon posting from hell????

      Bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha //………ROTFLMAO

    • Cluster January 27, 2013 / 2:02 pm

      Frederick, answer the science question.

    • Cluster January 27, 2013 / 2:09 pm

      Why does it matter where it lives? If that same single cell organism were extracted from Mars, it would die.

      Try again.

    • Cluster January 27, 2013 / 2:11 pm

      And I will note that you just admitted that the fetus is life. So now the question of murder age related. Now old does a person have to be Frederick?

      Be careful of the hole you’re digging.

    • neocon01 January 27, 2013 / 2:33 pm


      Looks like you’re gonna have some more bruises to chalk up to the “bullying” that is the noting of plain facts


  9. Cluster January 27, 2013 / 1:55 pm

    Everyone also needs to note that Frederick, like many pro death liberal men,, have zero regard for Fathers. They are so eager to kill life that they disregard their own interests, which is completely diabolical.

    • neocon01 January 27, 2013 / 2:00 pm


      Everyone also needs to note that Frederick, like many pro death liberal men,, have zero regard for Fathers.

      like most gay men they arent fathers, they still havent figured out the buildings exit from it’s entrance.
      Most mass murderer’s are homosexuals.

      • neocon01 January 27, 2013 / 2:04 pm

        Neocon I’ve gotten the best of you today just take your licks and slink off home.

        Ummmmmmm I AM home…..DUHHH!

      • neocon01 January 27, 2013 / 2:06 pm

        I’m bisexual

        BOTH pitcher and catcher?
        wow a talented man, maybe you can be the Kommie kenyans next “body man”

    • Cluster January 27, 2013 / 2:01 pm

      As long as you’re winning and the lights come on? Wow. You definitely have low standards. Fact is sport, you are an advocate of death, and disregard your own humanity in the process. I am sorry that that fact has angered you.

    • Cluster January 27, 2013 / 2:14 pm

      Real life? You have admitted that a fetus is life, so lets build from there. Now the question is, how old does someone need to be before you consider it real life?

      Keep in mind, that your President advocates after birth abortion so again, be careful of the hole you’re digging.

  10. Cluster January 27, 2013 / 2:08 pm


    Why are you so insecure that you have to claim to have “gotten the best” of neocon? That is so childish.

    Fact is you can’t answer the science question, and were quick to anger when you realized that you are pro death with no regard for Fathers. A diabolical characteristic.

    • Cluster January 27, 2013 / 2:12 pm

      I have read a lot of the junk you posted, hence my definition.

    • neocon01 January 27, 2013 / 2:14 pm


      Childish? Did you read some of the junk he posted? Really.I take umbrage!

      the OLD but but but he did it toooooo defense…………..kindergarten 101

  11. Cluster January 27, 2013 / 2:18 pm

    Hey Watson – Kaepernick just injected God into an interview:

    “Number one is kind of my way of saying, I don’t really care what people think about my tattoos,” he said. “I got them for me and to show people this is what I believe in. God has brought me this far, he’s laid out a phenomenal path for me and I can’t do anything but thank him.”

    Now, please tell me why the media isn’t bashing him.

  12. neocon01 January 27, 2013 / 2:46 pm

    The Man-made CO2 Global Warming Fraud! (Spirited and technical rejection of AGW)
    Energy Pulse ^ | 8/28/12 | Bob Ashworth

    Here is an excerpt1 from a paper written by a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) meteorologist; “Climate models used for estimating effects of increases in greenhouse gases show substantial increases in water vapor as the globe warms and this increased moisture would further increase the warming.” However, this meteorologist along with the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) crowd got it backwards about water vapor and CO2 — they cool the earth like all other gases in our atmosphere!

    Although moisture in the atmosphere does increase with warming, this is because the higher temperature causes more water to evaporate. With every pound of water evaporated 1,000 Btu is absorbed and that causes cooling. Further, increased water in the atmosphere causes further cooling (not warming) by reflecting more of the radiant energy from the Sun that is hitting the water vapor molecules back to outer space.

    Al Gore presented the climate change fraud as well in his “Inconvenient Truth”, actually a “Convenient Lie” presentation of the Vostok Ice Core data, see below.

    Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” Documentary — Cause and Effect Reversed

    In this documentary, Al Gore fudged the Vostok Ice core temperature and CO2 line graphs so it would show a CO2 spike coming first in time, but the real graph showed just the opposite. See the data in a shorter time frame (240,000 Years Before Present rather than 420,000 years as presented by Gore). This makes it easier to see which came first, Figure 1.

  13. neocon01 January 27, 2013 / 2:49 pm

    . Need to know anything else?

    No I have waded through enough of your vomit and freak show for one day.

    • neocon01 January 28, 2013 / 4:16 pm

      Welcome to the lefts new ameriKa, surrounded by brown……………”shirts” and useful idiots.

      In the video, Bloomberg is seen surrounded by security. Mattera approaches Bloomberg and asks, “In the spirit of gun control, will you disarm your entire security team?”

      Bloomberg’s reply: “Uh, you, we’ll get right back to you.”

      “Why can you defend yourself but not the majority of Americans?” Mattera asks as the mayor walks away. “Look at the team of security you’ve got. And you’re an advocate for gun control?”

  14. Cluster January 27, 2013 / 2:52 pm

    Remembering the article from a few days ago that dbschmidt posted that so accurately defined liberals as creating their own melo dramatic world wherein they alone are the stars with super powers of compassion and wisdom – truthie and Frederick have demonstrated that very well for us all today.

    Frederick is having difficulty determining when life begins and when it doesn’t, but has no problem advocating death while being the champion for women everywhere.

    Truthie, as his faithful sidekick, seemingly doesn’t know what an abortifacient is, but that doesn’t stop him from leveling personal attacks while standing on his soap box with cape and all.

    Too funny

    • dbschmidt January 28, 2013 / 8:03 pm


      One has to look no further than the MSNBC’s mouthpiece Toure on abortion. It “saved” him (I think it might be a him) as it was just a collection of cells when he didn’t want it because it could hamper his lifestyle with a woman that “wasn’t” the one but somehow becomes “his child” at the same age as the collection of cells that was aborted when he decides he wants it and this is the “one he has been waiting for.” Outside of Obama that is.

      How friggin’ convenient as well as hypocritical not to mention a great number of words not to be used in mixed company. Whether that is mixed company like men and women or men, women and whatever is Toure.

      • Amazona January 28, 2013 / 8:23 pm

        I wonder if Toure will sit down with his son and tell him that he would have had a brother or sister, but the timing of the conception was just not convenient so the baby got flushed—and let the kid work it out for himself that it is pure chance that HE didn’t face the same fate.

        I’ve always wondered how a child would react to the news that a sibling or two or three got killed off because of selfishness, and that he or she got to survive only because he or she was less inconvenient than the dead ones were.

        What a wonderful message to send to your child. Most mothers tell their children that they were loved from the very beginning. I wonder what it would be like to be told that some siblings were not only not loved but were bumped off. Instead of growing up with the certainty that your parents are there for you, no matter what, you have to live with the reality that they MIGHT be there for you, maybe, if it works out that way—but Katy bar the door if you are inconvenient.

  15. Norm Keegel January 31, 2013 / 9:06 pm

    50 years ago I argued with a man who stood on a soapbox in my college claiming that the Earth is flat. I’m older and wiser now.

    • M. Noonan January 31, 2013 / 9:44 pm


      As I wasn’t here 50 years ago, it wasn’t me – but I do see the point of not arguing with the impenetrable; at nearly 50 I have picked up some wisdom. At least enough to know when someone is trying to sell me something I neither need nor want…pity more people couldn’t see that sooner about, say, Al Gore…

Comments are closed.