The latest fear mongering from the Church of Global Warming comes packed with a really scary photoshopped picture of the 2005 season and a scary headline: WARMING ATLANTIC WORSENS HURRICANES:

Scientists have long known that hurricanes get their enormous energy from warm waters, so the warmer the water, the more fuel a storm has to either start up or get stronger. The study calculates how much storm frequency and strength is due to warmer sea water, said author Mark Saunders, professor of climate prediction at the University College London.

Saunders found a distinct numerical connection between the ups and downs of water temperatures and how nasty hurricane season gets. That helps explain why hurricanes have been so much worse in the past dozen years, and even why 2007 — with waters slightly cooler than normal — was an exception and not that bad a hurricane year, Saunders said.

“It’s very surprisingly sensitive to small changes in sea-surface temperature,” he said.

Wow. That is compelling. Or it would have been had, I not read this on the podcast on Monday:

Two South Florida scientists have found that steadily warming oceans should translate to fewer Atlantic hurricanes striking the United States.

The reason: As sea surface temperatures rise, vertical wind shear increases. And wind shear makes it difficult for storms to grow, which was seen in the past hurricane season, when several systems were stunted.

“Using data extending back to the middle 19th Century, we found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up,” said Chunzai Wang, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Or this back in 2007:

According to a new study, this year’s drop in Accumulated Cyclone Energy may be caused by global warming. Higher temperatures cause more evaporation. Water conducts heat more efficiently than air, and so higher levels of atmospheric moisture cause a relative evening out of global air temperatures by region. This results in fewer and weaker cyclones, because wind is the result of variations in air temperature.

But 2008, boy you better hold on to your hats folks. This is gonna be a bad one. Not that we haven’t heard that before about 2006 and 2007. How did that turn out again?

With the official hurricane season now over, we now have a better idea of what 85%+ forecast certainty meant: Wrong 100% of the time.

In August, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) forecast a 85% probability there would be an “above normal” hurricane season.

This is the second year running the government hurricane forecast was wrong. This 0-2 record may tell us something about other similarly “certain” forecasts, such as those issued by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

If forecasters can’t get hurricane projections right during hurricane season, why should we trust their forecasts for a hundred years from now?

NOAA had predicted 7-9 hurricanes and 3-5 major hurricanes, but there were just six hurricanes, only two of which were “major.” There are “normally” six hurricanes, two major, and 11 named storms.

The science is settled folks. There is a consensus after all. Just because we have a lack of consensus doesn’t mean there isn’t a consensus. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Is no one responsible for themselves anymore? I am told that things are bad all over America, that people have to choose between food or heat, between food and meds, people who bought houses with ARMs when they knew they didn’t even have a job are losing thier homes…OH WOE IS ME!

Personal responsibility? It doesn’t exist. Take this CNN Piece for instance:

“Veronica McNeil has two kids,” said CNN correspondent Alina Cho. “She recently lost her job. Her husband’s an iron worker and the family is feeling the pinch.”

While McNeil was introduced as struggling financially, she then announced that for the right price she’d buy an unnecessary high-ticket item.

“If I’m here to buy baby stuff and I see a TV at a good sale price, I’ll grab it,” McNeil said.

Cho pointed toward “rising gas and home heating oil prices and Americans losing their homes” for money being “tight.” Unfortunately, Cho entirely missed the personal responsibility angle – if there is something you can’t afford, don’t buy it.

Cho also cited another shopper who complained “it seems like everything I buy is a little more expensive today than it was yesterday.” Still, the man was willing to splurge on a “big TV for the Giants game” because he’s a fan of the team.

(Source.)

Meanwhile, because things are so bad, Congress is offering rebates to the poor, poor citizens, so they can go out and buy a bunch of other crap they can’t afford or don’t need. $193 billion so some jackass doesn’t have to watch the Super Bowl on a regular television. The government is, and has been, reducing the masses to a large collective, a group of dependents.

Give me liberty or give me death? Not anymore. Now it’s, give me a rebate so I can buy that flat screen I wanted. This isn’t what our forefathers died for. This is what Stalin and Lenin dreamed of. A willing group of drones, marching down the road to serfdom.

European bar owners actually have the audacity to try to keep their customers warm when it is cool outside. The enviro-mafia says that is going to kill the planet and should be banned.

“Patio heaters are scandalous because they are burning fossil fuels in the open sky, so producing vast quantities of CO2 with very little heat benefit,” said European parliamentarian Fiona Hall, who wrote the report criticizing the pace of energy reforms in Europe.

“We urge the Commission to set a timetable for completely taking off the market some appliances that are intrinsically inefficient, such as patio heaters,” she added.

The report will not lead directly to legislation, but it seeks to guide the European Commission on parliamentarians’ priorities.

Read that last sentence again and repeat after me: “Yeah…right.” As the whole of Euprope leans more and more to the left, this will most certainly become law before long. And the bar owners will have a fit.

Any ban would be fiercely opposed by UK pub owners, whose businesses suffered after a smoking ban last year and are now struggling with weakening consumer spending and rising costs.

The heaters are also popular in many other European countries.

“It’s ironic this comes at a time when we’ve all invested heavily in slightly heated areas after the government banned smoking,” said Giles Thorley, Chief Executive of Britain’s biggest pubs owner Punch Taverns, which has around 8,400 venues.

These guys are screwed. They are fighting the anti-smoking lobby and the enviro-mafia at the same time. Say goodbye to your outdoor heaters. Which is kind of ironic, because, if the alarmists are right, the bar owners really wouldn’t need the heaters after a while. The Earth would be so warm, they could do without them.

This is great.

Finally, someone on television said exactly what I was thinking. The death of Heath Ledger is unfortunate, and I feel great sympathy for his family, but let’s stop talking about an actor and start talking about our fallen heroes. Thank you Montel Williams.

Hat Tip to Cody for sending this to us.

Live on BlogTalkRadio: Mon, Wed, & Fri Call in: (646) 716-8606 [display_podcast]

Political News

• Election 2008: McCain vs. Clinton and Obama
• Why Some in the Conservative Base (Including Right Wing Nuts Like Me) Will Never Vote for McCain
• Is This the Year for Third Party Candidates?
• Lieberman Rules Out Running With McCain

Continue reading →

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama plan to institute a universal health care plan when they become president. They pledge to cover every citizen in the United States, but they don’t want us to know one thing: how much it will really cost.

California just had its latest plan for universal health care squashed before it was even voted for. It was not squashed by the RINO governor, but by the Democrats in the California Congress. They looked at the program and saw its fatal flaw. It was just too expensive:

Like collapses in Illinois, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, this one crumpled because of the costs, which are always much higher than anticipated. The truth teller was state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, who thought to ask about the price tag of a major new entitlement amid what’s already a $14.5 billion budget shortfall.

An independent analysis confirmed the plan would be far more expensive than proponents admitted. Even under the most favorable assumptions, spending would outpace revenue by $354 million after two years, and likely $3.9 billion or more. “A situation that I thought was bad,” Mr. Perata noted, “in fact was worse.”

This reveals that liberal health-care politics is increasingly the art of the impossible: You can’t make coverage “universal” while at the same time keeping costs in check — at least without prohibitive tax increases. Lowering cost and increasing access, in other words, are separate and irreconcilable issues.

With the federal government already $9 trillion in debt, is this really practical? Not in the least, but you can count on either one of these to Saul Alinsky socialists to forget about practicality and implement it anyway, justified by massively increasing the taxes on the wealthy.

It is nothing but socialism and will only make the problem worse, as it has every where it has been tried.

Democrat John Edwards will announce he is dropping out of the race today, leaving only two major contenders on the Democrat ticket. He has not endorsed either of the other remaining candidates.

Edwards notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at an event in New Orleans, at 11 a.m. Tucson time, that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two of his advisers. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. [source]

Look for the official announcement later today.

After one primary, CNN says Rudy is quitting and endorsing McCain:

Rudy Giuliani will endorse John McCain Wednesday, two GOP sources familiar with the discussions told CNN Tuesday.

McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, had been in “ongoing discussions” with Rudy Giuliani’s campaign about the former New York mayor ending his run and endorsing McCain’s candidacy, according to a GOP official familiar with talks.

CNN projected that Arizona Sen. McCain would win the Florida GOP primary Tuesday night, beating former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, with Giuliani in a tight race for third with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

For many of us, we will go to the polls this November, unhappy with our choices for President of the United States of America.

If you are a liberal, you will most likely have Hillary for your candidate. I know, you think Obama has a chance, and he might win, but the best bet is Hillary, regardless of who endorses Barack. For the Obama, Edwards and Kucinich supporters, that is a tough vote to cast. Especially when it is likely she will not choose Obama for her running mate. Ted Strickland of Ohio and Bill Richardson of New Mexico are far better choices than Obama.

For the conservatives, most are afraid of a John McCain candidacy. And now some are calling for Joe Lieberman to be his running mate. No thanks. And others say that Mitt Romney is a bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry at a cheap sandal convention. So they really can’t support him either.

Conservatives also know that if we sit this one out, we face another Clinton White House. None of us want that, so we face casting a ballot for the lesser of two evils.

But I have a feeling that this year is going to be much different than most election years. I think this year, there will be a few more candidates than just the Democrats and the Republicans. And I’m not talking a third party, but a fourth, fifth and possibly sixth. Continue reading →