The Global Warming Hoax: Watch “International Conference on Climate Change” on YouTube

I was introduced to climate change in 2006, about the time the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” appeared. I was immediately struck by the Hockey Stick Graph fraud and the claimed connection between temperature and co2, the suggestion being that co2 caused temperature to rise, but the graph shown indicated that co2 increases followed temperature rises. Even Gore said “the relationship is complicated.”
As to the Hockey Stick Graph, I pointed out that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age had been eliminated.  The speaker was not amused by that as I was supposed to accept this hoax. As to the warming and co2 connection, having the effect, temperarture rise, come before the cause, co2, was baffling. It just can’t be. That is like saying that umbrellas cause rain! Furthermore, the fact that temperature rises would cause co2 to increase is due to “out gassing,” that phenomena of gas escaping from warming liquids, like the oceans, is a scientific fact. The alarmists claim that 97% of scientists agree and etc. That is also a hoax that has been debunked repeatedly. You can look that up.
In addition to these myths, I was struck by how co2, the basis of life on earth, was supposed to be poison (says the EPA). It is a very small part of the atmosphere. How small? There are about 3.5 molecules of co2 in 10,000 parts of the atmosphere. A rise to 4 molecules per 10,000 was said to be disaster. Who are they kidding, I thought? Well they are successfully kidding the politicians and a declining portion of the population. The major drive here is the $7billion dollars given to academia to “Prove” climate change, global warming, and other permutations of the hoax.
There are other scares promoted here, coastal flooding, more flooding, more drought, more hurricanes,(there have been fewer) and etc. The glaciers have been melting for 10,000 years and that’s a good thing. If they were growing, thats a sign of an ice age and that is big trouble.  Remember, there has been no warming for17 years, how’s that for an inconvenient truth?
The impetus for this fraud is political power. Scare the people, pass restrictive laws, then claim the earth is saved and we did it, hence permanent political and police power. The goal is power and money, I think it will fail in the long term but we will suffer in the short term.
UPDATE: The International Monetary Fund has just urged higher taxes on oil, natural gas and coal in the 156 countries it works with. The money goes to government.
The link below is to a scientific review of the climate issue and is short and to the point. Take a look.

Link from
International Conference on Climate Change:

Right To Work Laws Raise Workers’ Income in Michigan

Former union stronghold Michigan shocked the labor inion bosses when it became a right to work state in December 2012.  There were threats of violence:

“There will be blood, there will be repercussions,” State Democratic Rep. Douglas Geiss, speaking on the House floor on Tuesday, warned ahead of the votes.

And of course, there were predictions of disaster for the “little guy” as ruthless bosses would exploit the defenseless workers.

Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, said that right-to-work legislation would lower employee wages.

Utter self-serving nonsense from the political party which rakes off union dues as political “contributions” from workers whose paychecks are deducted from by their union bosses. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports:

Michigan’s per-capita personal income increased from $38,291 in 2012 (before right-to-work became law) to $39,215 in 2013, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. That increase was the ninth highest in the country. (snip)

“The dire predictions of right-to-work detractors have not come true — Michigan has been a leader in income growth since passage,” said James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

A study released this week by Richard Vedder, a distinguished professor of economics at Ohio University and an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute as well as with the Mackinac Center, found that “incomes rise following the passage of RTW laws, even after adjusting for substantial population growth that those laws also induce. RTW states tend to be vibrant and growing; non-RTW states tend to be stagnant and aging.”

The study states: “The evidence suggests that if non-RTW states had adopted RTW laws 35 years ago or so, income levels would be on the order of $3,000 per person higher today, with the overall effect varying somewhat from state to state.”

In fairness, RTW is not the only factor in determining personal income, which includes sources other than wages in its totals. But it makes sense that freeing workers from the compulsion to join a union and fork over part of their paychecks to bosses who spend it on political donations to Democrats raises their incomes. Not to mention that it stimulates entrepreneurs and established companies to expand job opportunities, thereby raising demand for workers, and growing wages.

Another big fail for big labor.  More evidence that unions harm workers

Hat tip:

Share Share |Share on twitter Twitter
|Share on facebook Facebook
| Comments | Print |Share on email  Email
by TaboolaSponsored ContentYou May Like

3 Steps to Finding the Right Assisted Living Care Facility
Care Conversations

If Scotland votes “yes”: Dear Prime Minister and First Minister… | The Economist

This link is to an article on the vote for Scottish Independence. As a Scottish-American, I have interest in this issue as do, of course, my Scottish relatives in Caithness.   This is interesting and attention should be paid to this issue. By the way, I did send The Declaration of Independence to Caithness.

On “America. Imagine The World Without Her,” Flixter’s “Critics” Problem

Flixter and Rotten Tomatoes are on line movie information and ratings sites. Flixter is the mobile version of Rotten Tomatoes. These sites offer two ratings for current films. The first is the Critics rating. These critics are hired by the site to rate movies. The next ratings is from actual viewers of the films as they emerge from the theater. I pay attention to the Viewers opinion and none to the Critics opinion. Now I think I know why that is the proper action.
The. Dinesh D’Souza movie, “America, Imagine the World Without Her” is curretly playing in theaters across the nation. (Comment Here The. Critics give this excellent film a 9% positive rating while Viewers give it a 89%  positive rating. So what’s the difference?
The movie has a political and cultural message of American exceptionalism that is embraced by most Americans and recognized around the world. However, this is contrary to the progressive view that America is a flawed nation with horrible history. So now we know that Flixter and Rotten Tomatoes hire critics for political reasons who are directed to review film for political content first and merit last. So the only valuable review you should pay attention to is the Viewer rating and disregard the Critics as they are only ideologues without redeeming virtue.   In this action, these sites join COSTCO that tried to remove the book from its stores and Google that suppressed search inquiries for the film. These are progressive efforts to reduce audiences for this important film. I think they back fired and that is a good thing.
This is a significat demerit for Flixter and Rotten Tomatoes, but one the managers there are not likely to correct.

A Brief Look at the MLB Pennant Races on July 21.

On July 21, with about 65 games to go, Major League Baseball shows that competive balance. has been achieved, for now, anyway.”Competitve Balance ” is a concept that I was once asked to define. I did so by developing “Fifth Game Theory.” Read the post Here.

In essence, this points out that all teams should win two of five games and lose two of them as well. This leaves te fifth Game as the one that determines. Pennant winners and losers. There are 32.4 such game (round it up or down) so a team that wins all Fifth Games will finish 32 games ahead of a team that lose all of them. Seldom does a gap like this appear. Most of the time,  team winning percentages are in the range of. 400 up to. 600. (The example shown before shows two teams with these percentages)

This year at this point, only the Rangers are under at  .398 and only the A’s and Angels are over at. .622 and. .608. 
Given that for the next 64 games, even the leaders will lose two of four, it will be wins in the Fifth Games that will determine the division winners. In the National League, each division has two teams tied for the lead. In the American League, LA is 1 1/2 games behind the A’s, NYY and Toronto are but three games behind Baltimore and Detoit is 5 1/2 games ahead of Cleveland.  This has the look of a dramatic, multi-team, pennant race. Remember as well, that there are now two wild cards in each league, so predicting the outcome is impossible, at least for me today.Pay attention to the next two months and remember as we get close to September, that “Fall Baseball is War.” Here

Reflecting upon the storming of the Bastille and the French Revolution | Washington Times Communities

Today is Bastille Day, commemortating that day in 1789 when the Bastille, a fortress built in 1370, was attacked to obtain gunpowder and cannon to defend the mob against the King’s Army. This is the event that began the French Revolution that reached its peak in brutality with the Terror in 1793 with executions via the guillotine. It is said that possiblly 20,000 victims were executed. In these times, being suspect was enough to condemn. Early political correctness gone amok. 
Have some knowledge of Bastille Day and the French Revolution is important. Crane Brinton in “Anatomy of Revolution”  explains revolution by looking at revolutions in France in detail, but also Russia, England and our own revolution in 1775. All are different and the differences are critical. Our revolution, for example, never had a terror.
Take a look at this article and look at Brinton’s book. Happy Bastille Bay or VIve L’France.

United States Undergoing Decade-Long Cooling | Heartlander Magazine

This article gets at the very heart of the climate change debate. NOAA data shows that the US has been cooling for ten years. This is an important article.

Gettysburg- July 3, the Charge!!

It’s July 3 and on this day in 1863, in the middle of the Gettysburg battlefield, 16,000 Confederates attacked the Union lines at a copse of trees that have been know as the high water mark of the Confederacy. After the charge, the bodies of members of the 26th North Carolina marked the precise location of that high water mark. This allows North Carolinians to claim they went “Furthest” in the Civil War.

I have been visiting Gettysburg since I was a teenager. Then, with a friend with Southern roots like me, I made Pickett’s and Pettigrew’s charge.  The ground is rolling, so for part of the walk, you are shielded from Federal fire. It is only after crossing the Emmitsburg Road that you are fully exposed to artillery and musketry.  

There are thousands of Gettysburg books around.  In “Intruder in the Dust,” William Faulkner wrote about it this way:

“For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it’s still not yet two o’clock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it’s all in the balance, it hasn’t happened yet, it hasn’t even begun yet, it not only hasn’t begun yet but there is still time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances…” 

My Uncle Vernon Niven felt this way, and my great Uncle Malcom Niven was trying to get up Culps Hill at the same time. Remember the day. 

Read more:–_and_picketts_charge.html#ixzz36RTXhHdD 
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter 

America: Dinesh D’Souza’s Great Documentary-With a Clarification

I saw “America” last night, its opening night, and found this to be a remarkable movie and a “must see” for most of us. Those who shouldn’t see it are those who simply want to believe the negative view of America that is being promoted today. Our country doesn’t deserve such a disservice.
Without delving too deeply into the movie, thus avoiding the need for spoiler alerts, there is in the opening of the film a Revolutionary War vingette that needs explaining as D’Souza fails to lay proper foundation for it.
This vingette shows a mounted senior officer in Continental Uniform moving on horseback with his troops. There is a shot of a British officer with a rifled musket taking aim on this officer and then deciding not to fire. In the movie, it actually allows the Brit to shoot the officer, George Washington, who falls dead and goes on to project his death and its impact on the war and our country. But he didn’t shoot.
This vingette is based on history. The battle was a British victory at Brandywine Creek near present Chadd’s Ford, Pennsylvania, September 11, 1777,  and the officer was Patrick Ferguson who had developed a breech loading rifled musket that was able to be loaded and fired seven times in a minute, more than twice the rate of fire a well trained soldier could achieve with the muzzle loading Brown Bess that armed British infantrymen.
Ferguson actually had Washington in his sights, and, as he was said to be the best shot in the British army, would probably have killed Washington had he fired. He said later that “I didn’t think it proper to murder this fine officer in ambush.”  That he didn’t fire had a huge impact on our history, and we are still thankful.
Ferguson rose to command positions in the British army and was killed in the Continental victory at Kings Mountain (South Carolina), October 7, 1780.
The rest of the movie is self-explanatory, but this portion needed explanation.

Redskins Trademark: No Complaints Made To Patent Office Over The Use Of The Trademark .

From the Washington Times:

The recent decision by an obscure administrative law board to cancel the Washington Redskins‘ trademark registrations came despite the fact the agency hadn’t received a single letter from a member of the public complaining about the team’s name, records show.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which is part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ruled last month that the name was disparaging to American Indians. The team is appealing that decision.

Politicians, including President Obama, have waded into the team name controversy, with many saying the team should change its name. But despite widespread media attention and a legal fight that goes back more than a decade, the USPTO recently acknowledged there’s hardly been an avalanche of public complaints filed with the agency.

In fact, the agency doesn’t have any record of correspondence from the public about the Redskins‘ name — expressing sentiments one way or another — prior to the board’s June 18 ruling.

A Freedom of Information Act request from The Washington Times asking for any communications from Congress or the public produced just 13 pages of records.

Six of those pages were a handwritten, meandering letter from a man in Lubbock, Texas, whose position on the team name controversy isn’t clear. Another writer congratulated the appeals board after its decision but questioned whether the judges would “go after” the United Negro College Fund. Both letters were sent after the ruling.

In addition, there were a few pages of email correspondence between staffers for the USPTO and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s nonvoting member of Congress. Ms. Norton has been a vocal critic of the team name, but her staffers were mostly seeking background information on the case.

The board made its ruling last month based on a legal challenge from Amanda Blackhorse and four others, who petitioned the USPTO against the Redskins, calling the team name offensive to American Indians. After the ruling, she called the decision a “great victory for Native Americans and all Americans,” saying the team’s name was “racist and derogatory.”

Both sides in this widely publicized case introduced thousands of pages of evidence and testimony from experts. And the decision hinged, in part, on the testimony of linguistics experts.

The Redskins declined to comment through an attorney Monday, but an attorney for Ms. Blackhorse said the paucity of public input isn’t entirely unexpected despite the intense media coverage.

“There are regimented procedures in which the USPTO makes its decisions, and there is no mechanism for input from the general public,” attorney Jesse A. Witten wrote in an email. “This is not at all like the notice and comment period that accompanies a regulatory rule making.”

Rebecca Tushnet, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the patent office isn’t like the Federal Trade Commission or Food and Drug Administration, where there can be a public comment procedure for individual cases.

“If you don’t have a particular stake there’s no obvious point at which your input can be given,” she said. “I’m sure that doesn’t stop people from sending in correspondence, but I honestly wouldn’t know how to go about getting it read in an individual case.”

The USPTO did not respond to phone calls Monday.

The trademark appeals board based its ruling on part of the law that says a trademark can be canceled if it is deemed disparaging. In the case of the Redskins, the board said the drop in the use of the word in the last century showed it was becoming a slur. The board also pointed to research that found at least 30 percent of American Indians surveyed found the name offensive.

The agency’s decision doesn’t mean the Redskins are barred from using the team name, but it does make it harder for them to assert their brand against potential copycats.

The same appeals board was overruled on appeal in 2003 after ruling against the Redskins in a similar case. Bob Raskopf, the team’s trademark attorney, said in a statement after the most recent ruling that he expects the same outcome.

“This case is no different from the earlier case, where the board canceled the Redskins‘ trademark registrations and where a federal-district court disagreed and reversed the board,” he said.

Even if the public hasn’t been very vocal with the agency, politicians have been quick to let the media and Redskins know where they stand.

Last fall, Mr. Obama said he would think about changing the name if he were team owner Dan Snyder.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, has vowed not to attend any games until the team changes its name.

And Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, said last week at an Associated Press Sports Editors meeting that while he doesn’t think Mr. Snyder should be forced to drop the Redskins‘ name, he’d “probably” change the team name nonetheless.

Read more: 
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter