Global Warming Alarmism Cult Prompts Murder-Suicide

Monday, March 1st, 2010

The Global Warming cult scored its first known Kool-aid moment this weekend. From the UK Daily Mail:

A seven-month-old baby girl survived three days alone with a bullet in her chest beside the bodies of her parents and toddler brother.

Argentines Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their children before killing themselves after making an apparent suicide pact over fears about global warming.

Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police.

How many parents have had to calm their child’s fears about the global warming pseudo-science being presented as fact every day in the schools? Is it so surprising that people would be so afraid that the best solution they can find is to eliminate themselves?

Really, that’s the fundamental belief of AGW, right? People are evil. They suck up resources. The world would be a better place with less people. And oh, by the way, we’re all going to die in the next few years anyway. Might as well take control of it.

These people heard the messages loud and clear and acted on them. It shouldn’t be surprising.

H/T @CalebHowe on Twitter

Global Warming Fraud: An Environmental Disaster Of Epic Proportions–UPDATED

Friday, November 20th, 2009

An environmental cataclysm occurred this week. Al Gore is somewhere howling in psychic pain. Global warming skeptics and any real scientists rejoice: the fable of Global Warming aka Climate Change aka Impending Doom has been revealed for a scientifically manipulated fraud.

Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters has an excellent wrap-up of the story (damning emails, links) and asks this:

For its part, NewsBusters has sent e-mail messages requesting comment from all of the scientists mentioned in this article. None have responded yet.

However, maybe more importantly, with cap and trade legislation currently before Congress, and an international climate meeting happening in Copenhagen next month, the question is what will America’s leading media outlets do with this news.

Should we expect investigative television programs like “60 Minutes” and “20/20” to be all over this story interrogating the scientists allegedly involved in these e-mail exchanges?

Will America’s press be as eager to find out the truth of this matter as they were in fact-checking former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s new book?

Consider that at the time of this article’s publishing, only,, and have logged printed stories on this subject from this side of the Atlantic.

Will others follow, and if so, how will they report what on the surface appears to be a huge, developing story?

Think of all the people [Al Gore] who stand to make billions should this lie be the foundation for worldwide environmental policy. Think of how the government will invade Americans’ lives to “save a planet” that is in no need of saving. Consider how negotiations between governments will be changed when data gets reevaluated. Hello Kyoto?

The implications of manipulated science of this scale are breath taking. The government funds millions in environmental research. Millions of tax-payer dollars also go for medical research, it should be noted. Public policy is made by the outcomes of this research.

Are Americans supposed to trust so-called scientists, who take money from the government and then give the government self-serving recommendations? This is already a question with government guidelines regarding cancer. Environmental policy is equally pervasive in scope. Each American’s life is depending on the reliability of “science”.

This disaster will mean more than just environmental policy. This disaster calls into question the ethics of government sponsored research and the wall between science and policy.


Powerline has more about how the alarmists closed ranks when new data discounted the accepted theory:

The story began when Steve McIntyre, the same researcher who was largely responsible for destroying Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph purporting to show unprecedented warming in the 20th century, turned his attention to a famous article published by Keith Briffa of East Anglia’s CRU in 2000. This article analyzed the diameters of tree rings, including rings from an area called Yamal in Siberia, and conveniently generated another hockey-stick shaped graph. You can read an account of the ensuing controversy here. McIntyre’s work appeared to show that Briffa had cherry-picked trees in order to get the result he was looking for. One fact that this story highlights is that global warming alarmists publish their results in scientific journals, but refuse to make the underlying data publicly available so that the validity of their analyses can be checked.

McIntyre’s revelations caused a firestorm of controversy, in response to which the alarmist community circled its wagons to fend off the threat from an outsider. This process can be clearly seen in the East Anglia emails.

And one of my favorite writers on the web, and smartest, Charles Martin, has much, much more.

Not Just Pro-Abortion: The Obama Administration Is Anti-Life–UPDATED

Wednesday, July 15th, 2009

The Leftist ideology descends quickly into intellectual madness. Meddling with the average person’s life, making choices for them because they’re too stupid to make choices for themselves, devolves into believing that some people are so stupid and worthless that they shouldn’t be born. The earth is better off without some people. And then, in a further devolution, people shouldn’t exist at all, or should exist in fewer and controlled numbers because humans mess things up and really don’t deserve a place in the natural world.

Michelle Malkin writes a must-read piece about the newest unconfirmed, un-publicly vetted and powerful Obama Czar. The new guy? He’s the Science Czar and has a rich history of promoting population control. Here’s what Michelle found:

A Time magazine profile of Brown published when his book came out in 1954 reported: “Scientist Brown is not confident that anything can be done, but he insists that population control is the first and essential measure; only by cutting their birth rates drastically can the crowded agricultural countries hope to enjoy the benefits of industrialization.”

If, as the White House claims, Holdren no longer believes that “that determining optimal population is a proper role of government,” then why does he still pay homage to one of the country’s most renowned population control advocates and plug his half-century-old tome advocating better-living-through-engineered-abortions? Don’t just take my word. Believe your own eyes:

Please go read the whole thing. It’s alarming and illuminating.

Michelle rightly notes Holdren’s proximity to Health Care. Should government run health care pass, Holdren will be part of the government that runs it. He will be one of the smarter-than-you ideologues deciding who does and does not get care.


Via Steve Schippert there’s this from the aptly named

A scheme that might possibly avoid such a collapse was proposed by John Holdren of the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley. The Holdren scenario (Holdren, 1991) postulates expansion of the human population to only 10 billion and a reduction of average per-capita energy use by people in industrialized nations from 7.5 to to 3 kilowatts (kW), while increasing that of the developing nations from 1 to 3 kW. The scenario would require, among other things, that citizens of the United States” cut their average use of energy from almost 12 kW to 3 kW. That reduction could be achieved with energy efficient technologies now in hand and with an improvement (by most people’s standards) in the standard of living.

While convergence on an average per-capita consumption of 3 kW of energy by 10 billion people would close the rich-poor gap, it would still result in a total energy consumption of 30 TW, more than twice that of today. Whether the human enterprise can be sustained even temporarily on such a scale without devastating ecological consequences is unclear, as Holdren recognizes. This will depend critically on the technologies involved in the future as reserves of fossil fuels, especially petroleum, are depleted. Perhaps through funkier development and widespread application of more benign technologies (such as various forms of solar power and biomass-derived energy), environmental deterioration at the peak of human activities could be held to that of today.

And Glenn Reynolds links to Reason magazine that notes the “disturbing record” of Holdren:

In it, you will find the czar wading into some unpleasant talk about mass sterilizations and abortions.

It’s not surprising. Holdren spent the ’70s boogying down to the vibes of an imaginary population catastrophe and global cooling. He also participated in the famous wager between scientist Paul Ehrlich, the now-discredited Population Bomb theorist (and co-author of Ecoscience), and economist Julian Simon, who believed human ingenuity would overcome demand.

Holdren was asked by Ehrlich to pick five natural resources that would experience shortages because of human consumption. He lost the bet on all counts, as the composite price index for the commodities he picked, including copper and chromium, fell by more than 40 percent.

Then again, it’s one thing to be a bumbling soothsayer but quite another to underestimate the resourcefulness of mankind enough to ponder how “population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution,” as Holdren did in Ecoscience in 1977.

The book, in fact, is sprinkled with comparable statements that passively discuss how coercive population control methods might rescue the world from … well, humans.

When I called Holdren’s office, I was told that the czar “does not now and never has been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive measures to limit fertility.”

If that is so, I wondered, why is his name on a textbook that brought up such policy? Did he not write that part? Did he change his mind? Was it theoretical? No straightforward answer was forthcoming.

And leftist insanity is couched in the most scientific of terms making it seem so reasonable.

Global Cooling Period A Time Of “Less Rapid Warming”

Saturday, May 16th, 2009

So those super-sophisticated buoys all over the ocean are spitting back data, but scientists who are emotionally attached to their flimsy global warming theory are in denial of the facts:

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys’ findings? Because in five years the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters’ hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, “there has been a very slight cooling,” according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

Willis insisted the temperature drop was “not anything really significant.” And I trust he’s right. But can anyone imagine NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the UN’s climate experts — shrugging off even a “very slight” warming.

A slight drop in the oceans’ temperature over a period of five or six years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as yet another log on the global warming fire.

Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. “It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming,” Willis told NPR.

Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.


I’m sorry, but my forebrain is finding their lamebrain and clearly irrational attachment to a theory that’s being contradicted by solid data very humorous. Let’s not get confused by the facts, scientific people, it might interfere with big, fat research grants from a now-friendly and true-believing, less skeptical, and scientifically-unattached administration.

Oh, it’d be truly gut-busting if I didn’t pay taxes that will go to supporting stupid scientific advances that solve problems that don’t exist.

Your Carbon Butt-Print Is A Problem

Monday, April 20th, 2009

Environmentalists now want to tax your ass–not metaphorically. They literally want your ass taxed. This science was inevitable (via Pierre LeGrand). I love the title, “Stay Slim To Save The Planet“:

Overweight people eat more than thin people and are more likely to travel by car, making excess body weight doubly bad for the environment, according to a study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

“We need to be doing a lot more to reverse the global trend toward fatness, and recognize it as a key factor in the battle to reduce (carbon) emissions and slow climate change,” the British scientists said.

They estimated that each fat person is responsible for about one tonne of carbon dioxide emissions a year more on average than each thin person, adding up to an extra one billion tonnes of CO2 a year in a population of one billion overweight people.

Environmentalism is the new religion. And now, the amen pew will be shaming the gluttons. For being so open-minded the Left sure sounds like a bunch of old ladies at a prohibition meeting.


Monday, March 16th, 2009

Bad News: If you’re over 27, you’re old.


Wednesday, February 18th, 2009

Fetal Stem Cells Cause Tumors In Sick Boy
Perhaps if they’d used his own stem cells?


Tuesday, February 17th, 2009

Adult Stem Cells Reverse Parkinsons


Thursday, February 12th, 2009

Pre-term Labor Linked To Pregnancy Termination

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

Disabled Researchers In Education
Even the journal Science can be wrong. Via @MatthewKTabor