Ms Barnes has a special claim to fame. She has been named Florida's "Pubic Enemy #1". It seems that Ms. Barnes, an Indiana native was driving on that loooooooonnnnnnnggggg bridge to the Keys that everyone has seen. She was headed down to meet up with her boyfriend. Strangely, her travelling companion for this little jaunt was her ex-hubby. Yeah.....the ex husband is riding shotgun so Ms. Barnes can make a booty call in Key West! And that's not even the strange part!
The ever resourceful Meg must've been all in a rush to get to her destination. So much so, in fact that she neglected certain matters of personal hygiene usually attended to while luxuriating in a hot bubble bath....or in the shower...or at the very least in a "salon" where a sadistic little oriental gal will rip away the winter wool for you. But NOOOO, none of that for our little Meg. She decided that the best place to trim up her little Chewbacca was behind the wheel, tooling down the highway WHILE HER EX HELD THE WHEEL so she could concentrate on the "delicate" areas!!! What. The. Heck. ?!?
Not too surprisingly, cuz ...back me up on this one fellas...if you've seen one woman naked, you pretty much want to see them ALL naked, the EX was a bit distracted by the sight of the muffin that so recently had been on his breakfast plate (and was soon to be some other schlep's blue plate special) being rendered into a remarkable likeness of Kojak. When the SUV in the lane ahead of them braked to make a turn.....KA-POW! The T-bird plowed right into the back of it! When the cops finally got her to admit that she'd been driving, her excuse for not stopping when the car ahead of her slowed.... "I told you I was shaving."
Somehow I'm thinking the mug-shots of the offending body part will show up on AlGore's inner-tubz someday soon! And why do I think online dating had something to do with this....or maybe Craigslist?
No mug shot exists of her EX ... whose man card will be forthwith revoked, if it has not already been shredded.
From the genius that brought you "The Streak" and "Jerimiah Peabody's Poly-unsaturated, Quick-Disolvin', Fast-Actin', Pleasant-Tastin', Green and Purple Pills"....
With the IPCC is under fire yet AGAIN, the question becomes why is ANYONE putting ANY stock whatsoever in anything this bunch of knothole-raping hippies says? Last week it was "discovered" that the claims this so-called expert panel have woven into the political discourse regarding the imminent melt-off of the Himalayan glaciers (quite likely by 2035) were...um......crap! Based on a SWAG (Stupid Wild Arsed Guess) which the mouth-breathers at IPCC formulated, apparently after drinking the old bong-water whilst reading a 1999 New Scientist magazine article, the UN swore by the petrified testicle of the Al-mighty Gorealce that if immediate action wasn't taken immediately to stop "global warming", all of the ice and snow ON FREAKING MOUNT EVEREST would be melted away by 2035. Dunder-heads in capitols throughout most of the world bought into this...after all the UN said it, and His Tubbiness concurred (he got a Nobel prize AND an Oscar you know).
So now I'm reading how the same brainiacs are in hot water for "wrongly" linking Global Warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters, such as floods and hurricanes. The Times (UK) Online is running the following story.
Y'all can hop on over and partake of the sweet, sweet "I told ya so" goodness yourselves, but I'd be remiss in not pointing some of the more salient points:
" It(IPCC) based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough. " "When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."
"It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored."
The academic paper at the centre of the latest questions was written in 2006 by Robert Muir-Wood, head of research at Risk Management Solutions, a London consultancy, who later became a contributing author to the section of the IPCC's 2007 report dealing with climate change impacts.He is widely respected as an expert on disaster impacts.
Let me interject here, Mr. Muir-Wood, the widely respected expert, was hired to do this research as part of a larger study for a Colorado University workshop on disaster losses in 2006. So he does this report, in which he finds basically NO INCREASE in disaster losses from 1950 to 2005 (the entire period of his study), once growth (the rising number of people who both desired to, and became able to afford to, live near the beach) was accounted for. He did note a slight 2% increase during the period of 1970 to 2005, which corresponded with a period of increasing temperatures (forget for a minute that 1998 was the last year global temperatures actually rose). HOWEVER, he clearly stated that MOST of this increase could be attributed to the "active" 2004 and 2005 Hurricane Seasons, among other things (like the fact that the strong US dollar meant that any disaster affecting the US would invariably skew the results toward a "larger" global price-tag)
The IPCC decided to only use the part of Muir-Wood's report dealing with the 1970-2005 time frame, and IGNORED the caveats in the report itself, to claim PROOF.....SCIENTIFIC PROOF....that global warming was causing more, and more costly disasters.
The Colorado U team, meanwhile, published a statement agreeing that so far there was no evidence to link global warming with any increase in the severity or frequency of disasters. It's chairman, Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, also an expert on disaster impacts, not only correctly identified the non-issue "exposed" in Muir-Wood's report, but called the IPCC out for cherry-picking the data.
What does the IPCC have to say?
"We are reassessing the evidence and will publish a report on natural disasters and extreme weather with the latest findings. Despite recent events the IPCC process is still very rigorous and scientific." - Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, UniversiteCatholiquedeLouvain in Belgium climatologist, who is vice-chair of the IPCC.
OOOOOO-kaaaay! Rigorous and Scientific! But if it's soooooo rigorous, then why does this guy say this?
Science is progressive. If something turns out to be wrong we can fix it next time around.” However he confirmed he would be introducing rigorous new review procedures for future reports to ensure errors were kept to a minimum. - Professor Christopher Field,director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution in California, who is the new co-chairman of the IPCC working group overseeing the climate impacts report.
The IPCC's process is soo very rigorous and scientifically sound that the new HMIFIC is instituting new, more rigorous and science-y processes to ensure that errors are kept to a minimum! Reminds me of the opening credits to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
"We apologize for the previous scientific process. Those responsible for the sacking of those responsible,have themselves just been sacked."IPCC
Big Deal Shifty, you're probably saying...who cares? Well, I do. And so should you. Unless you WANT to forfeit both your standard of living (things like lights, heat, air-conditioning...anything run by electricity) AND your money. As the Times points out, the IPCC's totally made-up claim "has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions." 100 Billion is a lot of cash. Now factor in the moron politicians here and abroad that are clamoring for action NOW to combat Global Warming, and the "action" they propose. Cap and Tax? Won't slow GW one whit. Won't even bankrupt coal like Obama promised to do. All it will do is make YOU and I shell out more and more money to the Government, funnelled through our local power company and gas stations.
Letting the EPA regulate CO2, because that same agency has "determined" that CO2 is a hazard to humans? Ummm... did the nuns at St. Pat's lie to me in science when they told me that plants NEED CO2 to live? Where the hell is the Sierra Club on this one....the EPA wants to kill all plant life! And as far as the EPA's ability to regulate anything....let's just say I remain singularly unimpressed by them...and my job requires me to deal with that agency on a regular basis. I once worked at a municipal power plant on the banks of the Detroit River. The windows on our turbine deck looked out over the river to the sprawling Great Lakes Steel. The local EPA dweeb had his office in a strip mall less than a mile from the plant, with HIS windows looking at our three smokestacks. I can't count the number of times I'd field a call from him, demanding to know why he saw a light grayish haze coming out of our stack, then walk right out on the turbine deck, look northward and watch a noxious green, or rust-orange, or yellow cloud of smoke roll off the steel mill, obscuring it from view! (And just a little tidbit of info....a light grayish haze coming out of a fossil-fuel fired power plants stack is called "economy haze" and it indicates that the plant is actually emitting LESS pollutants than a totally clear stack!)
Bottom line is this: if we remain silent and let the hockey-helmeted politicians drive the short bus off the Global Warming prevention cliff, we have nobody but ourselves to blame. I, for one, LIKE my big-screen Plasma TV, 4 home computers and keeping the house a comfortable 72 degrees F all year long! How about you?
Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming. The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years. Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is. Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations. The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations. IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations. The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration. Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research. What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.
I'm sure this will all be expained away by the "experts" as some sort of evil trick of Putin. Or that the Russian's aren't all that smart, or whatever...the fact of the matter remains that "scientific consensus" was never either......
Okay...I admit it. I'm neither as talented, nor as ambitious, as Mrs. S. Weasel, creator of this here work o' geen-yus! Thank goodness she has a very liberal policy on "borrowing" the sweat of her brow! You should really check her out.....theWeasel
Oh yeah...you have to refresh the page to make the charty-thing start all over!
A bit long, but well worth it. His Lordship is just so dang polite when he's proving her to be just another sheeple! Those British guys!
It's instructive, not to mention funny in a "wow, look how stupid that lady is" kinda way, to hear her explaining the basis for her belief in AGW. Basically, it boils down to...
Greenpeace says so.
I can't be bothered (cuz I have a REAL life and JOB) to do any checking on my own.
Greenpeace says so! And so do the "reports" I've read (most likely FROM Greenpeace) that tell me a MAJORITY of all life on earth agree with me!
The money quote?
Lord M:"If you were to discover that everything that I said to you....were true, would you think that, therefore, the organization you believe in has misled you?"
GreenPeace Hippie Lady: "No"
LM: "In other words, even if I prove these things to you, you would still prefer to believe a political line given out by an organization, rather than the scientific facts."
GHL: "No. I would have to look at it myself first..."
But wait a minute hippie-lady....you just got done saying how you couldn't check it out for yourself, due to the rigors of your "job" and "life" (neither of which were apparently important enough to keep you away from your protest...). One would think that if she felt THAT strongly about a situation, she might want to do some checking on her own.....
This is why the whole "Climate Change" scam will not go away.....it's adherents are cultists. Pretty soon some one will break out the spiked Kool-aid!
Hmmmm.....CO2 is "harmful" to humans, according to the EPA. Doesn't that make plants some sort of evil genius slave masters.....getting us stupid humans to develop all of this industrial know-how just to jack up those CO2 levels? But if we reduce the CO2 levels, won't that mean the plants have less of that sweet, sweet drug they crave? Will they then unleash their reign of terror, a-la "The Happening"? I for one say we better lock up all the trees before they spread their mind-destroying suicide-inducing dust around!
