The Indoctrinated and the Voting Booth are a bad mix for America

The Left thrives on indoctrination and division. They divide Americans along every possible line. Age, income, gender, race, sexual orientation, and religion. And those they cannot divide, they indoctrinate. Guns, taxes, spending, the Constitution, social issues, and of course global warming, or climate change, or maybe it is climate disruption now. Donald Douglas links to a column by such an indoctrinated person, John Cubelic, who pens this at the LA Times

My vote is up for grabs. Heading into 2016, it will be coveted, along with those of my fellow twentysomethings. For any candidate looking to “inspire the youth vote,” here is the key to mine.

Today’s news leaves no American wanting for reasons to fear: Islamic State, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Russia, not to mention our own border security, national debt and political gridlock. Yet one issue receiving less attention is the most pressing: Our planet is dying. It is hemorrhaging, suffocating and it is going to flatline. Soon.

Evidence of this inexorable march toward planetary collapse is overwhelming and yet the United States, the nation that considers itself “leader of the free world,” can’t even agree that it is happening? This is the issue. The only issue. We must do something to slow this trend — because we’ve already squandered any hope of reversing it.

Clearly, he has not only drunk the Kool-Aid that the Al Gore Cult of Climate Change dispenses, he apparently has been swimming in it. And no rhetoric is beyond his indoctrinated brain

Examine this hypothetical: Your spouse is diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. The outlook is grim. However, through great effort, you could prolong his or her life, maybe even long enough to find a cure. Wouldn’t you exhaust every available resource to do that? Or would you instead say, “I’m not a doctor and I don’t believe in cancer. There is no consensus on the data yet and to pretend there is does a disservice to the American people.” And then buy your spouse more cigarettes?

Go read the rest, it just gets deeper and deeper. Cubelic plays a whole deck of the settled science cards, ignoring all the scientists who do not support the Lefts narrative on the climate, and its future. He is so hypnotized by the panic mongering the Left uses that he can no longer think critically apparently. And, it appears he will give his vote to any candidate that tells him what he wants to hear about one issue, an issue that likely will not even have a great affect on any of us. Cubelic will ignore every other issue, issues that WILL affect this nation, and he will do so because he is blinded by indoctrination and propaganda. In short he is the perfect candidate for the Left.

He is what the Left tries to create every single day. He is not just an “uniformed voter” he is something worse, he is a voter that wishes not to be informed.

 

Senator Cruz Schools Leftist Journalist On Climate Change (Videos)

Ted Cruz Schools Journalist On Climate Change – Right Scoop

Man I love this guy.

Ted Cruz completely schooled a journalist who asked him about Climate Change in his Texas Tribune interview, a journalist who was clearly sympathetic to the cause. It was awesome to see.

Watch:

.

.
That was just 3 minutes. Here’s the full Texas Tribune interview:

.

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.

.

You ever get the idea that Environuts are really just malcontented self-absorbed assholes?

Yeah me too, or as Donald Douglas puts it Bleeding idiots, the lot of them.

Here is the story of the newest evil the Environuts are outrageously outraged over

Update, March 6, 2015: K-cup creator John Sylvan has said that heregrets creating the disposable coffee pod system because of the negative environmental effects. “I don’t know why people have them in their house,” he told the CBC.

In his 2014 book on coffee, Caffeinated, journalist Murray Carpentercrunched the numbers to find that discarded “K-Cups”—single-serve coffee capsules, or “pods,” used in Keurig coffee makers—could circle the globe almost 11 times. That meant 8.3 billion in 2013, and that’s not counting Tassimo or Nespresso or other big-name makers of coffee pods. Canadians are big fans of single-serve brewers; 20 per cent of households own one, compared to 12 per cent of Americans. But with massive growth comes massive garbage: Since they’re largely unrecyclable, almost all coffee pods end up in a landfill. They have not yet taken on the bad rap of the plastic water bottle, the eco-villain of our times, but mounting garbage piles of pods are becoming increasingly hard to ignore. A new video called “Kill the K-Cup,” featuring discarded pods in Godzilla form, is making the rounds on YouTube this week.

Go read the rest, and try not to laugh at the mental image of these foolish people wringing their hands and fretting over k-pods! Just for kicks, here is the ad these whiners put together.

POlar bears doing very well, Al Gore and Cult of Climate Change hardest hit!

Via Pirates Cove

Another “OMG, Doom!!!!” talking point/prognostication from the World Of Climatology has bitten the dust

Hey Al Gore, kiss my ass

Hey Al Gore, kiss my ass

But, but, but, I thought the “science was, well you know”

Polar bear population bounces back despite climate change warning

Dr Susan Crockford said: “On almost every measure, things are looking good for polar bears.”

In a report for the climate sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation, she said: “Scientists are finding that polar bears are well distributed throughout their range and adapting well to changes in sea ice.

“Health indicators are good and they are benefiting from abundant prey. It really is time for the doom and gloom about polar bears to stop.”

Dr Crockford, of the University of Victoria in British Columbia added: “Polar bears are still a conservation success story. With a global population almost certainly greater than 25,000, we can say for sure that there are more polar bears now than 40 years ago.

“The global estimate is too high to qualify the polar bear as ‘threatened’ with extinction.”

And another prediction from the Gore Cult of Climate Doom goes belly up

Global Warming Cultists Panic Over Peer-Reviewed Climate Paper

Left Panics Over Peer-Reviewed Climate Paper’s Threat To Global Warming Alarmism – Big Journalism

.

.
You’ve heard it said that the science is settled. And it’s true. It is settled – settled beyond the possibility of any dispute. A fundamental, inescapable, indubitable bedrock scientific principle is that lousy theories make lousy predictions.

Climate forecasts are lousy, therefore it is settled science that they must necessarily be based on lousy theories. And lousy theories should not be trusted.

Put it this way. Climate forecasts, of the type relied upon by the IPCC and over governmental entities, stink. They are no good. They have been promising ever increasing temperatures for decades, but the observations have been more or less steady. This must mean – it is inescapable – that something is very badly wrong with the theory behind the models. What?

There are many guesses. One is that something called “climate sensitivity,” a measure of the overall reaction of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide, is set too high in the models. So Lord Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and I created a model to investigate this. Although our model is crude and captures only the barest characteristics of the atmosphere, it matches reality better than its luxuriously funded, more complex cousins.

The funding is important. Nobody asked or paid us to create our model. We asked nobody for anything, and nobody offered us anything. We did the work on our own time and submitted a peer-reviewed paper to the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It’s title is “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model.”

The paper was quickly noticed, receiving at this writing well over 10,000 downloads. Anybody who understood the settled science that bad theories make bad forecasts knew that this paper was a key challenge to the climatological community to show that our guess of why climate models stink is wrong, or to prove there were other, better explanations for the decades-long failure to produce skillful forecasts.

After the paper made international news, strange things began to happen. My site was hacked. A pest named David Appell issued a FOIA request to Legates’s employer, the University of Delaware, to release all of Legates’s emails. But since we received no funding for our paper, which of course implies no state funding from Delaware, the university turned Appell down.

The cult-like Greenpeace had better luck with Soon’s employer, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who were very obliging.

They turned over all of Soon’s emails. And then Greenpeace sent them to a set of sympathetic mainstream reporters.

Why did Greenpeace do this? Because they suspected we were lying about receiving funding. They were hoping that if they could prove Soon was paid then Soon should have declared to Science Bulletin a conflict of interest, and because he didn’t (none of us did), then he should retract the paper.

Greenpeace went away disappointed. We were telling the truth. Soon, like most research scientists, has in the past accepted money from sources other than our beneficent government (and what makes government money pure?). Greenpeace, for instance, often issues these kinds of grants. But there was no money for this paper, as we said.

But Greenpeace still needed to sidetrack discussion – anything to distract from the news that climate models are broken–hence their cozying up to “science reporters.”

These reporters, all of whom are paid by corporate interests, emailed asking about the “alleged conflict.” I explained to them that we received no funding and thus had no conflict of interest. But they never heard me. It was as if they didn’t want to. I offered to discuss the science behind our paper, but none took me up on this.

I posted a running log of these emails at my site, and they make for fascinating reading of how narrow-minded and willfully ignorant the mainstream press can be.

Justin Gillis of the New York Times was particularly reprehensible. In an email sent before publishing a hit piece on Sunday, Gillis accused Soon of an “ethical breach.” He issued veiled threats by saying that Soon ought to talk to him, because Soon’s employer “may be preparing to take adverse personnel action against” him.

I told Gillis there was no conflict. And I asked Gillis to explain his ties with Greenpeace and other environmental organizations.

Surprisingly, he refused to answer. Well, he did block me on Twitter.

Greenpeace denies the settled science that bad forecasts mean incorrect theories. Don’t let them change the subject. This is not about some false accusation of conflict of interest. This is about bad science passing for good because it’s politically expedient.

.

.

There is a reason we say Loony left, and not Lucid Left

It is nut cases like this fool

Appearing on the February 17 edition of All In with Chris Hayes, liberal radio talk show host Bob Kincaid essentially argued that the CSX freight-rail company was a graver threat to Americans than ISIS. Kincaid was on the program to discuss an oil-train derailment and fire in West Virginia. For his part, Hayes did not attempt to reel Kincaid in from such an outlandish statement:  

KINCAID: This is terrifying stuff. And sadly it happens in a state where terrifying accidents seem to be the norm, where human beings’ well-being is sacrificed for corporate profit. It’s kinda hard for me not to notice that this isn’t ISIS that did this or any other foreign enemy of the United States. This is a good old domestic American corporation. And they seem to be doing more harm in West Virginia than any foreign power.

HAYES: This is CSX, of course, which is one of the largest rail shippers in the country, which has, has rolled out these new, according to them, safer versions of this and, your point, Bob, I think is important, this not if but when [an oil-train catastrophe happens inside a densely-populated American city].

They really are fools aren’t they? To them Capitalism, not ISIS is evil.

Susan Rice Should Be In Prison – Instead…

Rice: Climate Change, Gay Rights Part Of National Security Strategy – CNS

.

.
Speaking at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., on Friday, White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice described the terrorist threat from radical Islam as “violent extremism” and said part of President Barack Obama’s national security strategy is fighting “the very real threat of climate change” and promoting gay rights.

Rice’s remarks followed the release on Friday of Obama’s 2015 National Security Strategy, which updates a similar document released by the White House in 2010.

While saying the radical Islamic group ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) is an offshoot of al Qaeda and that the United States is committed to “countering the corrosive ideology of violent extremism,” Rice called for a “sense of perspective” when assessing that threat.

“Too often, what’s missing here in Washington is a sense of perspective,” Rice said. “Yes, there is a lot going on.

“Still, while the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature we confronted during World War II or during the Cold War,” Rice said. “We cannot afford to be buffeted by alarmism in a nearly instantaneous news cycle.”

In her remarks, Rice listed other threats to U.S. security, including “the very real threat of climate change” and the necessity of promoting equality for homosexuals.

“American leadership is addressing the very real threat of climate change,” Rice said. “The science is clear.

“The impacts of climate change will only worsen over time,” Rice said. “Even longer droughts; more severe storms; more forced migration.

“So we’re making smart decisions today that will pay off for generations,” Rice said.

Equality for homosexuals is also a focus of the 2015 National Security Strategy, Rice said, by first addressing equality based on gender and then citing the rights of people who oppose gender classification.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.

.