RiteOn Blog

MERRY CHRISTMAS

NEWT GINGRICH AT HIS BEST

NEWT GINGRICH

Forwarded to RiteOn by Guest Editor JH

I didn't like what he did in NY23, but here he has drawn a line in the sand for ALL of us!
Please click on this link. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtjfMjjce2Y  

Climategate at the 2nd International Climate Conference.

Lord Monckton interviewing a typical "social activist" of Greenpeace while she puts her ignorance on display. Global warming is undoubtedly a religion... not a science!

Lord Monckton confronting a member of Greenpeace.
http://www.tomllewis.com/?p=2875

Whether it's health care legislation, control of energy or bankrupt spending, this is a perfect example of what rational thinkers are facing in today's world.

The leftists and their cults of ignorance say, "Don't confuse me with the facts because my mind is made up!" They are absolutely intent on dragging all of us over a cliff with them!

OBAMACARE

For those who may agree with the liberals and want the U.S. to go to a Canadian style health care system. Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

GET SET FOR MAMMOTH INCREASES IN INDIVIDUAL HEALTH CARE COSTS

The following excerpt was taken from Bob McCarty's latest blog. You owe it to yourself to click on the link at the bottom of the page and read it.
----------------------
(Excerpt)

Health Care Bills Contain HUGE Marriage Penalty.

By Allen Quist, Guest Blogger

There is a huge middle-class marriage penalty hidden in the House and Senate health care bills. The penalty becomes evident by evaluating questions like the following:

* How much would two single people, each making $30,000 per year, pay for private health insurance if the Pelosi bill was in effect now? The answer is $1,320 per year for both individuals combined (based on the premium limits and subsidies outlined on the charts on p. 3).

* But how much would they pay for the same level of insurance under the Pelosi bill if they were to marry? Their combined cost would then be about $12,000 a year (the estimated cost for private insurance).

Continued at:

http://bobmccarty.com/2009/12/09/health-care-bills-contain-huge-marriage-penalty/

THE MAMMOTH HOAX PROMOTION IN COPENHAGEN

Photo by RiteOn LLC of K & N Patriots Rally in O'Fallon, Missouri
--------------------------------------

Below is a reply to an article by correspondent Mort Rosenblum that appeared in The Global Post on December 4, 2009. (We judge the article to be a publisher’s attempt to share in some of the revenue of the mammoth hoax promotion now going on in Copenhagen.) (http://www.globalpost.com/)

-----------------------
By Chuck MacNab

The problem with Mort Rosenblum’s views about Global Warming is that he believes in “random observation.” It’s like we used to complain about certain flights we would fly that were full and that observation made us wonder why the company refused to add more capacity to that route. After many suggestions from a few pilots the Director of marketing agreed to visit with us one day and showed us that the few days we flew the flight were the only ones where there was a payload. We almost started a “work action” based on just the experience we had in observing a small portion of the scheduled flight pattern. After seeing the truth in the figures we felt like fools and went back to doing what the company was paying us for.... Flying airplanes instead of trying to become marketing managers! The problem today with “climate change” is that the marketing manager who is supposedly investigating the truth of the matter has become a liar!

As far as global warming is concerned, I have given the Chicago natural history museum some rare 5000-year-old objects I picked up in the Rub Al Khali desert in Saudi Arabia. These objects, according to scientists who have studied them, indicate that 5000 years ago the area supported a thriving agricultural population in the tens of thousands. It is now a parched and dry desert incapable of supporting life in almost any form. Since this process has slowly taken place over thousands of years in this area it should be obvious to anyone with common sense that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, allegedly caused by so-called CO2 pollution created since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, was NOT the cause of “climate change” in this vast dry areas of the globe. The dry climate was caused by natural changes that have taken place for hundreds of thousands of years and not by “traffic congestion” or some sort of industrial process! The Rub Al Khali has never seen any industry since the beginning of known history and scientists who have studied the area know that “global warming” has not been the cause of climate change there any more than it was in the Sahara or Gobi Deserts, the Mojave or any other large dry area of the planet. By the way, nobody lives in these areas so they don’t have a group of panic stricken “elites,” who like to throw cocktail parties on Park Avenue in order to fund scientists, lobbyists and politicians to promote “their cause!”

We could ignore this sort of activity when those who represented us in Congress had some common sense but since that situation has now changed and the Marxists have see that climate change can be used as a powerful tool to interfere in other people's lives, we need to blow the cover off the lies that now endanger our freedom and our way of life. One must ask the question, "Why the sudden panic by lawmakers to impose Draconian costs on the population, especially here in the U.S.?" The obvious answer is that something OTHER than “climate change” motivates the global warming advocates. When one looks at what that might be and sees what governments are demanding, the likely reason for the panic being generated is not a real concern about climate change but instead a quest for MONEY and POWER. This, as we say at the racetrack, is as phony as a three-dollar bill and it needs to be stopped before western culture is decapitated by this huge hoax. The revealing of the emails from the U.K. Climate research facility is proof that this mammoth lie is based on phony science generated for reasons of self-interest.

Those who believe that climate change is man made and continue making the likes of Al Gore rich beyond all reason are simply naïve, foolish or both. Many of us refuse to follow these fools over the cliff. We are trying to convince our fellow citizens to join us in preventing this hoax from eliminating our freedom; ruining our lives and making us bond slaves to corrupt politicians.

COPENHAGEN NONSENSE

Here is a commentary by Steve Saville, an Australian who lives in China and writes a newsletter called The Speculative Investor. (Google it if you are interested in subscribing.) His views are usually "big picture" oriented and are not often seen in the western media, though his investment letter is circulated world wide. His comments are, of course, aimed at informing his subscribers concerning matters that may add to their insight concerning investment decisions.

We have known Steve and subscribed to his newsletter for many years. He always has some very well-informed and common sense views of political activities and what motivates politicians. His main purpose is to inform his readers for investment purposes but his comments range over a wide group of subjects. This one deals with "Climate Change" (global warming).

With his permission, we share this with you because it is so "right on the money" in our opinion. It is from his December 6 newsletter. - Chuck
------------------------
POLITICS AND CLIMATE CHANGE NONSENSE
By Steve Saville

Paul Krugman, a journalist, TV personality and prize-winning economist, is obviously a smart guy, and yet much of his commentary on the economy and the financial markets can best be described as moronic. In our opinion, this apparent contradiction arises because Krugman's economics - at least, the economics he espouses in the popular press - are dominated by his political leanings. Krugman is a strong believer in big government, so his views on economics are crafted to support an expanded role for government.

Unfortunately, Krugman appears to be a proxy for the economics profession. There are some good economists who are able and willing to objectively analyse (and publicise) the long-term effects of government policy on all segments of the economy, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Most are shortsighted advocates for an interventionist government, despite the mountain of evidence that attempts -- even the well-intentioned ones -- to interfere with the free market invariably do more harm than good. One of the main reasons for this sorry state of affairs is, we suspect, that money and prestige are directed towards economists who 'toe the correct political line'.

It is disappointing, if not surprising, that climate science appears to have gone the same way as the science of economics, meaning that politics has come to dominate the study of climate the way it dominates the study of economics. For example, government funding is directed almost exclusively to those climate scientists who attempt to prove that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a major problem to be reckoned with, while efforts are made to ensure that the research produced by AGW sceptics never sees the light of day. Consequently, the average climate scientist is in danger of becoming as counter-productive as the average economist.

AGW and "Climate Change" are even more topical than usual right now. This is due to the international Climate Change conference that will be held in Copenhagen over the next two weeks, and to what has become known as "Climategate". "Climategate" refers to the recent theft of email records and other information from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of a university that provides climate data and analysis to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The stolen records show that climate data have been altered, falsified and concealed in an effort to make the 'facts' fit the computer models constructed by AGW proponents.

The stolen information doesn't conclusively prove that the AGW Theory is wrong. Instead, it is just another brick in a large and growing wall of evidence that separates climate-change reality from the climate-change situation as presented to the public.

One of the most brazen attempts to make the evidence fit the AGW Theory was the construction of the long-term temperature graph known as "Mann's Hockey Stick". This graph shows a relatively stable global temperature for hundreds of years and then an upward trend beginning in the early-1800s. Because the beginning of the graph's upward trend coincides with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, it is a very neat fit with the AGW Theory.

The creation of "Mann's Hockey Stick" effectively involved the re-writing of centuries of recorded history. The analysis upon which it is based has since been thoroughly discredited, and yet governments around the world are still acting as if it is fact rather than fiction. There is clearly a determination not to let an inconvenient truth get in the way of a good story, or, more relevantly, to let the truth get in the way of an 'excuse' for more government control over the economy.

One of the biggest obstacles faced by the AGW proponents -- and the motivation behind the creation of "Mann's Hockey Stick" -- is the historical evidence that the world was significantly warmer during Medieval times (1000-1400) than it is today. Another obstacle is the mounting evidence that the Earth has entered a COOLING cycle (global temperature has been in a slight downward trend since 2002). The recent cooling and the preceding heating are what would be expected if changes in the Sun's activity, as opposed to changes in human-generated CO2, were the dominant influence on multi-decade swings in the average global temperature. Along these lines, would it really be surprising if it turned out that man's influence on the Earth's climate were negligible compared to the influence of the Sun?

The AGW Theory faces many other logical and evidential obstacles. For example, humankind almost certainly has an effect on the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, but CO2 is NOT a pollutant and CO2 comprises less than 0.04% (four one-hundredths of one percent) of the atmosphere. Moreover, there is no evidence that changes in CO2 levels CAUSE changes in global temperature. Actually, the evidence suggests that if there is a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature then temperature is the cause and CO2 is the effect (ice core data suggest that temperature changes lead CO2 changes by a few hundred years).

We don't think anyone can be 100% sure that the AGW Theory is wrong. However, many aspects of the theory simply don't add up, and it is clear that the climate models currently being used by the IPCC are fatally flawed. Governments should therefore not be proceeding with costly programs aimed at controlling the Earth's climate by controlling CO2 emissions (putting aside, for now, the likelihood that the measures currently under consideration will not even lead to an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions).

We have the faint hope that the evidence of a new global cooling cycle will become so blatant over the next few years that politics and government-funded climate science will be forced into line with logic and reality, but we are not optimistic. The reason we aren't optimistic is that "climate change" -- something that has been going on since the dawn of time -- is being used to justify an expanded role for government. If the change is from warmer to cooler, rather than from cooler to warmer, it could still be promoted as man-made and could therefore serve the same purpose. This means that from an investment perspective we should, until/unless proven otherwise, operate under the assumption that resources will be forcibly directed towards businesses that are perceived to be "green".

WHY SHOULD WE CARE IF SCIENTISTS LIE?

Aside from the fact that Al Gore has allegedly made millions from a giant hoax and the liberals in the Administration and Congress are aiming to impose a gigantic tax on us and justify it through the use of scientific hogwash, why should we care if scientists falsify research? Blogger Stephen Browne has some interesting observations about the ongoing "climate change" (Global Warming) fraud. We highly recommend that you read his comments. The link is at the end of these excerpts.... Ed
-------------
Excerpt from: Editorial published in the Valley City (North Dakota) Times-Record

"If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it."
- Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in physics, on scientific integrity.

The greatest scandal in the history of science is breaking, and I'm standing aghast while the world spins around me merrily unconcerned.

A hacker, or internal whistle-blower at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit in England, published on-line over 1,000 emails and about 3,500 files from the CRU. These show the world's most prominent climate scientists promoting the Global Warming hypothesis have engaged in deliberate manipulation of the evidence. They've conspired to suppress data that doesn't support their conclusions, exclude contrary opinions from scientific journals, destroy records before they could be revealed, slander and get global warming dissenters dismissed from their jobs.

And, they destroyed the raw research data. That is never done in respectable science. Not. Ever. Some involved have offered explanations - which hold water like a sieve.

So what? Why should you care if you're not a scientist?

Well, consider Joyce Gilchrist, a former forensic chemist for 21 years at the Oklahoma City police department, who provided evidence in over 3,000 criminal cases. Gilchrist falsified evidence - lots of it. Her testimony got 23 people sentenced to death. Eleven of them were executed. At least one of the dead is all-but-proven innocent. Another was released after 15 years on death row. You see, she just knew those people were guilty, and that justified "improving" uncertain evidence.

(Click on the link below to read the rest of Stephen Browne's blog posting)

http://www.stephenwbrowne.com/2009/12/climategate-a-new-record-in-scientific-fraud/

OBAMA'S SPEECH VIEWED FROM OVERSEAS

 
Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic*
By Gabor Steingart

President Barack Obama's Tuesday speech left a bad taste in many mouths.

President Barack Obama's Tuesday speech left a bad taste in many mouths.

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama's speech would be well-received.

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech. But it didn't help: The soldiers' reception was cool.

One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

Just in Time for the Campaign

For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

The speech continued in that vein. It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the "world's great religions." He promised that responsibility for the country's security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai -- a government which he said was "corrupt." The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But "America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars," he added.

It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage.

Obama's Magic No Longer Works

But in this case, the public was more disturbed than entertained. Indeed, one could see the phenomenon in a number of places in recent weeks: Obama's magic no longer works. The allure of his words has grown weaker.

It is not he himself who has changed, but rather the benchmark used to evaluate him. For a president, the unit of measurement is real life. A leader is seen by citizens through the prism of their lives -- their job, their household budget, where they live and suffer. And, in the case of the war on terror, where they sometimes die.

Political dreams and yearnings for the future belong elsewhere. That was where the political charmer Obama was able to successfully capture the imaginations of millions of voters. It is a place where campaigners -- particularly those with a talent for oration -- are fond of taking refuge. It is also where Obama set up his campaign headquarters, in an enormous tent called "Hope."

In his speech on America's new Afghanistan strategy, Obama tried to speak to both places. It was two speeches in one. That is why it felt so false. Both dreamers and realists were left feeling distraught.

The American president doesn't need any opponents at the moment. He's already got himself.
-------------------------
*From an article that appeared in Spiegel Online, International

HOW THEY ARE TURNING OFF THE LIGHTS IN AMERICA

By Edwin X Berry, PhD
October 24, 2009

On October 31, 2009, the once largest aluminum plant in the world will shut down. With it goes another American industry and more American jobs. The Columbia Falls Aluminum Company in Montana will shut down its aluminum production because it cannot purchase the necessary electrical power to continue its operations.

How did this happen in America? America was once the envy of the world in its industrial capability. America's industrial capacity built America into the most productive nation the world had ever known. Its standard of living rose to levels never before accomplished. Its currency became valuable and powerful, allowing Americans to purchase imported goods at relatively cheap prices.

America grew because of innovation and hard work by the pioneers of the industrial revolution, and because America has vast natural resources. A great economy, as America once was, is founded on the ability to produce electrical energy at low cost. This ability has been extinguished. Why?

Columbia Falls Aluminum negotiated a contract with Bonneville Power Administration in 2006 for Bonneville to supply electrical power until September 30, 2011. But, responding to lawsuits, the 9th US Circuit Court ruled the contract was invalid because it was incompatible with the Northwest Power Act. Therefore, the combination of the Northwest Power Act and a US Circuit Court were the final villains that caused the shutdown of Columbia Falls Aluminum.

But the real reasons are much more complicated. Why was it not possible for Columbia Falls Aluminum to find sources of electricity other than Bonneville?

We need to look no further than the many environmental groups like the Sierra Club and to America's elected officials who turned their backs on American citizens and in essence themselves, for they too are citizens of this country. These officials bought into the green agenda promoted by the heavily funded environmental groups. Caving to pressure, they passed laws and the environmental groups filed lawsuits that began turning off the lights in America. The dominos stated to fall.

They began stopping nuclear power plants in the 1970's. They locked up much of our coal and oil resources with land laws. They passed tax credits, which forces taxpayers foot the bill for billionaire investors to save taxes by investing in less productive wind and solar energy projects.

In 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency called a meeting of atmospheric scientists and others with environmental interests. I remember well the meeting I attended in the San Francisco Bay Area. The meeting was in a theater-like lecture room with the seating curved to face the center stage and rising rapidly toward the back of the room. Attending were many atmospheric scientists whom I knew from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Stanford Research Institute and some local colleges.

The room became silent when a man walked up to the lectern. He told us that the next big national problem was global warming. He explained how human carbon dioxide emissions were trapping the earth's radiation like a greenhouse and causing the atmosphere to heat beyond its normal temperature. He said this will lead to environmental disasters. He finished by saying the EPA will now concentrate its research funding toward quantifying the disasters that would be caused by our carbon dioxide.

The room was silent. I was the first to raise my hand to ask a question, "How can you defend your global warming hypothesis when you have omitted the effects of clouds which affect heat balance far more than carbon dioxide, and when your hypothesis contradicts the paper by Lee in the Journal of Applied Meteorology in 1972 that shows the atmosphere does not behave like a greenhouse?"

He answered me by saying, "You do not know what you are talking about. I know more about how the atmosphere works than you do."

Not being one to drop out of a fight, I responded, "I know many of the atmospheric scientists in this room, and many others who are not present but I do not know you. What is your background and what makes you know so much more than me?"

He answered, "I know more than you because I am a lawyer and I work for the EPA."

After the meeting, many of my atmospheric science friends who worked for public agencies thanked me for what I said, saying they would have liked to say the same thing but they feared for their jobs.

And that, my dear readers, is my recollection of that great day when a lawyer, acting as a scientist, working for the federal government, announced global warming.

Fast forward to today. The federal government is spending 1000 times more money to promote the global-warming charade than is available to those scientists who are arguing against it. Never before in history has it taken a massive publicity campaign to convince the public of a scientific truth. The only reason half the public thinks global warming may be true is the massive amount of money put into global-warming propaganda. The green eco-groups have their umbilical cords in the government's tax funds. Aside from a few honest but duped scientists living on government money, the majority of the alarms about global warming - now called "climate change" because it's no longer warming - come from those who have no professional training in atmospheric science. They are the environmentalists, the ecologists, the lawyers and the politicians. They are not the reliable atmospheric scientists whom I know.

Nevertheless, our politicians have passed laws stating that carbon dioxide is bad. See California's AB32 which is based upon science fiction. (For readers who take issue with me, I will be happy to destroy your arguments in another place. In this paper, we focus on the damage to America that is being caused by those promoting the global-warming fraud.)

In the year 2000, America planned 150 new coal-electric power plants. These power plants would have been "clean" by real standards but the Greens managed to have carbon dioxide defined legally as "dirty" and this new definition makes all emitters of carbon dioxide, including you, a threat to the planet. Therefore, using legal illogic, the Sierra Club stopped 82 of these planned power plants under Bush II and they expect it will be a slam-dunk to stop the rest under Obama.

And now you know the real reason the Columbia Falls Aluminum Company had to shut down. America stopped building new power plants a long time ago. There is now no other source where the company can buy energy. Our energy-producing capability is in a decline and it is taking America with it.

I used to belong to the Sierra Club in the 1960's. It used to be a nice hiking club. In the late 1960's the Sierra Club began turning its attention toward stopping nuclear power. Then I quit the Sierra Club. It continues to prosper from the many subscribers who think they are supporting a good cause. What they are really supporting is the destruction of America brick by brick. The Sierra Club and similar organizations are like watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside. They are telling us we have no right to our own natural resources, and in doing so they are sinking America.

Inherent in ecology are three assumptions: "natural" conditions are optimal, climate is fragile, and human influences are bad. Physics makes no such assumptions. By assuming climate is fragile, the global warming supporters have assumed their conclusion. In fact, the climate is not fragile. It is stable. The non-adherence to physical logic in the global-warming camp is what makes many physical scientists say that global warming is a religion.

So we have a new age religion promoted by environmentalists, incorporated into our laws and brainwashed into our people that is now destroying America from the inside.

Like a vast ship, America is taking a long time to sink but each day it sinks a little further. The fearsome day awaits, when America, if not quickly recovered by its real citizens, will tilt its nose into the water to begin a rapid and final descent into oblivion ... her many resources saved for whom?

Edwin X Berry, PhD [send him mail, ed@climatephysics.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ] is an atmospheric physicist and certified consulting meteorologist with Climate Physics, LLC in Montana.

Visit his website. http://www.climatephysics.com/
------------------------
Forwarded to RiteOn by AZ Guest Editor CP