Sunday, April 26, 2009

Happy Lenin's Day

Mass-murderer, terrorist mastermind, and commie-in-chief Vladimir Lenin was born on April 22, 1870.

Did you enjoy celebrating his birthday?

Of course, much as Washington's Birthday is now obfuscated by genericizing its name to President's Day, we now call Lenin's Birthday:

Earth Day.

Indeed, the first celebration of Earth Day, on April 22, 1970 happened to be Lenin's centennial.

A coincidence? Who knows.

But considering Earth Day was the brainchild of democrat Gaylord Nelson, senator from Wisconsin, who explicitly linked anti-Vietnam war activism to the first celebration of Earth Day, it is obvious where his sympathies lay with respect to communism versus capitalism. Indeed, Nelson wrote in Beyond Earth Day: Fulfilling the Promise:
The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around.
Spoken like a true commie.

In fact, wikipedia reports that from his biography by Bill Christofferson, The Man From Clear Lake, we learn
Asked whether he had purposely chosen Lenin's 100th birthday, Nelson explained that with only 365 days a year and 3.7 billion people in the world, every day was the birthday of ten million living people.

"On any given day, a lot of both good and bad people were born," he said. "A person many consider the world’s first environmentalist, Saint Francis of Assisi, was born on April 22."[13]
Yeah, like I'm buying that as a denial!

As for the saintlike-veneration of Lenin by commie sympathizers, consider:
According to Orlando Figes, Lenin had always been an advocate of “mass terror against enemies of the revolution” and was open about his view that the proletarian state was a system of organized violence against the capitalist establishment.

Figes also claims that the terror, while encouraged by the Bolsheviks, had its roots in a popular anger against the privileged.[65] When Kamenev and Bukharin tried to curb the “excesses” of the Cheka in late 1918, it was Lenin who defended it.[66] In 1921, the Politboro, chaired by Lenin, expanded the Cheka's use of the death penalty.[67]

Lenin remained an advocate of mass terror, according to Richard Pipes. In a letter of 19 March 1922, to Molotov and the members of the Politburo, following an uprising by the clergy in the town of Shuia, Lenin outlined a brutal plan of action against the clergy and their followers, who were defying the government decree to remove church valuables:

“We must (…) put down all resistance with such brutality that they will not forget it for several decades. (…) The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing (…) the better.”[68]

Estimates of the numbers of the clergy killed vary. According to Orlando Figes[69] and The Black Book of Communism[70], 2,691 priests, 1,962 monks and 3,447 nuns were executed as a result of Lenin's aforementioned directives.
Yakovlev stated that Lenin was "By every norm of international law, posthumously indictable for crimes against humanity."[73]
Wikipedia also tells us the following predictions were made during the first Earth Day:
Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for the first Earth Day, wrote, "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation." [13]

Senator Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, stated, "Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." [13]

Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, stated, "... by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions.... By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." [13]

Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death. [13]

Life Magazine wrote, "... by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." [13]

Ecologist Kenneth Watt stated, "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." [13]

Watt also stated, "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil." [13]
Nelson, like most environmentally-oriented anti-growth neo-Malthusians, wanted to stop population growth. Oddly, that makes the socialist welfare state unsupportable, as the Ponzi-scheme of Social Security and other wealth confiscation-and-redistribution policies rely on a growing pool of new young workers to pay the growing class of dependents.

The only solution is to encourage, then impose, euthanasia. Watch for it.

Oh wait, we already have euthanasia now being suggested not just for the sick and dying, but for the well and healthy, to join their loved ones at the moment of death; "suicide clinics" in Switzerland -- which have a profit motive in convincing the depressed and mentally ill allow themselves to be murdered -- are doing just that:
A British man and his wife, neither of whom was known to have a terminal illness, died at a Swiss euthanasia clinic Apr. 1 [2003]. Robert Stokes, 59, had epilepsy, while his 53-year-old wife, Jennifer, was diabetic and had other problems. They arrived in Zurich Mar. 31 and died the next day after ingesting barbiturates provided by a doctor from the Dignitas euthanasia group. They became the fourth and fifth Britons to die with the group's help, but are the first who weren't terminally ill.
Indeed, the founder of the Swiss death chambers says, "we never say no"; and why not, death pays according to Swiss law:
The founder of Dignitas – a Zurich, Switzerland, clinic that assists those with illnesses end their lives – says he wants to open a chain of "suicide clinics" in other countries to give everyone, including the mentally ill, the "the choice of a choice."
Minelli has helped 450 people commit suicide since founding Dignitas in 1998 – Swiss law permits the act of assisting someone with a "medical indication" to die. The organization charges members – there are 5,500 who pay a modest annual subscription – $3,500 for a planned death, the payment covering all administrative fees and compensation to the "collaborator" who mixes the lethal cocktail of sodium pentobarbital with a glass of water. The client must be able to drink the from the glass on his own – no assistance is given. A deep coma follows after five minutes and death, 20 to 30 minutes later.
One Dignitas member who suffers from manic depression is fighting in Switzerland's Supreme Court to have Minelli assist him in his death without the required medical indication or a prescription for the life-ending drugs – an action Dignatas encourages.

"If we lose, I'll take the case to [the European Court of Human Rights]," Minelli said. "I tell members suffering from mental illnesses: I am fighting for your freedom."

"We never say no," he said. "Even those suffering from Alzheimer's will have lucid moments in which they may choose to die once a certain point has been reached, such as when they can no longer recognise their children.
And they scoffed at the slippery-slope arguments surrounding Terri Schiavo and more recently Eluana Englaro...

Minelli, of course, is a ghoul and a demon who needs to be put to death, but the "sustainable population" environmental people must love him.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

And One Was Assaulted...Peanut...

OBAMA: Wait a minute now, I didn't authorize ATTACKS on the Pirates, I authorized A TAX on the pirates!

(received via e-mail)

Monday, April 20, 2009

More Hot Air

Now according to the Government, Carbon Dioxide, which we exhale everyday and is essential for life, is classified as a "pollutant" to be regulated under the Clean Air Act!

New pollution limits seen for cars, big plants
The Environmental Protection Agency took a big step in that direction, concluding that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a major hazard to Americans' health.
The court case, brought by Massachusetts, focused only on emissions from automobiles. But it is widely assumed that if the EPA must regulate emissions from cars and trucks, it will have no choice but to control similar pollution from power plants and industrial sources.
And why does it necessarily stop there? You now officially breathe out a pollutant.

Everyone who wants to save the planet, stop breathing.

Look at this chart:

Another blogger refers to that chart and points out cogently:
The sharper-eyed among you will notice that the great civilisations of the Ancient World arose and spread during a period of global warming a great deal worse than Al Gore's worst-case-scenario predictions.

Presumably Agamemnon drove everywhere in his 747.

The Goreite priesthood must therefore logically deduce that polar bears sprang out of the Void into existence about the same time Jesus did. Because the earth was too hot for them to survive before then.

And then they did so again after they were all wiped out ~1,000AD.

Persistent little bastards, aren't they?
See also the nice graph here showing the climate-change a larmists are essentially extrapolating a short-term trend and have missed the the real story -- see the little green arrow pointing to the red dot? We're diverging downward already!


Syun Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, AK 99775-7340

The global average temperature stopped increasing after 2000 against the IPCC’s prediction of continued rapid increase. It is a plain fact and does not require any pretext. Their failure stems from the fact that the IPCC emphasized the greenhouse effect of CO2 by slighting the natural causes of temperature changes.

The changes of the global average temperature during the last century and the first decade of the present century can mostly be explained by two natural causes, a linear increase which began in about 1800 and the multi-decadal oscillation superposed on the linear increase. There is not much need for introducing the CO2 effect in the temperature changes. The linear increase is the recovery (warming) from the Little Ice Age (LIA), which the earth experienced from about 1400 to 1800.

The halting of the temperature rise during the first decade of the present century can naturally be explained by the fact that the linear increase has been overwhelmed by the superposed multi-decadal oscillation which peaked in about 2000.
The high temperatures predicted by the IPCC in 2100 (+2~6°C) are simply an extension of the observed increase from 1975 to 2000, which was caused mainly by the multi-decadal oscillation. The Global Climate Models (GCMs) are programmed to reproduce the observed increase from 1975 to 2000 in terms of the CO2 effect and to extend the reproduced curve to 2100.

It is advised that the IPCC recognize at least the failure of their prediction even during the first decade of the present century; a prediction is supposed to become less accurate for the longer future.
More details from Dr. Akasofu here.

He states:
Some of the weak points in the present IPCC Report are:

--There has recently been so much attention focused on the CO2 effect, the Little Ice age has been forgotten. The recovery rate from the Little Ice Age may be as much as 0.5°C/100 years, comparable to the present warming trend of 0.6°C/100 years. The warming caused by the linear change must be carefully evaluated and subtracted in determining the greenhouse effect.

--There was no critical analysis of the mid-century change; the temperature rose between 1910 and 1940, similar in magnitude and rate to the present rise after 1975. Further, the temperature decreased from 1940 to 1975, in spite of the fact that the release of CO2 increased rapidly. At that time, we had similar debates about imminent “global cooling” (the coming of a new ice age) in the 1970s.

--It is crucial to investigate any difference between the 1910-40 increase and the increase after 1975, since the former is likely to be due to natural causes, rather than the greenhouse effect.

--The most prominent warming (twice the global average) took place in the Arctic, particularly in the continental arctic, during the last half of the 20th century, as stated in the IPCC Report, but it disappeared during the last decade or so. Further, the IPCC models cannot reproduce the prominent continental warming, in spite of the fact that the measured amount of CO2 was considered. This particular warming is likely to be part of multi-decadal oscillations, a natural cause.

--It is also important to know that the temperature has been increasing almost linearly from about 1750, or earlier, to the present, in addition to multi-decadal oscillations, such as the familiar El Niño. These are natural changes.

--Both changes are significant. Until they can be quantitatively more carefully examined and subtracted from the present trend, it is not possible to determine the manmade greenhouse effect. Therefore, there is no firm basis to claim “most” in the IPCC Report.

--The IPCC should have paid more attention to climate change in the Arctic.

--The mid-century (1940-1975) alarm of a coming Ice Age teaches a very important lesson to all of us, including climate researchers. It is not possible to forecast climate change (warming or cooling) in the year 2100 based on a few decades of data alone.

--Further, it is very confusing that some members of the media and some scientific experts blame “global warming” for every “anomalous” weather change, including big snowfalls, droughts, floods, ice storms, and hurricanes. This only confuses the issue.

At the International Arctic Research Center, which was established under the auspices of the “US-Japan Common Agenda” in 1999, our researchers are working on the arctic climate change issues mentioned in the above, in particular, in distinguishing natural changes and the manmade greenhouse effects in the Arctic. The term “most” is very inaccurate.

We must restore respectability – by that I mean scientific rigor - to the basic science of climatology. We must also stop “tabloid” publications in science. Only then, can we make real progress in projecting future temperature change. Although I have been “designated” by the news media as “Alaska’s best known climate change skeptic,” I am a critic, not a skeptic. Science without criticism could go astray.