Think for yourself, and you won't fall prey to propaganda

I specifically remember this wise old lady saying to me, "Think for yourself!" While she did not expound, in retrospect I'd imagine this was her way of encouraging me not to fall prey to propaganda.

It used to be that the goal of American schools was to teach critical thinking. They would provide for you piece of evidence A and piece of evidence B and let you decide.  This was their way of teaching you how to think for yourself, and therefore survive in the real world.

Today, however, the goal of American schools is to push forth the progressive agenda. So instead of providing evidence, they teach propaganda. For example, instead of teaching showing the evidence and letting the students decide whether or not they believe mankind is responsible for climate change, they just teach that we are the cause of climate change.

It gets to the point that some people are so unable to think for themselves that they read articles like Allister Doyle's article at "Reuters" called "Global Cooling: Antarctic Sea Ice Coverage Continues To Break Records," and they panic.  It's to the point that you almost have to feel sorry for these people.

The article notes:

Six glaciers, eaten away from below by a warming of sea waters around the frozen continent, were flowing fast into the Amundsen Sea, according to the report based partly on satellite radar measurements from 1992 to 2011. Evidence shows 'a large sector of the West Antarctic ice sheet has gone into a state of irreversible retreat', said lead author Eric Rignot of the University of California, Irvine, and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. 

Of course, then you read articles like Michael Bastasch's article in "The Daily Caller" called "West Arctic Ice Coverage Continues to Break Records," and you wonder why people are still so doom and gloom about the environment.

Bastasch's article begins:

Someone let Al Gore know the South Pole isn't melting. Antarctic sea ice coverage reached record levels for April, hitting 3.5 million square miles -- the largest on record. It was a cold summer down in Antarctica, with sea ice coverage growing about 43,500 square miles a day, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)." 

Not much is said about the Reuters story, probably because progressives control most of the media.  So you have young people, people who have been influenced by progressive thinkers their whole lives, writing on their blogs about how the world is coming to an end.  They are literally panicking.  And then you have guys like Doyle writing for Reuters saying, "Calm down, the world is not coming to an end."  But you don't hear anything about this beyond the conservative media.

Just to let people know, the four foot rise in sea levels over the next 100 years is only a guess; it's an estimate; it's a hypothesis; it's a theory.  It in no way means the world is coming to an end, and it in no way means there is truth to the global cooling/ global warming/ climate change theory.

A friend of mine asked why it is that people would want you to believe in global cooling/ global warming/ climate change when so much evidence shows it is not true.

The answer is: because they have so much invested into it.

So instead of accepting their theory is not true, instead of saying "mankind is not destroying the planet, they just change the name of their theory.  It was called global cooling in the 1970s, global warming in the 1990s, and climate change in the 2000s.

Progressives are known for changing names as people catch on to fallacies. For instance, once socialism developed a bad name in the 1930s, so they called themselves progressives.  Progressives developed a bad name in the 1950s, so they called themselves liberals.  Now people are catching on that liberalism is the same as socialism, so they are again calling themselves progressives.

Could you imagine what would happen to Al Gore if he said, "I'm sorry folks. I was wrong about global warming all these years?"  His career would be over. His credibility would be lost forever, or so he would think. I actually think it would improve his credibility, as it would show he's willing to change his opinion as new facts are learned.

But there continue to be many politicians and corporations who make a ton of money off people believing in global warming.  This fallacy also gives progressives an excuse to increase regulations and raise taxes.

Now, I have all the respect in the world for people who choose to believe in all this stuff about climate change, so long as they make their decision based on a review of the facts and not through propaganda.

So, in order to prevent that from happening, parents must encourage their kids to think for themselves, considering most teachers and journalists have already fallen for the propaganda and are repeating it to our kids.  We must use words such as, "Think for yourself!"

Further reading or viewing:

• Watch: Opinion Duel: Climate change
• French Foreign minister says we have only 500 days left to save the climate

Obama trying to use UN to force liberal agenda on world

As a former journalist who has kept up his skills in the blogosphere, I have for you a perfect example of journalism bias. It comes from Coral Davenport at the New York Times in her article "Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Leiu of Treaty."

First she states the facts:

The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

The ultimate goal here is to punish countries who do not conform to the law, if it is passed, or to shame them into complying.  In other words, either you conform to the progressive agenda or you will be shamed and ridiculed until you do.

But then she goes on to blame republicans as the reason Obama is forced into such action.  She said:

Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.

For 30 years people have been claiming that mankind is causing global warming, and yet there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998.  Because global warming has been disproved by said facts, they have changed the name of their theory to "climate change."  It appears they have too much invested in the myth to just give up on it now.

There is politics behind the myth, because if democrats can convince the world that humans are causing "global cooling" or "global warming" or "climate change," then perhaps they can use this "fear" to push forth their political agenda, which mainly results in more regulations and taxes that take away personal liberties and make nations poorer.

It appears that the only force against Obama's charge to force nations to accept global warming are republicans and poor countries.  However, once progressives like Obama get their way, all countries will be poor, as the only way to create equality, the progressive goal, is to redistribute wealth, thus eliminating the upper class.

It appears republicans and poor countries are the only folks who know the facts in this case, or at least care to heed the facts.  Coral Davenport is yet another journalist who fails to study history, learn the facts, nor report the truth.  She is yet another journalist who fails to comply with rule #1 of journalism: "report the truth, keep your opinion out of your writing."

Atlantic Ocean hiding global warming?

For many years now a few scientists have been trying to convince people that humanity is causing too much carbon dioxide (CO2) to be released into the atmosphere, and that this is causing global warming.  The problem with this theory is that the global temperatures have not increased since 1998.

It's gotten to the point that global warming activists had to come up with an excuse to explain the heat that didn't happen.  They are now claiming the ocean ate it; that it is hiding 700 feet below the surface.

This past week scientists released a study that explains where all the global warming has gone.  They say that it has been being sucked into the Atlantic Ocean, and is hiding about a mile down.  It's a natural occurring event that goes in cycles, and explains why the atmosphere is not warming.

The problem with this is it doesn't make sense, because warm air and warm water rise.  If you go down a mile under the ocean it will be cold.  If you want to feel warm water, you will go to the surface, where the water is warmed by the sun.  

Instead of spending their time and money trying to prove global warming, maybe it's time these scientists accept the notion that mankind is not causing it.  

Humans do not cause hurricanes

It's been a long time since a hurricane has struck down in Florida, 3,151 days to be precise, but when one does you can rest assured it will be falsely accused as the result of man-made climate change.  

During that stretch there has also been no major one striking on U.S. soil. Yet Roger Pielke Jr, in a column in  U.S.A. Today, "Hurricane luck will run out" says Americans had better not let down their guard, yet not because of climate change: because their luck will run out.  

He said the last hurricane drought came in the period between 1900 and 1913, where there was a two year drought once during that time.  He said there was an eight year span when Florida was hit by no hurricanes prior to 2005 when a category 3 hurricane named Wilma struck.  Since then there have been no category three hurricanes.

That does not mean there hasn't been hurricanes, because there have, and there have been some that have caused quite a significant amount of damage, such as in 2012 when Hurricane Sandy caused $50 billion in damage when it hit the northeast coast.  Yet that storm was not a category three storm, and, as Pielke said, you cannot link hurricane damage with hurricane strength.

And while climate activists claimed blamed the last string of hurricanes strikes on American soil on climate change, there is little evidence to support this.  Pielke said:

We can say with some certainty that there is little evidence to suggest that U.S. hurricanes have become more common or stronger. The recent report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agrees: "No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin."

 He also noted the there is a current trend in diminished strength of hurricanes that mimics a trend in the early years of the 20th century.  He said:

In fact, from 1900 through 2013, the United States experienced a decrease in hurricane landfalls of more than 20%, and the strength of each year's landfalling storms has also decreased by more than 20%.

He warns that hurricane strength and numbers can be inexplicable and erratic, a he says that with certainty our luck will run out soon.  For this reason, people must not have short memories and be prepared.

However, when one does strike, while some structures may be built strong enough to support the water and winds, many won't.  So we should not be surprised by the high amount of damage caused.

We should not be surprised by the dollar amounts even due to smaller hurricanes, and we should not blame them on climate change.

It's good to talk politics with your kids

I remember debating with myself once what I should tell my children about the political world.  I actually decided once I shouldn't say anything, and let them figure it out for themselves.  The problem with this is: if I don't tell them the truth, where will they get it?

You see, that is the question that plagues all conservative parents:  If I don't teach my kids the truth, where will they get it?  If they get nothing but progressive or liberal propaganda, how would they be able to make an informed decision?

Take environmentalism as a good example.  The media/schools basically just go with the latest fad and go with it.  Back in the 1970s when liberals thought the planet was cooling, they wanted to melt the polar caps.  Yet then they were proven wrong and started calling it global warming.

During the 1990 and 2000s you had political leaders, such as Al Gore, telling people the world was going to burn up if we didn't act now. By acting, he wanted to create regulations to stop people from creating carbon dioxide (CO2).  But there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1996 or 1997, and so they changed the name to climate change.

Now all you hear about on TV, on the Disney channel, on CNN, on MSNBC, is how we are causing climate change.  So, if kids are so inundated with all this global cooling/global warming/ climate change stuff, how in the world are they ever going to make an informed decision.

They aren't.  There is not way a kid can make an informed decision when those who educate are telling them that a "theory" is a "fact."  Yes, indeed, a theory, be definition, is an educated guess.  It's what the scientific community goes with until they learn better.  It does in no way mean it is a fact.

My point is, kids ought to be taught both sides of the story, not just the global cooling/ global warming/ climate change side.  They ought to be taught the conservative argument that the earth's temperature increases and decreases in cycles.

Actually, the name "climate change" was stolen from conservatives just as liberal" was stolen from conservatives.  Did you know that the traditional definition of liberal was minimal government and a focus on personal liberties.  So, they basically forced classical liberals to change their name to conservative or libertarian.

Now they stole our idea; that the climate changes.  Only they twist the idea of "climate change" to make it appear as though it's caused by man.  The original idea is that the climate always changes, or goes through cycles no matter what man does.  

Look at it this way.  There were periods of global warming and cooling that altered the face of the planet many times over. In fact, there was a period of global change that occurred around 10,000 B.C. that forced humans to live around the three great rivers in that area: the Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates.  This migration resulted in the world's first civilizations in Mesopotamia and Egypt.

So, global change has always existed, and there is nothing that man can do to cause it, and nothing man can do to change it.  It just is.  It just does.  That is something, I bet, that few kids learn in school or from reading the news.

They are no longer shown both sides of an argument and allowed to decide for themselves.  They are no longer taught how to think for themselves.  They are now just shown propaganda in the hopes that they conform.

Surely I'd die happily knowing all my children agree with me politically. However, if they think otherwise, I'd still be happy knowing they made that decision with all the facts on the table.

No evidence to support global warming theory

John Hinderaker, Power Line, wrote a good post about global warming. Do you know what climate alarmism is based on? Climate change/global warming alarmism, do you know what it is based on? It's based on one thing: Climate models. It is not based on empirical evidence. It "is not based on empirical observation." It is not based on real data.

The entire theory of global warming -- and I am not exaggerating -- is rooted in computer models predicting the future 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 years down the road.

And that is it. And the computer models are put together by biased scientists who have a financial interest in producing an outcome that their donors want.

A computer model is only as good as the data that's put into it. The whole global warming movement "is entirely predicated on computer models that are manipulated to generate predictions of significant global warming as a result of increased concentrations of CO2."

There is no scientific evidence backing it up. It is all a supposition that they use the computer models to back up. Then they go and get a picture of a polar bear on a small, little piece of ice. They present this fraudulent picture as evidence of ice melting at the North Pole, and when that ice melts that polar bear is gonna die! And a little kids in public schools are gonna believe that because a little kid doesn't know a polar bear can swim 60 miles.

A little kid doesn't know that that piece of ice is where the polar bear goes to take a vacation. The polar bear is there vegging. The polar bears seek out these little ice floes just to take a break. And theysee a fish, bam! They jump off, go get it, and come back. And it's true there are more polar bears today than in the last 10, 15 years. There's no truth to any of this alarmism. The models that are put together obey the input of the people that create the model.

By the way, he left uses economic models the same way. The Congressional Budget Office will use economic models to project what something is going to do in the future tax-wise. The only thing they have to go on is the data Congress gives them. It's all a hoax. But the thing that gets me is, there is no empirical data past or present that's utilized in these predictions of global warming. The models do not accurately predict the past.

The hockey stick thing that the guy at Penn State came up with to show what the Medieval Warming period was? It's totally made up, as the e-mails from the University of East Anglia fortunately illustrate. The models do not account for many features of the present climate. Again, this concept may be a little bit hard for kids to understand. But it's all also rooted in the belief that whatever was going on 15 years ago is the normal for planet Earth.

And they just made that up! They just decided that the average high and low, whatever the climate circumstances were 15 years, was "normal." So anything that happens from 15 years ago is bad because we're not holding at normal, and ideally we would hold at normal or reduce. But the earth is always changing; it's never constant. The whole thing is such a bogus hoax.

In fact, there is so little evidence of global warming that even the global warming proponents have changed the name of their argument to "global change." This is a sign, to me, that the proponents are so deeply invested in this, that there is so much profit being made both politically and financially from it, that instead of admitting they are wrong, they changed the name.

I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just saying.

Further reading:

• Seven recent papers that disprove global warming
• New evidence to disprove global warming
• 10 things that don't disprove global warming
• Global warming: 10 facts and 10 myths
• Man made global warming disproved