Page Nine

Global Whining Unravels

The lamestream media told you:

"Associated Press --DURBAN, South Africa -- Brighten clouds with sea water? Spray aerosols high in the stratosphere? Paint roofs white and plant light-colored crops? How about positioning "sun shades" over the Earth?

"At a time of deep concern over global warming, a group of scientists, philosophers and legal scholars examined whether human intervention could artificially cool the Earth -- and what would happen if it did.

"A report released this month in London and discussed at the U.N. climate conference in South Africa said that, in theory, reflecting a small amount of sunlight back into space before it strikes the Earth's surface would have an immediate and dramatic effect... but no one knows what the side effects would be.

"Within a few years, global temperatures would return to levels of 250 years ago, before the industrial revolution began dumping carbon dioxide into the air, trapping heat and causing temperatures to rise." http://tinyurl.com/7mg6aya

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Howard Maccabee, Ph.D., M.D., writing for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, notes, "Allegations of harmful effects of climate warming on health are based on increased deaths observed in heat waves, especially in European cities. Year-round mortality data show, however, that death rates during cold weather are seven to nine times greater than during warm weather.

"If the predictions of the climate modelers based on the hypothesis of anthropogenic warming were true, rising temperatures in the 21st century would save millions of lives and improve human health directly."

Download the article, with its charts and graphs:
http://www.jpands.org/jpands1502.htm

Imaginary Alien Life

The lamestream media told you:

“There are now so many stars known to exist in the universe, there simply must be life out there somewhere, in addition to our own... scientists have reported that there are three times as many stars as they previously thought.”
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/12/12/20101212alien-life1212.html#ixzz19uP6Sxns

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

This prognosticating groundless editorial, placed in the “news” section of papers around the nation late last year is so so bad, I'll have to pick it apart piece by piece.

Whether life exists in the universe in addition to us is anyone's guess, but it's only a 100% guess -- there is absolutely zero objective or observable support either way. This article demonstrates that when facts get in the way of an exciting story, facts are simply ignored up and down the entire "news" media chain of command. Maybe we're alone, maybe not. Too much "news" has become idle supposition, and the masses have practically lost the ability to distinguish between the two.

Seth Borenstein, writing for the AP, tells us:

“WASHINGTON - Lately, a handful of new discoveries make it seem more likely that we are not alone, that there is life somewhere else in the universe.”

--No discoveries of life have been made in any way -- this is pure conjecture, also known as imagination. Only "scientific" statistical projections have changed, based on newly discarded old "flawed" estimates.

“The evidence is just getting stronger and stronger," said Carl Pilcher, director of NASA's Astrobiology Institute, which studies the origins, evolution and possibilities of life in the universe.”

--The evidence can't be getting stronger, because there is zero evidence, which the reporter failed to note, or to correct for his NASA source. This tax-funded NASA functionary cannot possibly be studying the origins and evolution of life in the universe where none is known to exist, unless he is studying us.

"I think anybody looking at this evidence is going to say, 'There's got to be life out there.'”

--If he thinks anybody would agree, well, he doesn't get out much. It's a free country, he's free to say that, but he blatantly demonstrates his abject lack of objectivity, since there is no evidence of life of any kind, and many people would indeed question his hypothetical statement.

Don't get me wrong, there may be life out there, anyone can conjecture that. But there are only statistical theories, probabilities and hopeful guessing, nothing more. Many people, including many bona fide scientists evaluating the numbers game, say the chances of life out there are unlikely. None of these were quoted by this “reporter.” Yes, life "may" be out there. No one knows, evidence remains absent and the search continues, fruitlessly so far.

“Scientists have an equation that calculates the odds of civilized life on another planet. But much of it includes factors that are pure guesswork on less-than-astronomical factors... Stripped to its simplistic core, with the requirement for intelligence and civilization removed, the calculations hinge on two basic factors: How many places out there can support life? And how hard is it for life to take root?”

--This invented equation omits the most important question:

How long does it take for life to develop on a planet in the known universe?

We DO have an answer for this, but since it amounts to hard evidence it is completely ignored by the wishful thinkers at NASA, the AP, the school system and most of the ignorant masses. Let's hold the biblical model aside despite its enormous popularity, and use the Big Bang model currently preferred by the science community. It took Earth about nine billion years to form, and then about four billion more to reach its current state.

So for the ONLY model we have to work from, it takes 13 billion years for a universe like ours to develop one life-bearing planet. There is NO postulate of any kind suggesting we are slow, or the rest of the universe is faster. Arguing solely from known facts, we could easily be the first planet with life of any kind. If the Earth model says anything about life, it begins in a single spot and then spreads. Why the universe might be immune to this principle has no scientific support (or inquiry for that matter) of any kind. If true, that makes us pretty special -- we are the harbingers of life for the universe, the very first to arrive, and we are only now beginning to work on spreading.

The entirely valid yet hopelessly ignored question of where did life first begin, and when, is confounded by Einstein's discovery that -- simultaneity at great distances is indeterminable -- and if you could understand that statement, maybe we'll discuss that little kernel some other time. (Because of the limit of light speed, there's no way, as far as we can currently tell, to determine who may have been first.)

“That means the probability for alien life is higher than ever before, agree 10 scientists interviewed by the Associated Press.”

--Not even a smokescreen of impartiality exists, with the reporter unabashedly admitting he found no one to discuss any alternative but the one he is promoting. The probability of life remains the same, only our perception of numbers has changed.

“Scientists who looked for life were once dismissed as working on the fringes of science. Now, Shostak said, it's the other way around. He said that given the mounting evidence, to believe now that Earth is the only place harboring life 'is essentially like believing in miracles.' And astronomers tend not to believe in miracles.”

--This is so bogus, where to begin? The wacky fringe is now the mainstream? And that's OK? Boy that sounds like a plan. Mounting evidence? Bad star counts that are now "good" star counts are not evidence of life, but scientists and their reporter followers are just oblivious to this simple truth. Astronomers don't believe in miracles? This means, painted with the broadest brush, they are all hard-core atheists, godless wonks declaring the framework for the unknowable?

“Astronomers, however, do believe in proof. They don't have proof of life yet.”

--One gram of truth appears, 16 inches after the prior guesswork-presented-as-fact story, which is why they're called “stories.”

“Last week, a Yale University astronomer said he estimates there are 300 sextillion stars - triple the previous number.”

--More stars, a guess by a single person, suggests the entire scientific community was wrong all this time, by 300%. Nonetheless, it is adopted by the AP and the science community, and now amounts to more “evidence.” Is it any wonder so many people are doubting so-called modern science, scientists, NASA, and the buckets of federal dollars spent on studying everything from cow farts to global whining to astronomical counting as a substitute for evidence? Science, like the media, is earning its troubled reputation. And I happen to like science.

I'll be the first to jump up and shout omigod when alien life is discovered, if it's discovered, elsewhere or here, especially if it's been here at Area 51 since the 1940s. But puhleeeeze, don't fill me with editorial guesswork where the news hole is supposed to be. The entire "news" media were out stargazing and could not be reached for comment.

Congress Scraps GreenForks

The lamestream media told you:

In the first move toward phasing out part of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) "Green the Capitol" program, plastic foam cups have been reintroduced as an option for coffee drinkers in the Capitol Carry-Out, the building's mini-cafeteria.

The basement eatery had been part of Pelosi's "greening" program since  2007, when democrats took control of the House. The program brought climate-friendly vending machines and compact fluorescent light bulbs to the Capitol; caused the Capitol Power Plant to switch from burning coal to natural gas; and reduced energy and water consumption in Capitol  buildings by 23 percent and 32 percent, respectively, according to a report.

But it was the $475,000 composting program in the House-side cafeterias that stirred the most controversy. Designed to cut down on waste, the program instituted the use of biodegradable utensils and trays made of cornstarch -- an idea that may have worked better in theory than in practice, as it led to take-away boxes that leaked, spoons that melted and forks that broke when stuck into so much as a chicken tender.

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), chairman of the Committee on House Administration, announced last month that the program would be suspended indefinitely, contending that "it is neither cost-effective nor
energy-efficient." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/27/AR2011022703905.html

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

I can't add to that story.

I can point out that: An Underwriters Laboratory study of green products recently revealed that 95% of them are not what they claim to be. USA Today reported:

"The biggest sin is making claims without any proof," says Scot Case of UL Environment, adding that companies want consumers to "just trust them." The report finds "vagueness" is the second-leading problem (a shampoo claimed it was "mother-earth approved") in "greenwashing" -- a term that refers to misleading, false or unproved green claims." http://tinyurl.com/35rpkba

This is so typical of leftist politics and ideology. If it feels good it counts. Who cares if it's real -- and the rest of you should be forced to swallow.  In all fairness, however, a small but rising share of products make accurate green claims -- 4.5% this year, up from 2% in 2009 and 1% in 2007, when the first survey was done. Sorta gives you goosebumps don't it.

Electrical Supply Short

The lamestream media told you:

According to reports on CNN, the demand for electricity is far outstripping available supply. A lack of new generating stations, coupled with increased consumer demand and an endless supply of power hungry gadgets threatens our way of life.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In an absurd headlong rush to be "green" whether the steps makes sense or not, consumers are being driven, largely by the media, to think about and purchase so-called electric cars. Advertising shows electrical plugs as a clean convenient source of energy, and manufacturers are being hard pressed to turn out cars that run exclusively on electrical sockets. Detrimental effects to the oil industry and its millions of American workers are ignored in the purportedly "earth-friendly" ads.

All of this dramatically contradicts the media's own reports that the supply of electrical power is stretched to its limits, brownouts and rolling blackouts are expected, and the Obama administration has pledged to block any new coal-fired power plants, the largest and most reliable source of new electrical capacity. Pollution from electricity generation is typically cited as a leading cause of smog, a word that seems to have disappeared around the same time ads for battery cars appeared -- but you remember the word SMOG, right?

It remains hopelessly unclear whether battery cars are indeed more "green" than normal historically significant and currently normal "fueled" cars, since huge amounts of fuel must be burned anyway under the "electric-green-car" plan to boil water, to generate steam, to turn dynamos, to generate high-voltage electrical current, to send over great distances with great power losses to substations, to convert high voltage to household current, to wire to households, which can then be used to charge relatively inefficient batteries, to run the "non-fuel" vehicles. At a savings or cost? What about just keeping the lights on? It may not be such a great idea to convert the national vehicle fleet to centrally controlled and generated electric power.

Cold Global Warming

The lamestream media told
you:

Although it seems unlikely, scientists say the massive blizzards that have paralyzed much of the United States for months are a result of global warming. This news broke on Feb. 10 and was carried by virtually all "news" outlets, in roughly similar form. Why this all happened on the same day was unexplained. Some "climate skeptics" dispute the findings.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

I just can't add anything to that.

We should note though that Time magazine and the New York Times at least had the sense toblame climate change instead of global warming.

Naming Criminals Nicely

The lamestream media told you:

Ex-White House Advisor to Speak at ASU: A controversial former advisor with the White House Council of Environmental Quality will speak on Thursday as part of ASU's Global Institute of Sustainability Wrigley Lecture Series. "I can't tell you how many students have told me, 'he is my hero,' " said Lauren Kuby, manager of events and community engagement for the institute. "He has made sustainability not about just changing your light bulbs ... it is a movement that can really create jobs."
 
The event is co-sponsored by ASU's Undergraduate Student Government, which has been working on bringing the speaker to the campus since summer, said Tina Mounlavongsy, student government vice president of services. "We thought this would be a great event and we have gotten a lot of positive feedback so far from students," she said.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Van Jones, the disgraced self-avowed communist who was thrown out of Mr. Obama's White House under suspicious circumstances, was invited to speak at Arizona's largest state-sponsored university, with students and teachers alike naively cheering his arrival. No mention of his sordid anti-American past was evident in the publicity for the event. Hired to serve as a czar (the green czar) under Obama was poetic, since the convicted felon had "formed a socialist collective which championed the ideas of Marx and Lenin, and seized on the environmentalist movement as a vehicle for his extremist ideas," according to published reports.

ASU, proud of its school of sustainability, has failed to recognize that nothing is sustainable, because everything is consumptive. The laws of thermodynamics, which describe the nature of the universe, make it clear that since energy is always lost to any closed system, the very idea that something can be sustainable is impossible. It was not known at press time if the new ASU green school talks with the physics department.

In other news, great praise has been heaped on the "zero-emissions road race," an automobile race featuring totally electric cars. Missing from the reports is any mention that the "emissionless" cars need to be recharged, and that this is done by burning fuel that has to be mined and processed at great expense in energy, cost and emissions, so that some of the energy can be used to produce steam, so that some of the steam energy can turn a turbine, so that some of the physical motion can be turned into electricity, so that some of the electricity can be sent down transmission lines, so that some of it can be fed into the battery of the vehicle-that-has-zero-emissions-if-you-don't-look-past-its-accelerator-pedal.

Because the laws of physics (that is, the nature of the universe) show that energy is lost every time there is a conversion process, it is not clear if burning fuel directly in a car engine would yield lower emissions than that long process what I just said before.

Maybe Earthquakes Likely

The lamestream media told you:

The Southern California Earthquake Center predicts there is a 46% chance the state will have an earthquake of magnitude 7.5 or more in the next 30 years, according to Discover magazine.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Once again demonstrating a complete inability to handle stories with numbers, an article with zero factual validity has made it into print. The amazing thing in this case is the story appeared in Discover magazine, sometimes considered a "science" outlet. Its "science" has gotten so bad that the Uninvited Ombudsman discontinued a gift subscription, due to excessive politics and incompetent scientific content.

The prediction above can neither be proven nor disproven -- it has the unique junk-science quality of only being correct. Think -- if such an earthquake occurs, it's true. If no earthquake occurs, it's true. If California has any earthquake, of any magnitude whatsoever, or no earthquake, in the next 30 years, the prediction is accurate. Look at it again. It will be correct no matter what actually occurs in California. The reporter, editors and science center overlooked this small detail, and could not be reached for comment.

In other news, a brain-damaged drooling idiot reportedly reported that he believes California has a fifty-fifty chance of having earthquakes, nearly equaling the prediction of the Southern California Earthquake Center, a consortium of over 600 scientists at 55 research institutions with massive funding. It was determined at press time that the funding is taken from the public by force through taxation, and doled out through two separate federal agencies.

Iceberg Scientists Confused

The lamestream media told you:

"With the dramatic crash of an iceberg against a glacier that dislodged a massive new chunk of ice, the mysterious continent of Antarctica once again did the unexpected," according to Seth Borenstein of the AP.

"A big chunk of ice, slightly smaller than Oahu, broke off from a place it wasn't supposed to and in a way that wasn't anticipated, scientists reported Friday."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Proving they understand little about naturally occurring global phenomenon, scientists expressed surprise that ice changes its location and form in Antarctica. Claiming the ice behaved in ways it "wasn't supposed to," and that "wasn't anticipated," scientists clearly demonstrated they do not know how ice is "supposed" behave, since it clearly behaves the way it does, despite a deep lack of understanding on the scientists behalf.

The event, surprisingly, was not blamed on global warming for reasons that are unclear, along with the third massive snow storm in the northeast this month.

United Nations says that diversity is bad and fossil fuels are good

By Special Guest Columnist Craig Cantoni

In a shocking reversal, the United Nations has come out against New World Order dogma about diversity and global warming.  It has concluded that the best countries for human development are racially homogenous, as long as the dominant race is white or Asian.  And if that's not enough political incorrectness, the top country in human development in the U.N.'s eyes has funded its rich social spending with -- gasp! -- offshore oil production.

Well, admittedly, the U.N. didn't state its conclusion that directly, and the mainstream media didn't report it that directly; but anyone with a grain of intelligence and an ounce of knowledge could read between the lines and reach that unspoken conclusion.  That means that no one in Congress, the White House, the media, teachers unions, or the professoriate could reach the conclusion.

The conclusion can be easily drawn by everyone else from the U.N.'s recently released annual index of human development, which ranks 182 countries by such factors as education, per-capita income, and life expectancy.  The top ten countries are listed below.  I have added in parentheses the percentage of their populations that is white and, if they have a large Asian population, the percentage that is Asian.  (The percentages are estimated from other sources for those countries that don't report their racial composition.)

1. Norway (98% white)

2. Australia (92% white and 7% Asian)

3. Iceland (94% white)

4. Canada (66% white and 11% Asian)

5. Ireland (94.9% white and 1.3% Asian)

6. The Netherlands (85.7% white and 2.4% Asian)

7. Sweden (94% white)

8. France - (95% white)

9. Switzerland (96% white)

10. Japan (99.4% Asian)

[NOTE: This proves that facts are racist; please don't attack Craig or the Uninvited Ombudsman for this fact.]

As you can see, unless you're a liberal arts professor or community organizer, the top ten countries are predominately white or Asian.  They are also democratic, industrialized, mostly capitalistic, and protective of civil liberties and property rights.  In addition, several of the countries fund private schools with public money.  And two of the countries, Norway and Canada, are rich in fossil fuels and other natural resources.   

With its rank of 13th place, the United States didn't make the top ten.  According to leftists in the White House and elsewhere, this is proof that the country sucks.  Actually, it's proof that the leftists suck in statistical analysis and veracity.

The truth is that the United States would rank near the top if it had the racial make-up of Norway -- or even Minnesota.  Conversely, Norway would not rank at the top if it shared a border with a third-world country and had to absorb, assimilate, and educate millions of legal and illegal immigrants, especially if many of them crossed the border with little education, low skills, no money, and poor health.

Moreover, the U.N.'s definition of "human development" is misleading.  For example, an unskilled and uneducated Mexican with tuberculosis who earns four dollars a day can cross the U.S.-Mexico border and in a few months be earning eight times as much, be treated for free in a modern hospital, and get a free education for his children.  Although his own human development will have skyrocketed, he brings down the ranking for the United States, because he is not as well-off as a blond, blue-eyed native Norwegian.     

Based on the U.N.'s human development index, the key to the United States rising to the top in human development is not nationalized healthcare or a European-style social-welfare state.  It is to deport all non-whites and non-Asians.  Thankfully, that goes against American values.  We'd rather be a diverse nation and be lower on the index than look like Norway and be higher on the index.  

An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Global Warming Cooling

The lamestream media told you:

"Survey: Americans' belief in global warming is cooling off," according to Dina Cappiello, writing for AP. In a half page article, "Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer, down 20 percentage points in just three years, a new poll says." The poll was conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091022/ap_on_re_us/us_climate_poll

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Instead of a story examining any evidence of any changes in earth's climate, the AP is feeding its readers a poll of people's opinions, which are a result of rumor, web stories, idle chatter, "news" releases and anything but science or facts.

People promoting global warming were reportedly distressed at the story, and began thinking of ways to more massively convince useful idiots that the climate agenda is real, should be accepted, and the proposed tax increases and societal controls should be swallowed.

According to the story, one scientist blamed the drop in poll results on, "a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate," and what he called a PR effort "to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public." I am not making this up. He made no mention of data, omitted from news reports, that show the earth has been cooling. Melting ice caps did make the tale however.

Most striking, the editors left in a line that noted, "Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is occurring." Most global whining stories refuse to make any mention that there is doubt or exceptions to the popularized model.

A quick review of science history shows that enormous numbers of real discoveries start out as a vast majority of scientists holding a false belief, against a small fringe and hated minority that finds the truth and eventually brings it to the table against all odds. The flat earth, earth as the center of the universe, discovery of elements, understanding that fire isn't caused by phlogiston and the ability of heavier than air machines to fly are among some obscure examples that spring to mind.

Also notable, the study found that people in the northeast and west coast believe in global warming more than people in the middle of the nation. This suggests that the study wasn't studying climate beliefs at all, but was measuring gullibility and its distribution. No cause for such a phenomenon was discussed or is known, though California is often referred to as the land of fruits and nuts.