…once known as Global warming until some inconvenient truths caused those to change the name.

On Morning Joe Scarborough is actually challenging the idea that people who are skeptical should be treated as pariahs, and Bill Press and Jeff Sacks are defending that concept with relish!

Meanwhile at the conference a few interesting things are going on:

Today the gloves came off and the true purpose of the “global warming” scare became nakedly visible. Hugo Chavez, the Socialist president of Venezuela, blamed “global warming” on capitalism – and received a standing ovation from very nearly all of the delegates, lamentably including those from those of the capitalist nations of the West that are on the far Left – and that means too many of them.

Previously Robert Mugabe, dictator of Rhodesia, who had refused to leave office when he had been soundly defeated in a recent election, had also won plaudits at the conference for saying that the West ought to pay him plenty of money in reparation of our supposed “climate debt”.

Inside the conference center, “world leader” after “world leader” got up and postured about the need to Save The Planet, the imperative to do a deal, the necessity to save the small island nations from drowning, etc., etc., etc.

Reason has samples from some of the speeches.

Now consider, technology that allows video conferencing is available all over. These world leaders are leaving a huge “carbon footprint” in their travel and the travel of their encourages. If this was the crisis they claimed it was why would this not be done by video?

The truth is that taxpayers around the world are paying for booze, board, broads, and the best foods for the delegates who attend, this is the international gravy train. These people don’t get involved to eat a sandwich on their couch looking at a screen, it is for an easy life and status.

It is the modern equivalent of the feudal system, live like a lord and let the serfs (read taxpayers) support them.

Are they all corrupt? That is an unfair generalization as unfair as my pal Dave when he says every pol is corrupt. I’m sure quite a few got in with good intentions, I’m sure that like the great plantation owners of the 17th and 18th century or the Nobles of 10 centuries ago they see this as perfectly normal and never question it. But like the end of the world predictions from the Seven Day Adventists and the Jehovah Witnesses when the predicted end doesn’t happen the data will adjust to push it to another later date giving that much more time for us to do something (read spend money) to save the day.

Andrew Bolt who has been all over this calls out the high priest (and great benefactor) on a few falsehoods:

No, Al Gore is a liar.

Last week we showed that the first of his Climategate defences was so preposterously wrong that it was doubtful he had even read the leaked emails he tried to dismiss. You see, five times in two interviews he dismissed the emails as dated documents that were at least 10 years old:

I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old.

In fact, most of the controversial emails, as I showed, were from just the past two years – and the most recent from just last month – November 12, to be precise.

So Gore was so wrong on the first count that it was difficult to think of any way an honest man could have made such a mistake. Five times.

But now Steve McIntyre has exploded the second argument Gore made. And now all doubt in my mind is gone. Gore must have simply lied.

Read the whole damning thing

What will come of this? The can will be kicked down the road, the dates will change and a new conference, well stocked with the best foods and wines, will be schedules and the elites of the world will again take their private jets and limo’s to attend and beat their breasts about how much they care.

And people are falling for this? It brings to mind The Ribos Operation and the 4th doctor:

DOCTOR: I wonder if ol’ Taffy knows the real value of it. “Scringe stone” found in a dead man’s pocket? A lost mine? A phoney ma… are people still falling for that old guff? I mean are they?
ROMANA: You mean you didn’t believe his story?
DOCTOR: No.
ROMANA: But he had such an honest face.
DOCTOR: Romana!! You can’t be a successful crook with a DIShonest face, can you?
ROMANA: Oh.

And they will forever.

Update: You just can’t make this stuff up:

It’s Robert Mugabe, lecturing the leaders at the Copenhagen.

And now President Barack Obama is there. He’s saying, “The time for talk is over.” Ironically, he’s talking.

If every leader did to his country what Mugabe has done, carbon emissions would drop dramatically, and yet leaders could still jet off to conferences and talk about how moral they are. And the conference organizers would treat them with respect.

Time to break out my favorite cartoon again:

The Morality of Global Warming!

Update 2: Stephen Glover nails it:

He points out that England’s prince and prime minister both took (separate) chartered planes to the conference and asks of the Prime Minister:

Could he perhaps have shared an aircraft with Prince Charles? Might he have considered taking a scheduled flight to the Danish capital, of which there were 16 on Tuesday?

Evidently not. It is odd, isn’t it, how climate change doomsayers such as Prince Charles and Mr Brown are so often unprepared to make the smallest sacrifice in their own daily lives to address a threat which they assert is literally deadly.

but they are not alone:

The Copenhagen summit, supposed to produce an agreement limiting greenhouse gases, has, according to experts, the same carbon footprint as a medium-sized African country such as Malawi.

There are an amazing 34,000 delegates attending the event, and the grander among them are forced, says my colleague Robert Hardman in Copenhagen, to park their private jets in Norway because Denmark has run out of Tarmac, and to procure their gas-guzzling limousines from Germany.

The threat is apparently only for the little people.

Update 3: Apparently Charles needs to pay more attention to his mother’s example:

There was a buzz at King’s Cross this morning as platform 11b began crawling with police.

Could it be a drug bust, the crowd wondered? Or was a rock star about to board a train?

Then a small lady in a headscarf appeared, a handbag on one arm and a posy on the other.

Fellow passengers on the 10.45 First Capital Connect service to King’s Lynn couldn’t quite believe their eyes as the Queen stepped on board a first class carriage.

Why take a public train when you are the Queen of England?

A Buckingham Palace spokesman added: ‘Members of the Royal Family, including the Queen, frequently use scheduled train services.

‘We have to look at issues such as cost effectiveness and security but do try to when it is appropriate.’

The Queen does, of course, also have use of the Royal Train – but that costs taxpayers £57,142 each time it is taken out of its sidings.

When she dies, England as we knew it dies.

A reference page for my friend

Posted: December 17, 2009 by datechguy in catholic, personal
Tags: , ,

At game night this week I was informed that a friend of mine who is not religious is considering becoming a Jehovah’s Witness.

I live across the street from 3 generations of Jehovah’s Witness, they are some of the nicest people in the neighborhood and their imminent departure in my opinion is a huge loss to the entire block.

That doesn’t mean to say that theologically they aren’t out there, they ARE, but having the theology right is small comfort if you don’t follow through.

I’m a little torn about it because I know enough about the theology to see the gaping holes, and they have the weakness of all protestant sects in terms of history, origins of the bible and the church fathers. But my friend is not very religious and in the 30 years I’ve known him never has been, maybe he needs to walk before he runs.

But when I asked him about it, and made my own objections to the theology known, he came back with the “Catholic use of Father” business. No offense to my pal but that old chestnut is pretty weak.

So for his benefit I include links here here here and here debunking it but I will only directly quote Fr. Ray Suriani who does the best job of the lot:

“But the real question is: In doing this, did Jesus intend for his words in verse 9 to be understood literally? Or was he speaking in a figurative way? If he did mean them literally, of course, then you’re absolutely correct in your assertion, and we Catholics should stop calling priests ‘Father’ immediately!

“However, it seems to me that if Jesus did intend a literal interpretation, then he certainly would have followed his own rule. That sounds reasonable, does it not? He wouldn’t have given his disciples (and all of us) a commandment—not to call anyone on earth ‘father’—that he didn’t intend to keep himself.

“But you see, when we examine the wider context of this verse (i.e., the rest of the New Testament), what we find is that Jesus did not observe this rule himself! For example, in this very same chapter of Matthew (in verses 30 and 32 to be exact), Jesus uses the word “father” to refer to men here on earth! Speaking to the scribes and Pharisees in verse 30, our Lord says, ‘And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ Then, in verse 32, he says, ‘Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.’

He then points to a few other points in the new testament where this takes place:

“Jesus did the same thing at other times in his ministry: he referred to people on this earth as ‘fathers’. Just read your King James Version and see!

“And so did the writers of the New Testament! St. John, for example, addresses ‘fathers’ more than once in the second chapter of his first letter.

“St. Paul calls Abraham ‘the father of us all’ in chapter 4 of his letter to the Romans. And then, in 1 Corinthians 4, he goes so far as to speak of himself as a father—a spiritual father—to the Corinthian people. Can you imagine? Of course, that makes perfect sense to every Catholic, because St. Paul was a priest! As a priest, he was a spiritual father to all the people in the various churches he founded.

“The bottom line is this: If Jesus intended a literal interpretation to his words, ‘Call no one on earth your father’, and if violating the words of Jesus is a sin, then you’re forced into a position where you have to say that Jesus himself sinned! You also have to say that St. John and St. Paul sinned when they wrote the words of Sacred Scripture.

Bottom line: This is a bogus argument!

My friend is a great guy. I’ve known him since we were about 15. He is a fine fellow and he will be no less fine if he decided to become a Jehovah’s witness. I’m proud to call him my friend today and I’ll be no less proud to so till the day we die!

…Ed Killgore talks about the subject a tad, and on Morning Joe Howard Dean (who has a Washington Post Op-ed today) said he would support Obama but without enthusiasm .

Glenn Reynolds had this to say on the subject.

How long before we hear “we were all had” about Barack Obama? When it becomes unmistakable that the narrative was a lie, I’d guess.

And of course the people who cried loudest how important Obama was to the country and the world will forget what they said.

I’m sure it is unrelated but do you recall the Ron Howard, Henry Winkler/ Andy Griffith video from last election. Try to find it online on video sites, you will find it removed due to funny or die’s copyright claim…then look on funny or die and find it removed altogether.

Down the memory hole it goes. Never to be seen again.

Then try to find it on funny or die and it is removed. On other sites

All you need to know about election 2010…

Posted: December 17, 2009 by datechguy in elections
Tags:

…is revealed in the last paragraph of Michael Barone’s column in the Washington Examiner today:

it’s interesting that when Massachusetts Democrat Michael Capuano, fresh from a second-place finish in the primary for Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat, was asked to tell the Democratic caucus what he had learned on the campaign trail, he replied in two words: “You’re screwed.”

That’s about it.