Well, maybe they didn’t say it directly to Al Gore, but I’m pretending that they did in my mind, because it pleases me immensely.

From NewsBusters:

A British agency has banned two government television ads for exaggerating the danger of global warming.

In what we would call public service announcements in the States, the Department of Energy and Climate Change actually used nursery rhymes to scare people into thinking England was in imminent peril as a result of Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s favorite money-making theory.

Hee hee. Banned! For totally made-up exaggerating. Oh, if only we could ban Al Gore himself!

As reported by BBC.com Wednesday:
Two posters juxtaposed adapted extracts from popular nursery rhymes with text that warned about the dangers of global warning.

One of the banned adverts read: “Rub a dub, three men in a tub, a necessary course of action due to flash flooding caused by climate change.”

And a second said Jack and Jill could not fetch a pail of water because extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.

The ASA upheld complaints against these two advertisements, saying a claim that “extreme weather events would become more frequent and intense” should have been phrased more tentatively.

It noted that predictions about the potential impact of global warming made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “involved uncertainties” that had not been reflected in the adverts.

The advertising watchdog said the text accompanying the rhymes should have used more tentative language in both instances.

I would have banned them just for being totally lame and trite. They should have gone all out and said “Humpy Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall — BECAUSE THE ENTIRE EARTH DISAPPEARED!!!”

Plus, I guess Global Warming Alarmists don’t care about The Children, since they are willing to desecrate their nursery rhymes and try to frighten them.

A British judge already ruled that An Inconvenient Truth had a whole bunch of Inconvenient Lies. Now, if that movie is shown in British schools, they need to issue a disclaimer that it’s a political movie, thus has an agenda and they need to spell out the inaccuracies. Now, this ruling on the commercials. Is Britain finally seeing the light?

What are the lefties here going to do now? Since they love to copy fancy pants foreigners and all.

Cross-posted at iOwntheworld

Here's another entry from the "there is some stuff to weird to make-up" department. Apparently once again, the world is in huge danger from global warming, not caused by humans, this time the danger is coming from microbe flatulence. According to scientists, microbes living under ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland may be releasing large quantities of the greenhouse gas methane, just ready to burst through the ice, trap the sunlight and heat up the atmosphere.

My last few diary entries have come out in particularly bad format. I maintain that I’m good at user-friendly Windows and Mac OS, but not much more. Of course, basic skills with Microsoft Word or organizing bookmarks on Firefox manage to impress the elder generations, but when it comes to dealing with HTML, tagging, or whatever, I tend to fumble a bit. I like formatting things, and appreciate good web design, but I leave it to the experts and the naturals. Anyway, I’ll try not to have 2-inch gaps between my paragraphs this time.

So, CITES is meeting again to discuss regulation in rare species taking and trading, and regardless of what one feels about globalism or environmentalism, there has been a whole lot of ‘good’ out of the international agreement known as CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna).

Totally deregulated fishing came to a head in the Atlantic sometime in the middle of the 19th century, with whalers and other fishing folk traveling further and further for their takes, oftentimes totally eliminating regional populations or entire species in the process.

CITES (1973) is a product of IUCN (1948), the group that studies and lists species according to their level of endangerment, another valuable service.
Anyway, on the table this year are several shark and tuna species. The East Asians (as usual) are the biggest perpetrators, taking whales, sharks, and fish with little or no attention to sustainability or long-term viability. Recently, yes, they have come around a bit, but if every nation (or even just a few more) caught sharks and whales at the rate of the Japanese and Chinese, extinctions would be just a few years out, if that.

So, this international convention is attempting to put limits on much of these trades. There has been relative success since the organization’s establishment in 1973, regarding elephant, rhino, and tiger parts, along with hundreds of other species. (Though the dramatic decline in tiger populations and failure to control trade in tiger parts–esp. to provincial Chinese, is intensely concerning.) This is the first time that the prime focus will be on commercialized fish.

The biggest objectors are the Japanese, naturally, and they intend to defy whatever bans or limits are proposed by CITES, as they always have. You know, the whole “9,000-whales-a-year-for-scientific-study” claim.

But I guess I’m writing this to express my personal opinion on the matter. While I resent the idea of global taxes, oligarchic centralization of resources, and basing all environmentalism on the “global warming/climate change” scam, I do find a lot of value in such international agreements as IUCN and CITES. In the tradition of the early-20th century migrating birds treaties, the big cat preservation programs in South America, and the more recent Endangered Species Acts that have been implemented all around the world, simple dialogue and cooperation can lead to incredible things, like we’ve seen with the rebound of Atlantic cod stocks in the 90’s and some of the salmon population rebounds just over the last few years.

Yes, mineral extraction and fisheries are valuable resources. But so are wild sharks, whales, tigers, elephants, and God’s creatures big, small, and microscopic. Cooperation and the work of private environmentalist groups can work wonders that have benefit for all. If you remove (mostly leftist) political motivations from environmentalist causes, there is a lot of good to be had.

If you give a man a fish, you’ll feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you’ll feed him for life. Further, if you give the fish breeding ground, clean water, and wild habitat, you’ll guarantee thriving wild ecosystems and a constant supply into the future for all-around economic benefit especially for local communities.

It’s hardly a left-right, up-down issue. It’s a human issue, it’s an economic issue, and it’s a theological issue.

Thanks for your time, and I hope the spacing and indentation isn’t messed up!

Full disclosure: I am not, nor even been, a lawyer; nor do I play one (on TV or anywhere else).

The other day, Bob Owens put up a post about a bunch of Mississippi landowners who filed a nuisance lawsuit against some energy companies because those companies’ activities fueled the man-made (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW) that caused Hurricane Katrina, which heavily damaged their properties. First, let me dispense with one part of this: the lawsuit was actually filed in 2006; it was initially dismissed in the District Court in 2007, then in October, 2009 a panel of the 5th Circuit reversed the decision and ordered the District Court to rehear the case. Now, the foreign press has been very good about reporting on the recent AGW errors and scandals while the U.S. press has been deliberately negligent on the subject. But the AFP piece that Owens relies upon, which does mention the various decisions that have come down, makes it appear the lawsuit was just filed, which obviously isn’t the case.

Second, and this is the crux of my post, things may not be what they appear to be.

Read More →

…that environmentalism became about solving environmental problems to mutual and sensible long term benefits.

…that “global warming” and “climate change” were recognized as blatant tools to a globalization political agenda.

…that biodiversity, pollution, protecting parkland and wild habitats, and enforcing fishing and hunting regulations, were end goals in and of themselves, and not a vehicle for leftist politics.

…that environmentalism was based on science and community involvement, and not tax schemes or the regression of industrialized society.

…that protecting the wonders of life on earth, studying them for appreciation and utility, and ensuring that we take or destroy as little as possible, leaving as much as possible for our children and children’s children, is a worthy goal; and that these aims are not transformed or hijacked by political agendas.

…that biological and other scientific education is taught as fact; whereas lifestyle choices are governed by families, communities, and religion; that moderation and temperance are personal lifestyle choices taught by families and faith, not coercive public policy.

…that the seriousness of endangered species, depleted fishing stocks, careless pollution, and land use planning are addressed with plans that utilize science, public and private participation, and little or no cost to taxpayers.

…that it is recognized that many environmental problems, including protecting wildlife habitats and natural resources, are best solved by cooperation, volunteerism, and factual education.

…that we continue to evolve public policy such as the Migrating Birds Treaties, the Clean Water and Air Acts, and the Endangered Species Act, to minimize conflicts between economic progress and the real and wanted aims of maximizing a healthy ecology that affects both wildlife and humans.

I am deeply passionate about protecting and restoring endangered species and endangered spaces, and as a conservative often find it difficult to find environmental advocates who separate politics from the basic aims of environmentalism: to promote the health of ecosystems, scientific study, and education.

Some of us may find conflicts when it comes to land use planning, conservation easements, overuse of pesticides, overfishing, poaching, and trade in endangered species, but I honestly believe that the majority of these problems can be solved with practical solutions that minimally and beneficially affect local economies and stakeholders…

Cross-posted at councilnpb.blogspot.com

Promoted from diaries.  Also: Arrrr.  - Moe Lane

Even the Somali pirates have communications folks now.

NOTE TO EDITORS: We just wanted to pass along this important development in verifiably authentic fake news. Related facts also are available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/137798.pdf

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                CONTACT: Admiral Mohamed
March 3, 2010                           1-800-WEREINTHESAMEBOATNOW

Read More →

Cross-posted at: TobyToons.com

Promoted from the diaries by Caleb. I noticed that “attacks” line right away too.

You know, I hate it, absolutely hate it, when leftists hijack quotes from the truly great people from history. They’ve lifted sayings from Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and others in order to make it appear our Founding Fathers would be very much against the way the U.S. has fought the war against the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. Of course, most Americans have seen these attempts as nothing more than spin by the leftists; because, in reality, that is all the left has, spin.

Today’s New York Times will contain a long and rambling missive from the Goreacle, who has hijacked this quote from the great Winston Churchill: “Sometimes doing your best is not good enough. Sometimes, you must do what is required.” First, this is the quote: “It’s not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what’s required.” (You figure the guy who invented the Internet could have found the right quote on Google; but I digress.) Second, Gore attempts to spin the quote to justify the economic destruction of the United States in order to stop the completely unproven theory of man-made global warming. To steal the words of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), I would say to Gore “You lie!!!”

Worse yet, Gore’s tirade reads like a homily given by a preacher to his congregation.

Read More →

When I was 13 years old, science scared me. Not science itself, mind you, but the terrors of the future it foretold. News of the coming dark ages were delivered to our young ears through that most trusted of conduits, a high school science teacher. We’re killing the planet? I was shocked. What a bunch of jerks we all are! I remember so very clearly coming home from school, brow furrowed, and earnestly rebuking my parents for contributing to the destruction of the earth. RECYCLE! LIKE RIGHT NOW!! OR WE’RE ALL GONNA DIIIIEEEE!!!!!

My father, a professor himself, looked up calmly and said “why?” Well I didn’t really know why. Something about landfills and styrofoam and earth day. Newspapers were killing dolphins. Six packs of soda were strangling penguins. The hole in the ozone layer was letting all our air out into space. Or something. Whatever it was, it was URGENT that we recycle to fix it!!! FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT!!!

Still, though. Why?

So now I’m thirty-five years old, and although I eventually broke free, environmental hysteria has surrounded me ever since that day. And there is no hysteria more rabid than that over man-made global warming (anthropogenic global warming, properly, or AGW). Assuming you haven’t been in an alternate dimension for the last decade or so, you know exactly what I’m talking about. The world is going to be destroyed, Al Gore tells us with the earnestness and oratorical flourish of any panicked 13-year old, if we don’t do something RIGHT NOW!! To which the “global community” replied with a resounding FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT!!!!!!

I won’t go over my journey from terrified teen to skeptical adult, but suffice it to say a shift in politics (from conservative, toward liberal, back to conservative) over my twenties (hereafter referred to as the lost decade) was part of the process. Indeed, in the United States, political persuasion is a trusted diagnostic tool for determining one’s level of acceptance of the theory of man-made global warming. The more to the right you are, the less likely you believe. The more to the left … FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

That should be a warning sign to anyone of a skeptical mind. What better indicator an issue has been politicized than that it breaks down almost perfectly along political dividing lines? Of course, on the right, we’ll claim it is because the left politicized the science. On the left, they’ll claim it’s because conservatives hate knowledge and also Rush Limbaugh is a doody-head. Nevertheless, the political point is important. Because, regardless of fault, there is now a definitive fault line. And that line is causing the most embarrassing breakdown in journalistic integrity in our lifetime.

But let’s get to that in a moment. Back to the story.

Read More →

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that … this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow.” - Barack Obama, June 3, 2008.

… or stopped even. The prophecy of the One has been fulfilled!!!!

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

Yet another card removed from the geodesic dome of cards that is AGW hysteria. The green scare is falling apart faster than furniture made from recycled materials, but you’ve got to listen to Britain if you want to read about it. The domestic, domesticated press haven’t the stomach for it.