Well what do you expect from the liberal media besides lies and bias?

A quick, off-the-cuff statistical analysis of some of the news stories I remember reading about in the last little while, shows this: The media reports a lot more stories about people dying due to climate change, than stories about people not dying due to a perfectly unchanging climate that is actually getting cooler.

Kinda makes it seem like nobody's not dying any more theses days, doesn't it?

But wait a minute. Despite what the news is not reporting, I happen to know that there are a lot of people who aren't dying due to climate change. Where is all the news reports about that? No, of course not... the liberal media is only interested in sensationalist stories full of lies that will help them overthrow the ruling governments and corporations of our time.

Probably at least half of the population of Earth (half, according to GDP) is not dying due to global warming. But how can we know the true numbers, if news organizations are suppressing this information? If the media were fair, there'd be at least as many stories about people not dying due to a cooling Earth, as there are about people dying due to a warming Earth.


Another example of media bias: They will report that the average global temperature is hitting record highs, yet I can find a single example of a place that's hitting record cold temperatures: Minnesota. And yet, that's not getting nearly the attention that record highs across the globe get. Why? What is the media hiding? Could they be hiding the fact that it's impossible for the global average temperature to be warming, while within the same few years, some place in Minnesota experiences really cold temperatures for a little while?

Surely they'd report something like that, wouldn't they?

Unless of course they were liars. But surely they're not all liars though, are they?

Well, you tell me. I'll say this much, though: Yes, they are.

2010 was a record warm year causing record melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which proves that the Earth is experiencing record cooling.

"The Earth is experiencing the Really Big Ice Cube Effect," says Howard Mountebank, climate researcher and truth journalist. "Think of the Earth as a giant glass of gin, with some ice cubes in it. What happens when the ice cubes melt? The gin gets colder."

This is what is currently happening, and may explain the connection between the record global high temperatures, and the fact that the Earth is really actually getting colder.

As well, all signs point to yes that the cooling will continue to accelerate. "As the Earth keeps getting hotter, more ice will melt, and the Earth will just keep getting colder and colder."

Several or at least one prominent climate bloggers raised the question of whether or not all this melting ice could cool the Earth so much that the oceans could freeze. Howard responded, "If the AGW crowd gets its way and sabotages industry for the sake of getting their grant money, that very well could happen."

While poring over climate data, I have discovered something that all the scientists seem to have missed. In recent months, while there was a warming trend in Australia and other parts of the world, there was a cooling trend in North America. 6 months before that, the opposite effect was observed. It appears that while some very small parts of the Earth are warming after all, other more important parts are cooling. More importantly, while one part may be warming now, it may be cooling 6 or 8 or 12 months later. I call these seasonal recurrent periods of specific climate and meteorological conditions, "recurrent periods characterized by specific climate and meteorological conditions."

This clearly shows that the Earth is neither warming nor cooling, only that various parts of it are doing one or the other, or possibly both at the same time.

The evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against the AGW myth that the entire world is constantly warming. In fact, it's so completely overwhelmingly against warming, that it proves that the Earth is actually cooling.

There you have it, folks! AccuWeather meteorologist Joe Bastardi is betting that the Earth will cool 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C in the next 10 years.

This is coming from someone who knows their weather. A weather man. And not just any weather man! An AccuWeather man. That "accu" stands for "accurate", by the way, so you know that his prediction is going to be spot-on!

What additional proof do you need?


Will any of the cowardly AGW liars take on Weatherman Joe and accept his bet? I'm definitely siding with Joe on this one. I say to myself, ".1 to .2 degrees cooling... yeah, that sounds about right!"

I too am willing to make such a bet. In fact, I'll wager a year's worth of income from this blog, matching the claims of Weatherman Joe.

I can just see it now, though. If the Earth actually does warm up once the solar cycle kicks into high gear (which totally doesn't count as global warming by the way, because that's a "natural" factor influencing the climate, which is what we Truth Skeptics have been saying all along), the AGWers will call it a victory and try to collect on the bet. Yep, those scientists are a slippery bunch, well-practiced at the "science" of scamming. To make this a fair bet, we would have to first agree to discount any warming due to increased solar activity. In fact, since the AGWers are basically claiming that "all heat energy on Earth is due to CO2" (morans!), we should really subtract the heating effect caused by the sun. Then, once properly adjusted, let's see any of those liars try to claim it's getting hotter due to CO2.

Oh wait... I forgot... they only allow upward adjustments on the temperature scale.


Anyone with even a single brain knows, it's the sun that's making things warmer. (And also that it's not getting warmer.)

File this bit of news under "Holy bats, batman, that's loony as a duck and also the evil scientists are liars and getting me pissed and also it's a conspiracy."

Apparently, according to the liberal news, the cause of the flooding in Australia is global warming. But wait. How can something that affects global climate in one place, have an effect all the way over on the bottom side of the world? The answer: It can't.

Scientists have provided explanations (made up, I'm sure, like the rest of science) for how global warming causes increased weather phenomena. But my rebut to that is, "Huh?"

The last time I was in a flood, the water was pretty cold. How can something that's hot cause something that's cold? It can't, and that's according to Einstien's third law of thermal dyanetics. Flooding in Australia? Water? Hello? Water's cold. This just proves that the Earth is actually cooling on a global scale.

The scientists need to switch their calculators off of "backwards" mode.



And another thing: If you put wet socks in a toaster, guess what? They get dry. Therefore, more heat should just make things drier. Global warming doesn't cause floods. Rain does.

Since the Earth is getting warmer, that means that the flooding isn't caused by weather. And since the flooding involves water (which anybody who's ever felt water before knows that it's cold), that means that the Earth is actually getting cooler. This proves that there actually isn't any flooding in Australia, but rather the data is being fudged so they can get more money from Congress.

Welcome to something new in bloggery: A blog where someone is willing to tell it like it is. To tell it like how I sees it. To write about what is what, in my opinion. Here, we'll cut through all the nonsense of the scientists and the people who make it their job to do stuff for the sake of making money, and get to the facts about climate change, science, global warming, and climate change.

What I want to know is, who says that it's the scientists who get to say what science is? Why is there an educatocracy controlling what gets to be part of our reality and what doesn't? Why can't ordinary people like you and me have a say in our own reality?

I say that we can. Science don't make no sense to me, so from now on common sense will be the new science around here. Common sense speaks for ordinary people like you and me, who look around us and say "I think everyone else is wrong and I'm right", and we know it's true, because we can feel the belief that it's right.

Common sense says so.



Also: Irrational is the new rational. Why do the scientist get to say what is rational and what isn't? If something is irrational but it makes sense, then it is obviously rational. What's wrong with scientists that they can't understand something simple like that? Or maybe they do understand, but tell us otherwise. It's all part of the big scam to make money!