Governor Inslee Plans to Fight Current Drought With...........TAXES

There's talk of taxing water bills and anything water-related with a 15% add-on tax in order to "fight" this further evidence of human-caused global warming.  The map above shows the counties that will be affected by the fight against the weather (mostly the sun). Note the "exempt" area - King County/Seattle. What a shock!

Interesting note about population distribution in Washington State. If you want to elect a governor, all the votes you need are to be had in King County. Seattle has solidly Democrat representation. We don't get a lot of Republican governors up here. So the 15% will be charged in the counties where the drought will be "fought". What will be done with the money is less clear. Fight a few fires maybe, but a 15% surcharge isn't exactly chump change.

Exempting Seattle/King county is a smart move. Don't want to make the people who got you elected when there's a recall petition floating around out there. But as another flim flam man once said, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."  I AM JAY. THE GREAT AND POWERFUL!

© 2021 by Tom King

 

 

Global Climate Change Not a Conspiracy...........Really!

It's not about science. It's about power and the deception practiced
by those who crave power. As Daniel Webster said once, "They
promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

Global Climate Change (aka global warming) is NOT a big conspiracy. It's a scientific controversy that has been co-opted and propagandized by political ideologues to create a narrative that says we humans should give up our liberties to socialist central planners in order to save the planet. Tragically, in the middle of all the politics, the real science that should be happening has been obscured, repressed, and funded out of recognition as pure science. When scientists' careers depend on their not challenging political dogma, science suffers.

Climate is an incredibly complex subject which has been emotionally charged because politics, religion and economics have all become entangled in what should be a strictly scientific issue. So instead of seeing computer climate models for what they are (theoretical guesswork), we've made them prophecy and enshrined the rhetoric of ideological profiteers like Al Gore and other so-called "climate warriors". Instead of healthy debate, we see dissenters silenced, ridiculed and marginalized n favor of a narrative dictated by globalist "progressives" who mean to be our masters.

We are currently in a cooling period thanks to a solar minimum that has reduced sunspot activity dramatically. The last big one of these we had, The Maunder Minimum, led to a period of climate change that, in Europe, was called "The Little Ice Age" and caused whole crops to be wiped out in some northern countries. England once had thriving vineyards that were killed out during the Maunder Minimum. Until someone hangs a thermostat on the sun, that great nuclear ball of fire in the sky will have far more to do with climate change than anything a scrabbling handful of people can do.

Should we clean up after ourselves? Sure. Should we minimize pumping smoke into the air? Probably, given the climate effects we see every time one of those big old volcanoes goes off and pumps the atmosphere full of dirt and smoke.

Should we enact draconian environmental laws, frighten children and place vast power in the hands of a gang of elitist central planners. NO! Unequivocally, no. That always turns out to be a very bad idea. Not that it won't happen. We could reach a tipping point soon where, thanks to relentless propaganda and fear-mongering, the citizens of Earth might well hand themselves and their futures over to what promises to be a wildly repressive oligarchy of progressive socialists.

Just look at how they go after anyone who opposes them by digging up dirt from their past, twisting the truth, and demonizing even their own people. Now imagine the global government secret police and how that's going to work out for anyone who complains about the universal low living standard being proposed by the very people who would cut the world's population in half to "save the planet".

We've seen how population controls work and the genocide that follows it as troublesome folk are removed because they threaten the power holders. The Beast thus created will be terrible to behold and this is the first time in history that we have the technology and the weapons to successfully manage a world population according to the dictates of an elite few. Now that we troublesome types can be hunted down with infrared trackers, our movements monitored by computer, our ability to buy and sell controlled by government agencies, and every word we've ever said online pulled up to be used to prosecute us using the over 2 million laws on the books in the United States alone, the end is coming sooner rather than later. In a way I'm glad I'm getting old. I weep for my children, though. It's not going to be pretty.

But, hey, Jesus is coming, so it'll be okay, no matter how badly the human race screws itself up trying to create a utopia for themselves without Him.

© 2018 by Tom King

CO2 - Plants breathe It!

Here's a nifty experiment you can do at home that debunks the whole CO2 is a greenhouse gas mythology. The experiment shows that CO2 only reduces the temperature and it has to actually go well above the most dire of currently projected levels to do that. That much CO2 would make plants grow more thickly and spread more rapidly. An abundance of CO2 could theoretically turn deserts into grasslands and forest rather than the opposite thing.

But then, that probably wouldn't convince people to create a global collectivist state, give up their cars and move into hive cities where the central planners could more easily centrally plan.

So for now they'll likely stick to the CO2 is bad thing.

http://adrianvancearchive.blogspot.com/2016/12/co2-is-innocent.html

Pseudo-Science Doubles Down - The Global Climate Change Fraud

Al Gore's new 9 million dollar oceanside villa -
The House That Global Warming Built

With the "settled science" of global climate change having proved so spectacularly wrong over the past six decades, one wonders whether God is messing with those who believe that mere humans can fiddle with Earth's thermostat (or believe that they even should). Truth is, that we cannot protect ourselves from disasters and Mother Nature will do what she wants to do with Earth's climate. It's been done before in Babylon where they decided that, in order to insure God couldn't get them again, they'd just build this giant tower to get above the rising flood waters. Look how well that ended.

It seems, the takeaway from all the climate brouhaha is that we really can't do much about the climate, either by causing it to change or by "correcting" the changes that are happening.  I mean, I suppose we could blow ourselves up with nukes and eliminating ourselves from the planet, but that might not even make much of a difference.

If we do slaughter ourselves, however we do it, Nature will clean up after us and then go on about it's business. Even atomic weapons have shown little of the horrific after-effects everyone predicted. You can visit a memorial in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today on the actual ground where they dropped the A-bomb without becoming a zombie mutant. Nuclear weapons, I was told as a child, would make a place uninhabitable for 50,000 years. Apparently, not so much.

First it was going to be global cooling and a sudden Ice Age. Then they changed the name of the "threat" to global warming and predicted the rising of the seas and the inundation of the Earth (remember Waterworld). Now it's global climate change, a science-for-all-seasons that jumps on any change in weather and takes credit for it on behalf of the human race. Virtually any other science, who's experiments, computer models and predictions had failed so miserably, would have been abandoned and relegated to the realm of superstition and pseudo-science long ago like its predecessors - astrology, alchemy and phrenology (that's the one where you read the bumps on people's heads and predict their psychological makeup).

Unfortunately, there is little likelihood that global climate studies will be abandoned as a bad job any time soon. The specter of global disaster is far too useful a bugaboo for whipping up the proletariat into a frenzy and then convincing them to accept the kind of lower level lifestyle required to sustain progressive socialism. Once most of us trouble-makers, the working rich and middle class primarily, are suppressed and living in government housing, drawing our food stamps and riding public transportation so that our movements are easier to track, the elite leader class will be better able to insure minimum standards of health and safety. I say "minimum" standards because that's what bureaucrats call the rules designed to make us all the same as much as possible "minimum" is what you usually get. The guys who set those kinds of standards, by the way, will be, themselves, exempt from the frugal lifestyle of the proletariat. After all, they argue, since they saved us from global climate change, don't they deserve a few perks?

The whole global climate change fraud is more about convincing the peasants that they owe it to the Earth to get by on less so that the really important people of the Earth can afford to fly 1700 or so private jets to a "climate conference" in Switzerland at the height of the ski season. It's no accident that rich people, politicians and scientists looking for big grant money are the primary ones so "concerned" about climate change. They've never had so good a tool for protecting their wealth from the greedy peasantry.

Even the richest church in the world is getting in on the global climate change hysteria. Its leader has instructed the church's members to get on the global climate change bandwagon (and while they're at it to oppose capitalism). Meanwhile, the church has been busily trying to re-establish its position of leadership at the head of the religions of the world by reuniting Protestants and Catholics and becoming head of a United Religions - a parallel organization to the United Nations. One of the pontiffs in question even called for a single world government made up of trade unions, industrial associations, world political parties and movements. He also suggested that such a government have "teeth" to keep unruly nations like the U.S. in line, making the case that such is necessary to save the planet.

I have to wonder whether God is getting a little tired of the level of arrogance His children have got to. Do we NOT remember Babel. The post-deluvians wanted to protect themselves in case God ever got mad at them and sent another flood. That enterprise didn't turn out too well for them. I suspect, neither will this one. Given how wildly off their predictions have turned out to be, it's starting to look like God is deliberately messing with the global climate change scientists. One climatologist (later proved a fraud) predicted snow free winters in Britain. The very next winter Britain got a 50% increase in snow setting snowfall records for the previous century or more.

If we seriously try to implement the Tower of Babel strategy that politicians and climate change advocates are pushing, are we inviting disaster? I'd expect that since this time there are more of us and we seem to be up to a great deal more shenanigans collectively, God may give us something a little more spectacular than lightning bolts and communication difficulties this time.

One wonders what God will do to the weather next and what convoluted story Al Gore and his ilk will tell us in order to keep gas in their Gulfstreams and pay those $4,000 a month electric bills their mansions run up?

For further reading:

1. Environmentalists Wild Predictions by Walter Williams
2. Pope Francis Calls for Action on Climate Change and Capitalism on a "Planet Exploited by Human Greed"
3. Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global Warming Industry by Alex Newman
4. 13 Most Ridiculous Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970 by Jon Gabriel
   
   
   © 2014 by Tom King
   
   
   
   
    

Oh Those Global Warming Scamps!

The white box on the pole is a NOAA weather station
in Hot Springs, VA.  The gray box below it to the right 
is a steam vent. How's that for accurate climate data?

Don't ya' just love government scandals. Now it's NOAA being accused of"cooking" the books on climate data. This isn't new news, it's been a documented problem for years with stations near power plants, in the middle of asphalt parking lots, next to steam walls and industrial sized AC unit heat vents. These spots are called heat sinks because they warm the air in the immediate vicinity. The good news is that they have identified and are finally closing not 6, not 60, but 600 weather stations situated near heat sinks that could be giving climate change scientists distorted data.

Of course, it wasn't NOAA that actually figured out about the heat sinks problem.For more than a decade, honest scientists not invested in shilling for the global warming consortium have questioned whether anyone was checking to see if NOAA's weather monitoring stations were up to snuff scientifically.  A group called SurfaceStations.org  has been collecting photographs of NOAA weather monitoring stations all over North America. A quick scan through their picture collection reveals stations with white gravel bases (white gravel reflects heat upwards around the weather instruments), near heat pumps, AC units, nice warm industrial piping, asphalt parking lots and other sources of heat.

Finally, NOAA has had to fess up and take down the more egregious offending stations. It would be interesting to go back now and remove the data from all those stations for the past decade and see what difference it makes to the "undisputed proof that global warming is real".

Oh, those global warming guys. They're all such scamps.

(c) 2013 by Tom King

Postscript:  I did notice that the SurfaceStations.org website is reporting that there has been a concerted hacker attack on their servers in the wake of the announcement by NOAA of the station closings. Why does that not surprise me?  This is not about science, it's about ideology and for some reason the guys on the left really don't like to let go of such a powerful tool for social change as "global warming".

What if Mother Nature Wants Global Warming?



Mother Nature's Carbon Emissions
Lightning Strike Forest Fires



(c) 2011 by Tom King

There's nothing quite as surreal as a bunch of banjo players arguing about anthropogenic global warming. Fortunately the discussion takes place on-line. If we were all in the same room someone would likely get the El-Kabong treatment. If you don't remember Quick Draw McGraw, the cartoon horse/sheriff, you won't get the El Kabong reference. Trust me the El-Kabong treatment is painful, especially when banjos are involved.

What got me into this was being still hacked off at environmentalist meddlers who sicked the feds on Gibson (the guitar and banjo maker in Nashville) about some imported rosewood fingerbords.  Anyway after 19 pages of dueling web-links and some serious name-calling and one schmuck getting banned from the Banjo Hangout, I have a question or two for the Anthropogenic Global Warning (AGW) folks.

Since the beginning of the industrial age, granted, man has been pumping out carbon and other greenhouse gases from manufacturing, transportation and other things. But, at the same time, some things have changed that should have reduced the total output of greenhouse gasses:


1.We went from using horses and oxen to using mechanical cars, trucks, tractors, etc.. This would have reduced the number of horses drastically AND thus the amount of horse manure produced by said horses and thus the amount of methane-rich horse and oxen flatulence released into the atmosphere. I've never seen anyone attempt to correct their pollution statistics to include that reduction in pollutants. They used to have guys running all over the big cities with little barrels on wheels scooping up horse poop. They dumped those somewhere and the huge steaming piles had to have kicked a whole lot of methane into the atmosphere. Where are the calculations that take into account that we don't have that going anymore.

2.We fight forest and prairie fires. Hardly a fire starts these days that we don't jump on and try to put out. Back in the 1800s, prairie fires, set by lightening used to burn whole states worth of acreage, uncontested, blanketing huge parts of our country with thick clouds of carbon-laden smoke. I haven't seen any studies that correct pollution or carbon production statistics for the reduction in carbon emissions caused by modern wildfire fighting efforts.

3.As settlements have moved west, areas that were once strictly grassland have been planted with trees to act as windbreaks and landscaping for homes and cities, vastly increasing the number of trees in formerly treeless areas. I have seen estimates that the total acreage planted in trees has actually increased in the past couple of centuries, given man's propensity for tree-planting around his home and the massive tree-planting done by forestry products companies in an effort to restore these resources to harvest again at a later date. What impact has this had on conversion of CO2 into Oxygen and other organic materials and thus the amelioration of atmospheric CO2.

4.There has been a huge reduction in the past 150 years in the size of the great herds of bison that once roamed the prairies. It seems there is an assumption that domestic cattle replaced the bison at a 1 to 1 ratio or less, yet I see no evidence of modern herds of cattle that cover tens of thousands of acres and strip the prairie and lay down carpets of buffalo poop as the great buffalo herds once did. The methane production of a heard of a million or so of those big hairy beasts must have been incredible. Now that they are gone and replaced by their much smaller bovine relatives, where's the correction for what must surely be a reduction in methane production since the huge buffalo herds have gone?

5.The change in home heating and cooling techniques from the smoky wood-burning chimney (some houses had literally dozens of fire-places) to electric, oil and gas heat. Which produces more smoke, modern heating systems or a huge collection of chimneys burning 24/7 in the winter. The cities have certainly had clearer skies since we quit burning so much wood (and more trees were spared from the ax in the process). Has anyone corrected pollution figures from that?

I mean, we assume that we produce more pollution now, but the world was a pretty gritty place just a century or so ago. Horse poop everywhere, inefficient chimneys pouring smoke, vast bison herds, unchecked wildfires burning millions of acres per year, untreated sewerage from cities pouring methane into the atmosphere. Seems to me we should take that into account when we run the numbers on carbon pollution.

Also given that we are carbon-based life forms, you have to wonder if we reduce carbon "pollution", is that for sure a good thing to do?

•  Do we need a little carbon in the atmosphere to support life?
• If so, how much is enough and how much is too much?
• Just because it was "X" amount of atmospheric carbon last century, how can you be sure that's the right amount, especially when, at best, you can only estimate what carbon levels were two, three or ten centuries ago?

It seems to me almost as if some of those on the environmentalist side hold that Earth has deliberately produced certain species and certain mechanisms specifically to take part in creating balance and harmony in nature.  Noted environmentalist, Danny Glover (insert snicker here), says Mother Nature struck Haiti with an earthquake because we didn't get serious enough about global warming at the Copenhagen conference. Environmentalists sometimes seem to be arguing that man is unbalancing those natural balancing systems through his manufacturing and his use of machines for travel (except, of course, for machines being used by Al Gore for travel since he buys carbon offset credits and that makes it okay to fill up the stratosphere with jet aircraft exhaust).

But what if, Mother Nature produced man specifically because there wasn't enough carbon in the atmosphere?  What if she needed us to put out wildfires, cut back on the number of buffalos or evolved us because the beavers weren't building enough dams and she needed some creatures that were really, really good at backing up rivers?

I'm just askin' the question.

What if we're supposed to be warming up the globe?

Gnomal Warming 3

Gnomal Warming 2

Gnomal Warming - 1

Global Warming - Sensible Solutions that Stick it to the Corporations!

Big Idea Number 1

In the midst of what for many in the U.S., Europe and Asia is a record-breaking winter of unrelenting ice storms and blizzards, I think it's time to talk about sensible, bi-partisan solutions to the problem of global warming. For liberals, talking about doing something is just as good as actually doing something, so this ought to make them happy because we're going to talk about it aplenty.  For conservatives, this idea won't cost taxpayers any money and in fact will save them plenty if the globe ever decides to warm up for real.

One of the great worries that global warming alarmists talk about is the flooding of coastal areas like Rosie O'Donnel's neighborthood by the rising oceans. Millions will be displaced we are told and it will cost the government trillions of dollars in federal flood insurance claims. If you look carefully, you can see already where I'm going with this.  This is the idea:.

LET'S REPEAL THE FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

The federal flood insurance program is a program that makes flood insurance affordable for people who build houses on flood plains or in coastal lowland areas. Affordable flood insurance encourages people to live in these areas where EVIL CORPORATIONS buy up the land for a song.  They get it cheap because, after all, the land IS located on a flood plain.  Then they build fancy houses, condos and shopping malls there, giving potential customers a false sense of security. Then they convince people that buying property on a flood plain is smart, since the federal government offers them affordable flood insurance if they live there. After all, there isn't any real the risk in building someplace where everything you own can be swept away in seconds, if you have good flood insurance.

Oh, those tricky evil corporations!

Now here comes the bi-partisan part.  If you get rid of federal flood insurance, the government can lay off a ton of bureaucrats who administer the program, they stop making paperwork and other agencies can lay off people who no longer have to handle federal flood insurance program paperwork AND you don't have to pay claims when floods actually flood the flood plains and wipe out millions of people. Conservatives are happy since the only thing conservatives like better than paying lower taxes is seeing lots of people drown.

But wait!  I promised some good old fashioned stick-it-to-the-corporations action for my liberal friends too and boy howdy do we got some of that.  By ending the federal flood insurance programs, we remove all incentive for greedy corporations to build permanent structures on flood plains and areas soon to be innundated by the rising oceans.  Boo-yah!  The only people who will buy homes and businesses on flood plains will be those too stupid to care about having flood insurance and the super-rich who have so much money they don't care about the odd house or two that gets washed away.  Since stupid people are primarily conservatives and Republicans anyway, according to MSNBC and Ariana Huffington, then only good can come from having several millions of them washed out to sea as the sea-level rises. As a bonus, the corporations get stuck with a lot of undevelopable land and have to give it away to the Sierra Club and Nature Conservancy for a large tax write-off, since no one will want to buy it. The rest of the uninsurable properties become slums inhabited by stupid conservative rednecks who are divorced, don't wear shirts and their pants fall off. The rising oceans would be a blessing to those people - put 'em out of their misery so-to-speak.

For pro-eugenics progressives, the rising oceans efficiently, cheaply and dramatically reduce the number of slow-witted folks from the gene pool. Talk about a final solution.

For the practical moderates and mainstream environmentalists out there, the process of getting a home mortgage without flood insurance will frustrate the efforts of those trying to get loans for lowland properties threatened by global warming.  Fewer houses, cities, industries and businesses will be built in those areas because they can't borrow the money to build.  Less building allows the land to return to its natural state.  As those sea-levels rise, much of this land will become wetlands which is something wildlife conservationists and environmentalists all say we don't have enough of.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

Crisp, clean and (for the militant nutritionists out there), no caffeine.  Let's review:

1. Evil Corporations wouldn't be able to use taxpayer dollars to make billions in evil profits.
2. The wetlands would return naturally.
3. It wouldn't cost anything to do it - in fact you could save more polar bears with the government money saved.
4. Super-rich Republicans would be washed out to sea in large numbers.
5. And lots of rednecks stupid people and global warming deniers would also be drowned after the seas rise.

I say it's a win/win all around.

I'm just sayin'

Tom King - Tyler, TX

The False Premise

Progressives love to start an argument with a false premise.  "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no?"  Rigged questions are the tools of the con man and flim-flam artist.  Take the argument against the existence of God, for instance.

The Argument Begins

"You can show me no direct proof that God exists, therefore, God does not exist!"

This statement depends entirely on the false premise that a thing cannot exist unless it can be seen and touched or directly observed.  Plenty of things we know to exist based on indirect observation.  Black holes, for instance, cannot be seen, but only inferred from theories about gravity and astro-physics and by their effect on nearby objects in space.

It is almost axiomatic in the news media that the health care system in America is badly broken. I believe this to be a false premise.  From this false premise, the left makes the Socratic argument that "If the health care system is badly broken, then we must fix it and that if we must fix it, the government is the only entity that can do the job.

The flaw in that argument is three-fold.  (1) The US health care system is not broken, only oppressed by too much government regulation and interference.  (2) We must NOT fix it because attempts by central planners to fix things like health care only results in disaster again and again.  (3) The government is NOT the only entity that can fix the problem.  Government is, in fact, THE PROBLEM ITSELF.  Government diddling through Medicaid and Medicare is largely responsible for the bureaucratic tangle the health care system faces.

Then there is the cry for a national energy policy.  Why?  Have we not messed up our energy delivery system already.  We killed nuclear power plants - an excellent source of clean energy by regulating it to death. We have hamstrung oil, gas and coal producers so they cannot even prospect for oil off our own shores, but must give way to China and Brazil and the like. I can give you an energy policy.  Do not let the government diddle with energy production!

We must save the planet!  Another false premise.  Who says.  For one thing, we do not have the ability to save the planet and there is precious little evidence that we are the reason it is heating up anyway. Jupiter, Venus and Mars are all heating up too.  I don't think humans had anything to do with that. Besides, if we bankrupt ourselves, turn the US into a third world country and destroy Western civilization, we aren't going to make more than a fraction of a degree's impact on the world's temperature anyway.  And who says putting San Francisco and New York underwater is such a bad thing anyway?

Sometimes what we MUST do to fix problems is to stop meddling.  An ancient proverb says too many cooks spoil the stew. That applies to governments.  Why do we need endless task forces and select committees aided by battalions of politicians and legions of bureaucrats to do what we can do individually in our own communities, quite without help from the feds?

When I had a wound that had scabbed over, my Mom always told me "Don't pick at it or it will never heal!"

Good advice for the current administration and congress when faced with a bad economy.  Leave it alone or it will never heal.

I'm just sayin'

Tom King - Flint, TX