Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss

You vill belief in der man-made Global warming. The most idiotic hypothesis since alchemists thought they could turn der lead into der gold.

Sudden Jihad Syndrome: exploding by a mosque near you soon

There's a new condition that's on the rise, and it's even deadlier than Bird Flu (Remember that? Last years BIG MEDIA hype.)

SJS -- SUDDEN JIHAD SYNDROME.

THE SYMPTOMS ARE EASY TO SPOT...

1. You'll hear news reports about a man going berserk, injuring and/or killing innocent citizens with a gun, or a car, or a knife.

2. No mention will be given initially of the attacker's name or ethnicity.

3. Within minutes, the Police and/or the FBI will release a statement saying that "terrorism" was either extremely unlikely, or has already be ruled out.

4. Slowly the man's name will leak, and it'll be something like Ahmed, Suleyman, Mohammed. Further investigation will show a mosque, Islamic Center or University Middle East studies department within a few blocks of the incident.

5. The man's family will appear in the media tearfully proclaiming that he was a "good" man who loved America and wouldn't harm a fly.

6. Anyone daring to raise questions about him being a "Muslim" will be instantly attacked by CAIR as being a "racist" bigot who was profiling Muslims.

7. The media will publish as many stories as necessary to turn the attacker into the victim. America is blamed. We need to engage, blah, blah. Not all, blah blah. We need to change, blah, blah. And so, the cycle continues until the next case of SUDDEN JIHAD SYNDROME.

There is a cure. But it appears that we'll have to first kill the host.

Some suspect that lib***ls are the host and patient zero rolled into one.

Logic Deniers and Global Dumbing: greatest threat to planet ever?

There is an alarming aspect of the so-called “debate” about the constant, inevitable and unremarkable cyclical shifts in the earth’s climate over the past few billion years.

And that is the Logic Deniers cynical abandonment of the scientific method.

People who claim to be “scientists,” and who you might assume would know better, are actually leading the cartoon mob screaming about consensus and, (the most outrageous offense of all) calling for the end of "debate." As if science was a debate, anyway.

They sound like the mob at ye olde Witch Trials in England when a bunch of enraged village yahoos would gather for the traditional pastime of drinking, cavorting and burning a few women at the stake.

No matter what the poor females accused of “witchcraft” said or did, proved that they were, in fact, witches. The mob found signs in everything to prove their idiotic ravings. Does that sound familiar?

"See, the witch has a Cat. Burn the witch.... See, she floats when we drown her. Drag her from the village pond and burn the witch.... See, she has a mole. Burn the witch."

I’m referencing Sir Karl Popper: the English/Austrian big brain widely recognized as one of the greatest scientific philosophers of the 20th Century.

Now, while I have many problems with his Open Society thesis, so beloved by George Soros and other one-world globalizing lefties, his critique of the scientific method seems eminently reasonable...

According to Popper and supported by many, the researcher should begin by proposing hypotheses. The collection of data is guided by a theoretical preconception concerning what is relevant or important. The examination of causal connections between phenomena is also guided by leading hypotheses.

Such a hypothesis is scientific only if one can derive from it particular observation statements that, if falsified by the facts, would refute the hypothesis.

A statement is meaningful, therefore, if and only if there is a way it can be falsified.

Hence the researcher should strive to refute rather than to confirm his hypotheses.

Refutation is the real advancement. And why? Because it clears the field of a likely hypothesis and let’s us move on.

You get that point of brilliant clarity?

Science can only be “science” if it is open to refutation or falsification – according to one of the top minds of the twentieth century.

Yet the Logic Deniers and the Global Dumbers have perverted Popper's assertion. Instead they have turned it on its head to propose that scientists seeking to refute the "theory" of man-made global warming should be banished to the outer darkness of defunding and perpetual shame.

Yet it is they, the Logic Deniers, who have perverted the progress of science and infused “research” with dogma.

It is their minds which are closed to refutation and falsification. It is they who should be attacking their own hypotheses with vigor so as to strengthen their case.

Yet they are not. This is truly a Stalinist level of scary for those of us who had assumed we had left the Dark Ages behind.

Why, you might ask, would any scientist seek to ignore inconvenient observations that may, in fact, falsify their theory that man is the prime agent in any alleged rise in average global temperatures.

• The observation that in Earth's past CO2 levels were at least five times what they are today.
• The observation that higher than today CO2 levels predated not only industrialization, but mankind by millions of year.
• The observation that sea levels have risen 400 feet in the past 18,000 years as part of the natural cycle of Ice Ages.
• The observation that no one can actually state what are the “correct” levels of carbon dioxide.
• The fact the carbon dioxide is not a "pollutant" (as I have heard "environmentalists" erroneously state), but is essential for all life on earth.
• The observation that the vast nuclear furnace known as the Sun has massive, profound effects on weather and/or climate.
• The fact that climatologists can’t even predict weather 14 days into the future.

Observations like that-- and so, so much more, are out there. You would think that this should all cause a reasonable "scientist" to pause and say, hang on...

“How does all this support MY theory that it is man who is having the major effect on our apparently small rise in the recent average global temperature.“

But then, we aren’t really dealing with science here. It’s that old time religion. Plus a grafted on dose of the same old neo-communist/ neo- socialist/watermelon politics.

“Green” on the outside. Red through and through.

Agreed: Obama is NOT articulate

I dispute the notion that Obama is "articulate." Like many people and politicians he is, in fact, merely "glib."

And that is a trait many mistake for articulacy.

Being articulate is not simply the ability to string words together in a fluent manner. That is only one half of the definition. Unfortunately it's the part that gets all the play.

To be articulate one also needs the extra dimension of being able to speak "coherently."

I haven't heard Barack Hussein Obama say anything remotely "coherent." He simply mouths empty socialist phrases, failed policies and banal cliches about coming together.

He's the leading light in the Kumbaya wing of the Democrat party. Probably harmless in himself, but inherently dangerous in a pernicious inability to face facts.

Sure, he's says words fluently; and you might also note the same facile ability in Al Sharpton, Bill Clinton, and Jesse Jackson.

But that is mere glibness, as defined by the OED:

Glib: Fluent and voluable, but insincere and shallow.

So please, let us all unite, black and white, around the truth that Barack Obama is NOT articulate.