Climate Shenanigans

NEWSCOM“Rep. Lamar Smith asked NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] to produce the data used in their study so Congress could look at them…NOAA is declining to respond to the House’s subpoena and produce the documentation the House science committee is requesting.” The Weekly Standard, November 9, 2015, p. 5


Climate Shenanigans

The Weekly Standard, November 9, 2015, p. 4, 5, VOL. 21, NO. 09 

In a recent interview with Politico, Al Gore made a pretty remarkable claim about climate change: “All the predictions of the scientists have come true in spades, except it’s now abundantly obvious that they erred on the conservative side.” Whatever side you come down on in the climate change debate, this statement is patently absurd. In fact, more than a few climate change activists have noted that a generation of alarmism hasn’t helped their cause. And it’s downright galling to hear such tripe coming from Gore, who claimed that the polar ice cap would be gone in as little as five years—a prediction he made in 2007, 2008, and 2009. Continue reading

Mike Adams Writes Elizabeth a Note

“If you knew [my] column would offend you and you read the column anyway then you must enjoy being angry. That probably explains why you are a campus feminist. Regardless, something cannot be harassment if you actually enjoy it.” Mike Adams

“My advice remains unchanged: Fire your Women’s Studies professor and get a firearms instructor instead.” Ibid

Cover Your Buns and Then We’ll Respect You

Dear Elizabeth:

I am in receipt of your email stating your forceful objection to my recent column on rape prevention. I understand that you objected to my claim that a woman wearing a Glock tee shirt is less likely to be targeted for rape than a woman wearing a Pink (or Victoria’s Secret) tee shirt. However, I do not understand your claim that the column sexually harassed you. Nor do I understand why it was necessary for you to label me as a “filthy subhuman scumbag” and “a (f-bombing) piece of (poop).” Today, I wish to provide a reply that is more rational and intelligent than your response to my column. Fortunately, that will not be difficult.

As an initial matter, you need to be instructed on the proper use of the term “harassment.” Put simply, ideas are not harassment. This goes against what you have learned in your Women’s Studies classes. But virtually everything taught in these classes is both factually incorrect and ideologically bigoted. No court would ever sustain a charge of harassment made by a woman who lacks the good sense to avoid reading columns she may find offensive. If you knew the column would offend you and you read the column anyway then you must enjoy being angry. That probably explains why you are a campus feminist. Regardless, something cannot be harassment if you actually enjoy it.

O’Reilly’s Killing Reagan…

book_s220x334“Syndicated columnist George Will has joined a chorus of historians and other experts who say Fox News host’s Bill O’Reilly’s latest book…is a sloppily written and thinly sourced ‘slander’ on America’s 40th president.” T. Becket Adams, Washington Examiner, November 5, 2015

“The book is ‘a tissue of unsubstantiated assertions,’ he added, bemoaning that O’Reilly’s latest offering currently sits atop the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list. Ibid

“’The book says Reagan was often addled [mentally fuzzy] to the point of incompetence, causing senior advisers to contemplate using the Constitution’s 25th Amendment to remove him from office,’ Will wrote.” Ibid

“There are small and large mistakes throughout Killing Reagan. Repeatedly, Ronald Prescott Reagan is referred to a ‘Ron Jr.’ a minor matter but a revealing one. The book states that Reagan’s radio broadcasts of the late 1970s were once a week, but they were delivered five times a week. There are dozens of [Kitty] Kelley-type references to horoscope readers, astrologers, an imperious Nancy running the country and generally a persistent, clueless and oblivious Ronald Reagan—addle-brained, out of touch, dangerously uninformed. The most common word used to describe Reagan is probably ‘confused.’” Craig Shirley, Kiron K. Skinner, Paul Kengor, Steven F. Hayward, The Washington Post, October 16, 2015

Getting Reagan Wrong

Thomas W. Schaaf Sr., The Washington Times, October 26, 2015, p. 25

“Killing Reagan” is a brief look at the times and life of Ronald Reagan from the filming of “Brother Rat” with Jane Wyman in 1938, to his death in 2004.
In the 283 pages of text in this book Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Dugard have provided a. series of snapshots of Ronald Reagan from his Hollywood days to his last days but they have missed, or purposefully omitted, the crowning achievements of his presidency.  Instead they have produced a rambling assembly of events such as the Chappaquiddick incident complete with a detailed map of the route Teddy Kennedy took leading to the death of Mary Jo Kopechne and the 1982 Falklands War, also with a detailed map. But the connection of these events  to  their story,” Killing Reagan”, is never made clear.

Continue reading


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,394 other followers