Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Former global "warming" scientist believer is now a skeptic

Add another one to the rank of global “warming” skeptics, aka Ellen Goodman’s “Holocaust deniers”! From

Claude Allegre, one of France’s leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.

“By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century,” Dr. Allegre, a renowned geochemist, wrote 20 years ago in Cles pour la geologie..” Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,” a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming’s “potential risks are very great” and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe’s fragility in order to stave off “spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.”

In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy, little was known about the mechanics of how it could occur, or the consequences that could befall us. Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” in l’ Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro’s retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. “The cause of this climate change is unknown,” he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the “science is settled.”

Of course it’s settled, Pierre…Al Gore and the UN said so! So is this guy a shill for Big Oil? Uh…hardly:

Dr. Allegre’s skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France’s political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France’s educational institutions. For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.

Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change “simplistic and obscuring the true dangers,” Dr. Allegre especially despairs at “the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man’s role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.” The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these “denouncers” became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see “ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear.”

How about that! A scientist that is actually motivated by science instead of politics! Hey, the dude may be a socialist, but I give props where it’s due. Kudos to Allegre for his courage to come forward with common sense science, especially in the current political “climate”.

UPDATE (3/5/2007 – 12:32 p.m. EST): More “Holocaust deniers”, I see. A new documentary by a group of scientists called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is set to air in the UK.

There’s hope for common sense yet, my friends!


March 5, 2007 Posted by | global warming | Leave a comment

It’s Hillary, y’all! Plus, Obama pulls a "Hillary, as in Edmund" moment.

What fun. Her Highness decided to pander to us Southerners over the weekend (since she DID grace the great state of Arkansas with her presence for a few years, ya know), and decided to try and adopt a drawl so as to appear appealing to the masses. Well, yeee-freakin’-haw!

Not to be out-Hillaryed, Obama decided to one-up Hillary’s since-discredited lie about being named after someone who had yet to achieve his fame. As Allah at Hot Air notices:

1) Obama claims that a Kennedy-sponsored airlift in Africa was responsible for bringing the Obama family to the U.S.

2) He claims that the events in Selma led to his parents getting together, and thus, to Obama being born.


1) JFK didn’t take office until two years after Obama’s father arrived in the U.S.

2) Obama, Jr., was born four years before Bloody Sunday in Selma. Presumably, he wasn’t born before his parents met.

At least he didn’t claim that JFK helped him invent the Internet.

March 5, 2007 Posted by | Hillary, Obama | 3 Comments

The left failing to see irony

By now, you all know about how badly the health-care system at Walter Reed has been mismanaged, and now, the Washington comPost has an article showing how it’s not just Reed that’s messed up…it’s military health care, in general.

The left now pretends to care about the soldiers by feigning outrage at what’s going on at Walter Reed (and, as the comPost points out, elsewhere). They don’t care as much about the soldiers as they do about scoring political points, but be that as it may, the hospital’s bureaucracy and administration is indefensible. Even the left seems willing to accept that.


If we all agree that this form of health care sucks so badly, why in the HELL are these government-run…er, “universal”…health care advocates so eager to foist this scourge on ALL of us? Obviously, as the article points out, the inefficiencies and inadequacies of government-run health care are numerous, but is there any doubt that if the private sector were nearly as incompetent as the government has been at running health care, the howls for “federal takeover” and denunciations of “greedy profit-driven corporations” would be louder than a Howard Dean scream?

March 5, 2007 Posted by | socialism | Leave a comment

Reactions to Coulter vs. Maher

I normally don’t follow politics too much over the weekend, since I like to try and actually enjoy my weekends. However, while watching the news, I saw something that had the MSM talking heads madder than Charlie Rangel at a Mississippi church revival: Ann Coulter’s slur of gay people, or more accurately, of John Edwards (while invoking an epithet). From the Old Gray Hag:

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference before an overflow crowd on Friday, Ms. Coulter said, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”

I was told that this made the front page of the NYT’s fishwrap, but I haven’t been able to verify that. Wouldn’t surprise me. Regardless, my initial response to Ann would be “Dammit, Coulter, could you shut up for once?”

Look, I’ll readily admit that I find her biting style of writing and illustrating the absurdity of leftards and their positions very appealing…but this crap is too much and is, in my view, beyond the pale of political discourse. Sure, I may be harsh sometimes (OK, maybe more often than that), but I’m not exactly a prominent columnist (four-time appearances on Slate and one-time appearance on CBS’ blog notwithstanding! :-p )…nor have I ever referred to Edwards or anyone else as a “faggot”. Edwards may be a pretty-boy arrogant self-absorbed ambulance-chasing Mama’s boy…but that’s a far cry from “faggot”.

I mean, I am the last person who would ever be considered politically correct, but to me, this isn’t a P.C. issue. In my view, Coulter gives more ammo to the leftards and their sycophants in the MSM who bend over backwards to portray the right-of-center ideological spectrum as a group of gay-hating hicks and preps. However, the vast majority of us righties have fallen over ourselves to denounce Coulter and to publicly distance ourselves from her. As Warner Todd Huston describes Coulter, “she isn’t much different than Whitney Houston, Paris Hilton, or Britney Spears all of whom seem to feel a need to continuously up the ante of crazy behavior to keep getting noticed.” CPAC would be well served to keep her away henceforth.

Having said all of this…

Did any of you hear about Bill Maher lamenting that VP Cheney survived the Taliban attack? Recall how I mentioned (I know, it wasn’t a stretch on my part) that the left would be sad that the assassination attempton Cheney failed? It didn’t take long to see that I was right about that. However, Bill Maher, who unlike the Kos Kooks and the Huffers and the DUmbasses, has his own show…echoed those moonbat chambers’ sentiments. Funny…I didn’t see that on the front page (or any other part) of the NYT. I’m sure it was just a simple oversight, huh? From Newsbusters:

The double standard of Leftists who are ignoring the outrage of Bill Maher — who alluded to his wish that Vice President Dick Cheney was assassinated – while at the same time are wildly fanning themselves in mock outrage as if they had the vapors over Ann Coulter — for calling Democrat John Edwards a bad name — was on full display in the MSM over the weekend.

— it just cannot escape notice how the two infamies, Coulter’s and Maher’s, are being treated by the MSM.

First of all let’s rate the relative outrages. Coulter called Edwards a derogatory name equating him to a man that likes homosexual sex, a name that is tinged with the cultural meaning of not being a “real” man, being an effete, and a weakling. OK, inappropriate in serious policy discussion, sure. But is it a hanging offense? Hardly.

Bill Maher, on the other hand, basically called for the assassination of a sitting American vice president! Of the two Maher’s comments are by far the more egregious.

Coulter’s comment is intemperate, childish, lowbrow, even frat house-like for its part, but it was just a derogatory name in the end. Maher wants people KILLED, for Heaven’s sake. But is the left cranking up the water-works and crying for his head on a platter? The big question is, where are all the MSM talking heads calling for Democrats to immediately distance themselves from his immoral behavior? In fact, where have they ever been for denouncing Maher’s ignorance? Since the 2000 election Maher has been just as caught up in the need for notice that Coulter is in the grips of with his every appearance seemingly geared to showcase an ever increasing intemperance, a wild eyed shrillness, and is filled with unstable verbiage.

Now, let’s take a perusal of some of the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes that the MSM has indulged in with Coulter over the last few days, shall we?

(Several examples follow)…

Well, there is all the mess over Ann. It’s got everyone abuzz, for sure.

Now, let’s turn to Bill Maher’s most recent comment.

Now, here is a definitive listing of all the outrage exhibited over Bill Maher in the MSM and by GOP sources:

Newsmax: Bill Maher: Better If Cheney Is Dead

Newsbusters (as noted above): Noel Sheppard’s blog Bill Maher is Sorry the Assassination Attempt on Dick Cheney Failed

There you have it.

Two sources.

No Republicans finger wagging over Maher’s comments. No Democrats rushing to the microphones to denounce Maher’s constant over the top rhetoric. No MSM reports of Maher wishing the VP were assassinated.




But, the more salient point by contrasting these two people and their “jokes” is the way that the MSM treats them.

They ignore Maher.

They constantly and instantly pounce on Coulter.

NEITHER personality can be considered too serious a commentator on political or societal events, but only Coulter is focused upon by the MSM. Predictably, a hatemonger from the left gets a pass by the MSM, yet one coming from the right is made infamous by the very same people.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

March 5, 2007 Posted by | Ann Coulter, hypocrisy, John Edwards, media bias | 2 Comments