What the...

Well, The Denver Broncos under Tim Tebow were completely dismantled at the hands of the New England Patriots under Tom Brady.

I know, I know, Tebow never said "god" or whomever was directly influencing his games, simply that he has a "god-given" talent. Same thing, really.

Now, before you call me a hater, I don't hate Tebow, or any religious person (except for those who hate me, of course). I think his humanitarian efforts are outstanding, he brings light into the lives of children for whom life is very difficult through no fault of their own (though one could ask, why did "god" bless Tebow while cursing countless children the world over, throughout history?). I still don't understand why you need a belief in "god" to do good things for people.

Tebow is by no means unique, however. Countless sports figures praise Jesus for all of their victories. And many of them actually DO say things like "this victory is god's not mine." Hmm. I'm not sure Jesus would really want the credit for kicking an opponent in the head repeatedly, for personal fame and fortune.

And who gets the glory when two opponents are praising Jesus? If the guy with the Jesus tattoo gets knocked out, does that mean Jesus hates him?

I'm trying to figure out the purpose of this show.

Just watched one regarding the "guide stones" in Georgia. They seem to happily spout apocalyptic nonsense about the Mayan calendar, solar flares, coronal mass ejections, Rosicrucians, etc. I don't see any real thought involved in the creation or execution of this program. When you seek the advice of "psychics" about what such things might mean, well, credibility obviously isn't important to you.

So MSN has a bunch of crap on their home page, which they "categorize" fairly loosely.

Just below their main story rotator there are some tabs which are consistently labeled "Must See", "News", "Money & Quotes", and "Lifestyle". Since this is the default homepage at work, I sometimes browse around and check out the idiotic things happening in the world.

Under "Must See" I'm seeing a link to Top 10 faux bob hairstyles. Hmm. Exactly who "must see" this kind of useless crap? Ooh! Maybe I "must see" "10 speedy ways to get date-pretty"! Oooh!

I guess the content managers at MSN have a different idea of what the phrase "must see" means than I do. I'm not sure what's more disturbing; That such things are important to some people, or that they pay people to put total garbage out there. Wouldn't one expect to see something about Libya under "must see", or maybe the person with the world's longest fingernails, or Bobo the farting chimp. ANYTHING but "Top 10 faux bob hairstyles"!!!

Here are a few choice quotes from Michael Mann from the ClimateGate emails.

August 26, 2005: email 1125067952: He has engaged in some very nasty, and in my opinion unprofessional email exchanges with some close colleagues of mine who have established some fundamental undisclosed errors in work he co-published with von Storch.

Of course, all of Mann's email exchanges and postings at RealClimate are professional...

August 26, 2005: email 1125067952: There are some similarly problematic issues with Cubasch, who, like von Storch, … has engaged in inflammatory and personal public commentary. There is no room for that on any side of the debate.

Except when it's Mann himself accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being in the pocket of "big oil".

April 26, 2006: email 1146062963 : [Mike Mann referring to data requests from Steve McIntyre] I’m saddened to hear that this bozo is bothering you too, in addition to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and everyone else. Rest assured that I won’t ever respond to McIntyre should he ever contact me, but I will forward you any email he sends related to this. I assume Scott feels the same way…

Another totally professional comment by The Mann! Is "bozo" a climate science term?

May 12, 2006: email 1147435800: [Again, Mann referring to McIntyre] Personally, I don’t see why you should make any concessions for this moron.

Ditto...

'Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change'

This is old news. Many have exposed the Green Agenda for what it is, a means of population control/reduction, and de-industrialization of the West. This just proves the point so many of us have been making.

Greens don't want cheap, clean energy. They want fewer humans on the planet, but are incredibly unwilling to lead by example.

Stay Slim To Save The Planet, UK Scientists Say

LONDON - Overweight people eat more than thin people and are more likely to travel by car, making excess body weight doubly bad for the environment, according to a study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

"When it comes to food consumption, moving about in a heavy body is like driving around in a gas guzzler," and food production is a major source of greenhouse gases, researchers Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts wrote in their study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

"We need to be doing a lot more to reverse the global trend towards fatness, and recognise it as a key factor in the battle to reduce (carbon) emissions and slow climate change," the British scientists said.

They estimated that each fat person is responsible for about one tonne of carbon dioxide emissions a year more on average than each thin person, adding up to an extra one billion tonnes of CO2 a year in a population of one billion overweight people.

The European Union estimates each EU citizen accounts for 11 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year.

Apart from the obvious "governing your lifestyle" socialism, there is a glaring error with the assumptions made.

How many of you know of a skinny person who eats and eats and eats and never gains weight? If it's how much you consume that's an issue, and not, presumably how much you weigh, then ALL people should be taken into account, not their body weight. Of course, it's all a phantom menace anyway.

It's really hard to fathom how something like this is considered newsworthy, however.

I often see posts by people on sites such as Watts Up With That which go something like this (this is an actual post):

stupidity, arrogance and ignorant nature of human being is destroying the planet and its environment. its a shame for this current civilization!

Yet the people who post such things are using computers, most likely driving cars, consuming things, just like all of us do. They don't see themselves as part of their perceived problem, and don't see why they should change their lifestyles.

They may justify their use of the oil infrastructure by saying things like "I use the computers at the public library" or "I use public transportation" or "I have solar panels".

All of these excuses miss the point, which is that reducing emissions a few percent won't make a bit of difference with respect to "global climate", and that feelgood measures like changing light bulbs are pretty meaningless.

Of course we know what many of the higher-up green leaders want, and that's a complete de-industrialization of the west, and to keep developing countries from developing. In short, a return to the Hunter/Gatherer lifestyle humans endured before the advent of civilization. They want life to be brutal and short, except for themselves, of course. You don't see any of these people leading by example.

h/t to Junkscience.com

Artificial trees and brightened clouds may help to cool us down

Techniques for geo-engineering are coming under serious scrutiny as temperatures and CO2 emissions continue to rise
Richard Woods and Jonathan Leake

THE threat of devastating climate change is now so great that some scientists say it is time to investigate a Plan B - geo-engineering on a planetary scale.

Such methods of altering the world’s climate may become necessary, they say, unless emissions of greenhouse gases fall within five years.