A seven-month-old baby girl survived three days alone with a bullet in her chest beside the bodies of her parents and toddler brother.
Argentines Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their children before killing themselves after making an apparent suicide pact over fears about global warming.
Their son Francisco, two, died instantly after being hit in the back.
But their unnamed daughter cheated death after the bullet from her dad’s handgun missed her vital organs. . . .
Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police.
This winter is not a good time to preach about “global warming”, and “climate change” rhymes too well with “Climategate”. So how does the global Left now call the impending disaster that will kill the polar bears, like, tomorrow if we don’t give them trillions to redistribute? “Environmental change”!
The New York Times leads the way, slipping the term twice into an article about how a reversal of yet another evil Bush policy has the C.I.A. helping those “environmental change” scientists. Apparently, the threat of terrorism is over and the Pantybomber was the last terrorist on earth.
Forget about national security, folks. This administration has other, loftier priorities.
If you’ve been wondering what kind of global warming it is while shoveling through twenty inches of snow this Christmas season, it’s not because you are overly suspicious:
A peer-reviewed study by a respected Canadian physicist blames the interplay of cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons for 20th-century warming. The CFCs are now gone, and so is warming — perhaps for the next 50 years.
The result is a surprisingly accomplished, nuanced piece of writing. The images Gore conjures in his (untitled) poem turn a neat trick: they are visually specific and emotionally arresting even as they are scientifically accurate.
Jesus guys, don’t you have an Internet connection? You’ve surely heard of the Internet – you know, Gore’s other great gift to mankind? Try Googling Climategate when you have the time. You’ll learn a lot.
A new company is turning the funeral business on its head and will bury people vertically.
The unique scheme, about to be launched in Melbourne, Australia, is being offered as a simple, natural and economical approach to burial.
The deceased are placed in biodegradable bag and then lowered feet first into a cylindrical hole just over two feet wide and about 10 feet deep.
Company Upright Burials claims it is a world first and the method produces far less carbon dioxide than a regular burial. . . .
The company has been granted permission to carry out the bizarre burials at a four hectare site two hours west of Melbourne, in Victoria, Australia.
It hopes to bury between 30,000 and 40,000 people in the field.
And when the land is full, it will be transferred back to pasture. . . .
And rather than a headstone above each body, the company will simply inscribe the names of those buried on a memorial wall.
I think they’re doing it wrong, though:
The upright burials are set to cost £1,500 – the average Australian funeral costs almost £4,000.
They should charge ten times the price of a normal burial, and market to rich liberals worried that every breath they take and every fart they make will kill a polar bear. That’s the way to get rich.
An investigation by The Mail on Sunday has discovered that the explosive hacked emails from the University of East Anglia were leaked via a small web server in the formerly closed city of Tomsk in Siberia. . . .
Russia – one of the world’s largest producers and users of oil and gas – has a vested interest in opposing sweeping new agreements to cut emissions, which will be discussed by world leaders in Copenhagen tomorrow.
Russia believes current rules are stacked against it, and has threatened to pull the plug on Copenhagen without concessions to Kremlin concerns.
The Mail on Sunday understands that the hundreds of hacked emails were released to the world via a tiny internet server in a red brick building in a snow-clad street in Tomsk.
The original internet link was quickly removed after the information spread from it like wildfire on to international websites.
A message written in English accompanied the leaked package of emails. It read: ‘We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps.
‘We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.’ . . .
Tomcity – the server – and Tomline, its parent company, were unavailable for comment yesterday.
The firm offers an internet security business to prevent hacking and bugs and the ‘compromising of confidential information’.
Other divisions of the firm are involved in laying the cable which provides high-speed internet access to companies in the Siberian city.
The server is believed to be used mainly by Tomsk State University, one of the leading academic institutions in Russia, and other scientific institutes.
Computer hackers in Tomsk have been used in the past by the Russian secret service (FSB) to shut websites which promote views disliked by Moscow.
Such arrangements provide the Russian government with plausible deniability while using so-called ‘hacker patriots’ to shut down websites. . . .
A Russian hacking specialist said last night: ‘There is no hard evidence that the hacking was done from Tomsk, though it might have been.
‘There has been speculation the hackers were Russian. It appears to have been a sophisticated and well-run operation, that had a political motive given the timing in relation to Copenhagen.’
Once in a blue moon, even a country like Russia can act as a force for good in the world. It just takes the world to lose its mind - like now, when leaders like Barack Obama and Gordon Brown are rushing madly to make a global warming suicide pact.
It is now clear (well, confirmed – it was always clear as day) that the computer models on which the whole climate change theory was built were simply made up. As these models are also a big part of the 2007 report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that got it the joint Nobel peace prize with Al Gore, it is my understanding that the Nobel committee will ask them to return the prize, with interest, any time now.
Seriously speaking, though, the green totalitarians are far from defeated. Too much is at stake – global power, plain and simple – for them to give up even after their scheme has been exposed. Indeed, they would be fools to give up now when their powerful allies, the news media, are putting their news-burying and spinning skills to good use and when the U.S. president, despite everything, is going to Copenhagen to pledge large unilateral cuts in “carbon emissions”.
But when the carbon racket finally is defeated, expect another, yet-unknown global scare to take its place within a few short years. The international left will need a new weapon in its assault against capitalism, economic development and freedom. So if sometime soon you notice that the media are starting to bombard you with soft, well-produced propaganda about something new that is endangering the world and requires global-governance treaties and trillions of dollars to prevent, you’ll know the same people are behind it. And you can bet your carbon footprint that right now, these people are already hard at work on their next big thing.
Is any foreigh trip by an Obama administration figure an apology tour now? It almost looks like there is a rule saying that no opportunity to blame Big Bad America for something before a foreign audience can be missed, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered on Saturday during her visit to India:
“We acknowledge now with President Obama that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change,” she said. “We are hoping a great country like India will not make the same mistakes.”
She was referring to Obama’s statement in Italy earlier this month that the U.S. had “sometimes fallen short” of its responsibilities in controlling its carbon emissions.
She could have at least waited until she went to some other country to say that – a country whose “greenhouse gas” emissions are not predicted to rise by 50 per cent by 2030.
Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.
This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.
Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.
Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.
Dr Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG”.
Sarychev Peak volcano eruption photographed from the International Space Station 220 miles above a remote Russian island in the North Pacific (click the image to enlarge)
This video purports to show Argentina’s Perito Moreno glacier “melting”. Only, of course, it isn’t melting. It’s breaking down because it had grown too large, which it does periodically – because of global warming, no doubt.
When you first scare the people with the possibility of something as insane as this, it makes it easier to push cap-and-trade on them later:
Tinkering with Earth’s climate to chill runaway global warming – a radical idea once dismissed out of hand – is being discussed by the White House as a potential emergency option, the president’s new science adviser said Wednesday.
That’s because global warming is happening so rapidly, John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month.
The concept of using technology to purposely cool the climate is called geoengineering. One option raised by Holdren and proposed by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays.
[Holdren] is a strong practitioner of what I call post-modern science, where being fact-based and rigorous is far, far less important than coming to politically correct conclusions that are wrapped in just enough pseudoscience to wow science-illiterate media and most of the public. His only highly cited works are Club-of-Rome type stuff with [Paul] Ehrlich in the 1970s, and, not surprisingly, climate alarmist work today. He is the type of scientist that is more comfortable (and better received) on an Oprah episode than in a detailed science debate. He has a tendency to declare issues settled without having ever produced any evidence, and a history of eventually backing down from ludicrous positions he adopted without evidence in earlier phases of his life, only to then make the exact same mistake again in a slightly modified form.
This is no joke – it’s serious science. The critters just need to be fed some fish oil, and the Gaia-killing methane they produce will be slashed by a fifth! Is there anything fish oil cannot do?
Maybe it can even save Europe’s farmers from a cow flatulence tax.
I pulled up to Al’s house, located in the posh Belle Meade section of Nashville, at 8:48pm – right in the middle of Earth Hour. I found that the main spotlights that usually illuminate his 9,000 square foot mansion were dark, but several of the lights inside the house were on.
In fact, most of the windows were lit by the familiar blue-ish hue indicating that floor lamps and ceiling fixtures were off, but TV screens and computer monitors were hard at work. (In other words, his house looked the way most houses look about 1:45am when their inhabitants are distractedly watching “Cheaters” or “Chelsea Lately” reruns.)
The kicker, though, were the dozen or so floodlights grandly highlighting several trees and illuminating the driveway entrance of Gore’s mansion.
I [kid] you not, my friends, the savior of the environment couldn’t be bothered to turn off the gaudy lights that show off his goofy trees.
WASHINGTON– The Senate has endorsed using revenues from controversial cap-and-trade auctions of permits for emitting greenhouse gases to help consumers pay higher gasoline and electricity prices.
On one hand they’re going to pass what amounts to a passive new tax on energy production by forcing energy producers (coal plants, natural gas plants, etc.) to purchase carbon credits from the government. This will both depress the supply of energy as some producers are forced out of the market and drive up the price of energy as the expense of the taxes and the decreased supply hits the market.
On the other hand, they’re going to subsidize energy consumption by buying it down with government entitlements. This will drive up demand for energy as people consume more than they would have anyway thanks to the subsidies, which in turn will drive up the price of energy even as the aforementioned carbon credit tax depresses supply.
The result? A perfect storm of unnecessary stupidity that is going to take a heavy, heavy toll on what you pay for energy. And not just you, but the people you work for too. Meaning layoffs. Cutbacks. Downsizing. Budget cuts.
Hope ‘n change!
Asking whether this is a bug or a feature is rhetorical at this point.
