Category: Global Warming Voodoo

  • $20 Million for Art? Pfft. Merely Peanuts.

    I suppose everyone’s heard the recent news about the VA spending $20M on art.  Well, as far as VA “management excellence” goes, it turns out that’s peanuts.

    During the period 2010-2013, the VA began implementation of 15 solar energy projects.  They were projected to take on average of 7 to 12 months, and to all be completed by now.

    I suppose you can guess what’s coming.  And if you guessed “another sterling example of the VA’s excellence in managing the use of its resources” – you’d be right.  (I trust the sarcasm in the previous sentence is obvious.)

    Instead, the projects are taking an average of 42 months to completion.  Further, most aren’t yet fully operational.

    In aggregate, the projects were projected to cost $95M.  So far, the VA has spent approximately $408M – which is “only” 329+% over budget.  And some of the projects haven’t even begun to produce electricity, let alone reach full operating capacity.  In fact, of the 15 projects investigated by the VA OIG only two were operating at design capacity by March of this year.

    The Washington Free Beacon has a good article giving more details.  It’s worth a read.  So is the VA OIG report on the subject (PDF format).  Be forewarned:  both just might p!ss you off.

    “Saving the environment”? Yeah, right.  IMO “political payback using tax dollars” sounds more like it.

  • Guest post; Do not ever go Medieval on my ass!!

    From Ex-PH2;

    I went through everything I could find on weather. Per the climate peeps, the planet is the hottest thing ever recorded. Color-coded maps make it look like the place is burning to a crisp when it isn’t. Using the word ‘hot’ implies that the actual air temperature is radically increased, which is not true. It’s an average temperature overall, covering the entire planet, and an average half degree or one degree of increase is disingenuously labeled ‘hot’, as if the planet were sitting in a frying pan on my stove with the gas burner going full tilt.

    Do not misunderstand me. We absolutely do need research into the subject of climate in order to have better, more accurate weather forecasts. Since Doppler radar was introduced after the 1974 Midwest tornado swarm and has become a common tracking method, a lot of lives have been saved. Ongoing research has provided valuable and vital information about how extreme storms form and where they are going and how much damage they may do, and has provided better, more accurate forecasts of rain and snow volume.

    But it’s weather, people. It’s not climate. Weather is 135 years of record-keeping, a very short length of time when you consider that interglacial periods run anywhere from 30,000 years to 60,000 years in length. We’re in the last 25% of the Quaternary Period, which runs back about 2.5+/- million years. I don’t think any of us are going to live long enough to see the actual end of this current interglacial period, unless – and I use that word advisedly – unless somehow, with our usual silliness as an arrogant, self-important, definitely not omnipotent, control-freak species, we make such a mess of things that we slam ourselves right back into a glacial maximum.

    For anyone who says that can’t happen, well – I have a chart to show you. My editor Tecumseh thought I should use something more logarithimic, which I’ve done further on in this article. But that does not show the same differences in time that this Excel chart shows. It should scare the living crap out of you, because the prolonged cold is always preceded by a spasm of warmth and the warm period is not the same length of time as the prolonged cold that follows it. You don’t have to take my word for it. Look at the chart. It covers the last 600,000 years.

    Glaciation

    Blue is cold. Yellow is not cold. We are in the far lefthand yellow column. No temperatures were used, just the actual length of time each period lasts. That is what counts. They show an oscillating wave form. The tallest blue column has a time span of 170,000 years. Note that the yellow columns differ considerably from the blue. The shortest interglacial period in that chart is the Aftonian, 30,000 years long, following the 170,000 years of the Wisconsin glacial maximum. We are almost two-thirds of the way through the Aftonian time span now. Granted, it’s a rough chart, but when someone says “it’s an average of 100,000 years for each climate cycle”, that is pure baloney. Averaging throws off the real numbers completely, which changes the results of research. This page provides real time and temperatures, not averages. It does not name the different glacials and interglacial periods, as I did. I dealt ONLY with time length.

    However, there are people who just do not care about using real numbers, for a good reason: follow the money.

    In the pursuit of finding things out, I recently reported the attempt by a salaried and grant-paid researcher and professor, Jagadish Shukla at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, to have ‘climate deniers’ investigated under the RICO Act. He conned 19 other climate peeps, including 4 who worked with him, into signing it, because ‘climate deniers’ are exactly like the people who were genetically modifying tobacco for J.R. Reynolds to make it more addictive. I think any reasoning person will agree that a GMO organism is somewhat different from a planetary atmosphere. Likewise, a bunch of people who have a different opinion from another bunch of people about something is not quite the same thing as a whistleblower’s report. I was appalled, and rightly so, by that demand letter sent to the US Attorney General. In fact, it garnered so much adverse public notice that it was withdrawn, and Shukla is being investigated. Now I find that he was also claiming a Nobel Prize he never received.

    There is much more of that kind of behavior going on. It isn’t hard to find. If you haven’t heard of Michael E. Mann before, he is the head of Penn State’s climate science department. Yes, that Penn State. He claimed in his CV that he’d won a Nobel prize. He was forced to recant that claim when his bit of Stolen Valor was revealed to be a complete lie on his part. In fact, the Nobel Committee said he’d never received or even been nominated for such an award.
    But would Penn State dump him? No. He brings in millions of dollars of grant money every year for the university’s research programs. His hockey stick chart, which shows falsified temperature records over 1,000 years, made him famous. People grabbed onto it like ticks hunting blood. He refused to admit that he had done that deliberately to get grant money. He sued someone for taking him to task over fudging the data he used.

    The point is that averaging, or altering the data as Mann did with his 1,000-year hockey stick chart, makes it incorrect. It blocks access to the actual results. Tecumseh provided me with this logarithmic chart for something more accurate. Note that that current warm period (furthest right span) is basically a flat line of real temperatures over a specified time period.

    Mann really does not like criticism and he’s getting a lot of it now, mostly for his arrogant attitude. Most recently, he went running to the Pope for confirmation that his was the only correct position, and that all the mean, mean, mean old meanies who won’t let him have his way are just picking on him. And of course, the Pope patted his little shoulder and said, ‘Well, of course, you’re right, they’re terribly mean,’ or words to that effect.

    Now, why does this matter? Well, let’s ask Galileo Galilei. I’m sure you’ve heard of him. He’s that crusty fellow who supported Copernicus’s heliocentric Universe theory, in which the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun, and the Universe revolves around it as well. He was obstinately in support of it. He even tried to prove it by publishing dialogues about it. And then he got himself one of them there newfangled telescope things and looked through it. And guess what he saw? He saw that Venus had phases, just like the Moon. Therefore, Venus must be orbiting the Sun. He saw mountains on the Moon. It wasn’t a flat pancake in the sky, after all. He turned his telescope on Jupiter and saw Jupiter’s system of moons. He may have also seen Saturn and its ring system. Some of his drawings suggest that. He used a camera obscura to bring the Sun into his observatory and found that the sun had sunspots, confirming what had long been recorded elsewhere by the Chinese. And he drew those sunspots.

    Unfortunately, the governing body of all of Europe was the Church of Rome. And that Government did not want its stewpot stirred. It would cause chaos! Some philosophers refused completely to even look through a telescope. The first person Galileo discussed his ideas with was Cardinal Bellarmine, who officially didn’t like it at the behest of Pope Paul V, but tolerated it. Galileo faced one Inquisition because of his stubbornness. Later, Pope Urban VIII was amenable to these new-fangled ideas, but at some point changed his mind and said ‘No, no, no!’, because he was feeling a great deal of political pressure and wanted to keep his job.

    When Galileo published his ‘Dialogue’, the Pope had him arrested and subjected to a second official Inquisition. It wasn’t that they didn’t know that the Earth orbited the Sun. The Church’s official doctrine said the Sun circled around the Earth and that was that. No arguments or discussions about it were tolerated.

    Galileo’s refusal to knuckle under resulted in permanent house arrest for him. He stayed in his home until he died in 1642. In the 1990s, the Church finally said ‘We were wrong. Galileo was right.’ No, he was never excommunicated, just imprisoned in his own house for having a politically incorrect opinion and being unwilling to recant under political pressure. At some point, he did publicly recant, but not privately.

    Does this sound familiar? Where and how many times have we seen this kind of thing before?

    Now Bill Nye, the so-called Science Guy, has said he is quite open to filing criminal charges against people who disagree with the more popular meme of global warming or climate change, or whatever it’s called this year. Filing a criminal complaint against someone for having a different opinion than yours about something is about as Medieval as you can get, especially when that something seems to be not much more than a scam run by money-grubbing, power-hungry control freaks whose methods are questionable.

    Science does not advance or create or innovate when this kind of restriction occurs. Another name for it is Lysenkoism. Trofim Lysenko was Stalin’s director of the Soviet Union’s Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences, the fellow who tossed agricultural science and Mendelian genetics out the window in favor of his own personal ideology of how plants change and how to manage agriculture. His idiotic methods cause mass starvation in the USSR. Ideology does not fill the breadbasket, but it does destroy progress. When ideology is never questioned, or dissenters are punished for doing so, it is nothing more than going Medieval and/or subscribing to Lysenkoism, with no consideration for the consequences of doing so.

    In my view, what we see is the Earth taking care of itself. It’s business as usual and we’re just along for the ride. We should definitely keep the place clean, because we live here and unless another habitable world is found, we’re stuck here. We have nowhere else to go. Whether or not the climate is changing one direction or the other, I have no opinion on it at all. But turning a branch of science into an ideology and making dissent a crime, as with Lysenkoism, leaves the path of reason.

    My concern is that not only are these researchers lying about their curriculum vitae with Stolen Valor claims of awards they didn’t earn, but also that they are fudging and/or forging their data into the bargain for the sole purpose of getting money. I do not believe they can be trusted any more.

    I repeat that we absolutely do need the research. It is vital to have better, more accurate weather forecasting. It is incredibly important, however, to these other people, who have cash and status at stake, to be on top of the heap and make climate change the only acceptable thing to consider. “They” have turned it into an ideology. “They” have as wide a horde of believers as any fundamentalist preacher could ever ask for. “They” say that the climate is out of control. That alone is doubtful. Paleontological and geological records show otherwise. Those records show that the European Alps were bare of snow cover 7,000 years ago.

    So I’m going ask the following question because I think it’s both reasonable and important.

    What are we supposed to do if their predictions turn out to be wrong?

  • More Green Energy “Good News” for US Taxpayers

    Recently, Spanish “green” energy giant Abengoa went bankrupt.  For Abengoa’s stockholders, that’s unfortunate.

    It’s also unfortunate for US taxpayers.

    Why, you ask?  After all, isn’t Abengoa a foreign corporation?

    Well, yes it is.  But it also seems that Abengoa was a major recipient of the current US Administration’s “green energy”      irresponsible and wasteful giveaways      financial incentives.  Since 2010, they received approximately $2.7 billion in US subsidies – in the form of DoE loan guarantees.

    In fact, Abengoa is presently the single largest creditor of the Treasury Department’s Federal Financing Bank (FFB).  They currently owe the FFB $2.34 billion.  No word on who loaned them the other $360 million.

    That’s not all.  Abengoa also appears to have received an additional $605 million in tax credits and “green energy” grants – over and above their loan guarantees.

    Abengoa took the money, all right – while running up a total corporate debt of around $17 billion.  But their production – financial or actual – doesn’t seem to have exactly been stellar.  One of their star projects was a massive biofuel plant in the US that has yet to announce production levels or sell any products.  In fairness, Abengoa did indeed pay off the loan associated with that project – a loan that had been guaranteed by the US government.  But they elected to do so “from other revenues”, not from the proceeds of biofuel sales.  In fact, they paid of the loan before ever selling a drop of biofuel produced by the facility.  Any biofuels produced at that facility are apparently still all stored at the facility – or were at the time the loan was repaid.

    But hey – what’s $3.305 billion between friends, eh?  It’s all “for the cause”.  Its “saving the planet”!

    Yeah, right.  “Scam designed to enrich a select few” sounds far more like what’s going on here.

    Don’t get me wrong; I’m in favor of basic research on how to make energy production cleaner and more efficient.  “Cleaner” is definitely good; add “more efficient” and eventually that translates into “economically viable clean energy sources”.  Mankind does have the responsibility to be a good caretaker for planet Earth – if for no other reason than self-preservation.

    But regarding economically-viable “green” energy:  in general we’re simply not there today.  I do have a problem with a group of conceited fools in DC thinking that they can order the laws of physics, engineering, and economics to change overnight simply because they say so.  And I have a huge problem with those same arrogant fools p!ssing away literally billions of the US taxpayer’s money in a Quixotic effort to do just that.

    Oh, and it turns out that Abengoa might not be the only “hit” the taxpayer takes on the “green energy company goes belly-up” ledger this year.

    Another huge player in the current Administration’s “green energy subsidy giveaway      scams      games” may well declare bankruptcy soon.  That would be SunEdison – which has received nearly $650 million in Federal “green energy” subsidies and tax credits.  They’re the 13th most heavily subsidized corporation in the US.  And they are facing a serious liquidity crisis that many experts expect will force them to declare bankruptcy.

    Hmm.  First Solyndra.  Then Abound Solar.  Then Abengoa.  Now, possibly, SunEdison.

    I’m seeing a couple of trends here.  The first trend isn’t any indication that economically viable green energy is “just around the corner”.  And the second indication isn’t that the Administration’s officials managing the Administration’s solar giveaway sweepstakes seem to know their butts from a hole in the ground.

  • Oh, those climate science guys!

    Oh, those climate science guys!

    Morning after the Feb 2 2011 blizzard

    This from the pen of our own Ex-PH2;

    You may or may not have heard that last year, AG Loretta Lynch was considering persecuting some climate scientists who disagreed with the popular opinion about climate change, held by a wide number of science people and non-science people: that climate change going on now is caused by manmade pollution.

    I used the word ‘persecuted’ instead of ‘prosecuted’ for a good reason: the jackass who started this buzzroll in the first place was dead set on persecuting anyone who disagreed with him. That could have been Michael Mann, who is currently (still) pontificating at Penn State. But it was not Mann. There is another jackass pulling this stunt, as you will see.

    I’m sure pollution and CO loads were much worse before the tobacco industry was taken to task over its genetic engineering of tobacco to make it more and more addictive, something that was leaked by a whistleblower who worked for RJReynolds. Genetic engineering is NOT the same thing as hybridizing. Since I’m sensitive to particulate matter like smoke of any kind in the air, it was kind of a relief to me when people were told they couldn’t smoke on the buses or trains any more.

    For the record, lung cancer rates have not really dropped a whole lot since tobacco became more expensive and people gave up smoking, a habit about as nasty as picking your nose and eating it. In fact, this statistical chart going back to 1975, shows a slight increase in the 1990s then a tapering off through 2012.

    And this is with a drop in the number of people who smoke. A good deal of cancer-related illness and mortality is related to genetic susceptibility and an immune system that doesn’t work as well as it should. There is, in fact, research going on which shows that antibiotics seem to have an effect on cancers if they’re caught soon enough.

    So how does that relate to climate change and dissenting opinions? I’m glad you asked. When I watched the C-Span video of Low-retta’s appearance before a Senate committee responding to this request for a RICO investigation of a small group of people with dissenting opinions, I wondered why any reasoning person would even consider something like that. Science doesn’t advance without dissent and differing opinions. Scientists frequently have serious ego issues, as we have seen with Michael Mann and his Climategate e-mail boondoggle, and his personal attempts to squelch or disparage anyone who disagrees with him. Brian Sussman takes Mann to task over a lot of things, but also castigates The Gore, who became awash in money earned from climate panic-mongering with his film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. The link to Sussman is here:

    That was back in the early mid-2000s, when I still lived in Chicago and was monitoring the extremes of temperature between summer and winter. There was a summer (1995) when over 700 people died of heat-related causes in Chicago. In 2003, France suffered a similar heat wave with almost 15,000 people dying of heat-related causes. In Europe, not many people use air conditioners, and some of those older buildings are poorly ventilated. These incidents were part of the wave of global warming hysterics that were underway, but you do have to view this with a skeptical eye. My mother lived in Chicago in the 1930s. She told me that one summer was so hot, everyone slept outdoors in the parks and on the beaches to escape the heat. And the opposite side of that coin is the worst winters Chicago ever had, at this link.

    My point is that weather varies from one seasonal form to the next seasonal form. We had a pretty mild winter here in my kingdom (2015-2016), but the winter before (2014-2015) my pipes froze and a plumbing connector broke and had to be replaced. February 2011, my front door was blocked with 4 ½ feet of snow. It’s weather, people. It is NOT climate.

    In regard to the proposed Congressional investigation, I found it amazing that anyone would even suggest questioning the dissenting opinions of seven people with more than valid credentials, using the ridiculous idea that they should be investigated under the RICO Act, a 1970 legislation that was aimed at breaking up the Mob. As I said, science does not advance without dissent and differences of opinion. Remember that at one time, heavier-than-air flight was a notion ridiculed by people who ‘just know better’.

    When I dug into this business, my intention was nothing more than understanding what was happening. What was really behind discrediting people in the first place? As it happens, the individual who started the buzzroll about a RICO Act investigation is himself a climate scientist by the name of Jagadish Shukla. He wrote a letter at the link in this article, to the White House demanding such an investigation. He teaches at George Mason University. He conned nineteen (count ‘em) other scientists into signing that letter with him.

    Why do I say ‘conned’? Because while he gets a more than adequate salary for teaching, and his wife’s and daughter’s salaries bump up the family income considerably, he also gets taxpayer-funded grants for climate research for his Institute for Global Environment and Society (IGES) to the tune of $3.8+ million per year. Some of those grants come from agencies such as NASA. That’s a lot of money to lose if he’s wrong about AGW. Dissenters are a clear threat to his pocketbook, you see, so he had to do something. Right?

    This article by Paul Driessen outlines Shukla’s vested interest in turning innocent people into criminals:

    Yes, Shukla is now being investigated himself. No, don’t do stupid things like call the university or post crap on his Facebook page. I’m sure that he and his four associates may find their tenure ending without any of your help.

    If you want to know why some people do the things they do, follow the money. It’s almost always about money.

  • A Green “Fantasy” Come to Life

    Here, let me run a fantasy by you.

    . . .

    The story begins, and the hero is on the town council of a small New England town. The town’s electricity bills are killing them.

    The hero decides they’ll go solar. Notwithstanding the fact that New England isn’t exactly a primo location for solar because of its environment – no place that gets less than 200 sunny days annually is, exactly – solar is trendy and popular.  And hey:  the town might be able to get some help if they sell it just right.

    In fact, the town decides to ask for a $1.2+ million grant.  Who cares if it will only save $500,000 over the life of the project?  And who cares if the project will be owned by an overseas company – or if other citizens of the state will end up eating the cost?

    Later:  well, whaddaya know?  The hero’s plan worked!  They pulled it off!

    The town conned the Public Utility Commission into coughing up the grant, and found some foreign company willing to bite.  And they’ll save some money – by making everyone else in the state pay extra to subsidize their power!

    And they’re also saving the planet from global warming to boot.  Hooray!

    . . .

    That fantasy kinda sucks, doesn’t it? Yeah, I agree.

    Except is isn’t a fantasy. The above actually happened in Peterborough, NH – a town of less than 6,300 people.

    Watchdog.org has an article giving the details. It’s worth a read – unless you’re worried about your blood pressure.

  • So, NOAA Says There’s No “Global Warming Pause”?

    Well, if that’s the case . . . I’m confused. Because there’s this, too. According to data from the US National Snow and Ice Detection Center,

    Sea ice extent in Antarctica last month set a new record high for the month of May, according to data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

    The article goes on to say that sea ice around Antarctica has been increasing at the rate of 2.9% per decade since 1981.

    So, let me get this straight: global warming is causing record sea ice around Antarctica during the southern hemisphere’s late fall. And that constant global warming – remember, NOAA said yesterday that the nearly 2-decade pause observed during the last 2 decades is a myth – has caused sea ice coverage around Antarctica to grow at a rate of 2.9% per year for the last 3 decades.  Plus, Arctic sea ice levels seem to be about where they were 10 years ago – in spite of that “constant man-made global warming” that NOAA says is happening.

    Yeah, all that really makes a lot of sense to me.  Shoot, it looks to me that if this global warming stuff keeps up long enough the entire southern hemisphere will be iced over!

    Looks like someone’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.  Or perhaps some more “data adjusting”.  (I’m guessing the latter could be just around the corner.)

    Global warming, eh? Riiiiight.

  • Looks Like NOAA Is “Rectifying” History . . . . Yet Again

    Well, NOAA will come out with a      tall tale     scientific paper today that says that the nearly 20-year “Global Warming Pause” you’ve been hearing about – isn’t real.  Their new       cock-and-bull-story       scholarly article will appear in the journal Science.

    Unfortunately for NOAA, a couple of folks with a scientific background and no agenda (plus a healthy dose of skepticism) got their hands on the paper and its supporting data – which was “embargoed” from public release until 2PM EDT yesterday.  These two individuals took a critical look at the data and the paper’s methodology.

    The two individuals make a persuasive case that NOAA – for probably the 4th time since January 2009 – appears to have “diddled the data”.  Essentially, what NOAA has done is “adjusted” many past temps downward – below previously accepted values – for years before the mid/late 1930s/early 1940s.  Then they “adjusted” more recent temps upward above the accepted, measured values.

    The net result of these new “adjustments” is to make the now roughly 20-year pause in “global warming” they can’t explain go “Poof!” and disappear.   How . . . convenient.

    These two are the “money charts” from the article, which show exactly what’s going on.  First, here’s the one that highlights NOAA’s         blatant data manipulations         temperature “adjustments” to measured data in their       propaganda        scholarly paper released today by year.  Blue values represent “adjustments” which are reductions from measured reality; red values, “adjustments” that are increases over measured reality.  The “crossover point” is in the late 1930s/early 1940s – precisely when actual unadjusted measured raw data appears to show the beginning of a slight cooling trend.

     

    This second chart shows there have been multiple such adjustments since the beginning of 2009.  The adjustments from today’s article don’t seem to be shown – yet.

     

    Don’t believe that’s what’s going on here?  Well, then “Rjddle me this, Batman”:  if recent temperature measurements – made with highly accurate modern equipment we know well – are so “uncertain” that they have to be dramatically “adjusted” upwards, then how in the hell do they know how to “adjust” measurements taken 60+ years ago on equipment of what type they don’t always know downward? And why is the precise effect of these “adjustments” to explain away an apparent flaw in their claims of “runaway global warming” that previously could not be explained – a flaw demonstrated by their own measured data?

    Moreover, these adjustments fly in the face of common sense.  Modern electronic temperature measuring equipment responds much faster than mechanical measuring devices from decades ago.  Modern equipment thus captures fast, temporary transients – both high and low – that the older equipment simply missed.  Modern equipment would therefore be expected to capture HIGHER and LOWER daily extremes than equipment used a century ago, as well as lower lows – e.g., to show a bias towards MORE EXTREME MEASUREMENTS.

    If anything, any adjustments to harmonize old and new data would be to reduce more recent temperature extremes to correct for the capture of extremes by modern equipment – or to increase past extremes to account for missing those same transients.  You wouldn’t adjust both to harmonize the data – well, IMO you wouldn’t if you were doing legitimate science.

    But if you were instead attempting to push an agenda, truth be damned?  Maybe you’d do exactly that.

    Here, NOAA appears to have adjusted both old and new measured temperatures.  And they adjusted them in precisely the way needed to support their “runaway global warming” thesis.

    Sheesh.  The propaganda here from NOAA seems to be moving well beyond the Johnsonian or Nixonian in scope.  This one has the “Baghdad Bob” seal of approval.

    And remember:  since NOAA is Federally funded – we’re the ones paying for their propaganda.

    I’ll let you come to your own conclusion concerning why NOAA did this.  I personally think the actual reason this was done is quite obvious.  But maybe that’s just me.

    I will say this, though. Give me raw data and let me “adjust” it as I see fit, NQA, and I can prove any freaking thing I please from any data set you give me – reality be damned.  As one of the authors is quoted in the article from which the above diagrams appear: “In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data.”

    The science blog “What’s Up With That?” has an excellent article by Bob Tisdale and Anthony Watts describing just how NOAA is trying to pull a fast one here. It’s quite detailed, and isn’t exactly a “quick and easy” read.  But it’s IMO well worth the time to read anyway.

    Global warming my ass.

  • Just When You Think You’ve Seen It All . . .

    . . . you get your nose rubbed in the fact that you haven’t.

    Well, ladies – you’d best get on-board and start supporting those restrictions on carbon dioxide.

    Why? It’s causing global warming – right? And according to Rep. Barbara Lee, D-CA, global warming is especially bad for women.

    Per a resolution introduced by Rep. Lee two days ago, one of the effects of global warming will be to force women into the sex trade to obtain basic necessities. So you ladies had best start protesting against global warming to protect your virtue!

    I wish I was joking above. But, sadly – I’m not joking. The “esteemed” Congressditz really did introduce a resolution to that effect.

    Sheesh. And she’s allowed not only to walk around without supervision – she also votes on bills being considered by Congress to become law.

    Only in America.