Rolling Stone to Retract Fake Rape Story, No Disciplinary Measures for Staff that Perpetrated Said Hoax


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

H/T: Weasel Zippers

It seems that Rolling Stone, months after holes (big enough to drive a truck through) were poked through the alleged rape case that was said to have occurred at the University of Virginia.

Via Yahoo news

The author of Rolling Stone’s discredited “A Rape on Campus” story, Sabrina Rubin Erderly, will apologize Sunday in conjunction with the release of the Columbia Journalism School’s external review of the erroneous story, according to media reports.

Rolling Stone will also pull the story from its site and put Columbia’s review in its place, Brian Stelter reported Sunday on CNN’s “Reliable Sources.” The decision to take the story down is a fairly unprecedented step in the digital media era.

The reportedly 12,000-word review is expected to be a damning piece that places fault in all corners of Rolling Stone for errors made in the reporting and storytelling process for the campus rape story, published in November. Rolling Stone will also be taking responsibility for its errors, Stelter reported.

The review will be authored by Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll. It is expected to be published on the Columbia Journalism Review’s website as well as on Rolling Stone’s site.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

In March, police in Charlottesvile, Virgina issued their investigation’s findings, saying they found no evidence a rape occurred at the University of Virginia on the night in question in 2012.

Keep reading

Of course, there will be no disciplinary action taken in this case.


Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner has decided not to take any disciplinary action against the editors or fact-checkers involved in the discredited story “A Rape on Campus.”

This means no one will be dismissed or suspended as a result of the error-filled story, according to people with direct knowledge of the decision.

Wenner believes the missteps by the magazine’s staff members — from managing editor Will Dana on down — were unintentional, not purposefully deceitful.

After all, the truth wasn’t a goal in writing this story.  The goal was advancing a narrative.  The only actual issue for Rolling Stone, in my opinion, is that they were caught.


Freighter On Lake Erie Overcome With Global Warming: The Photos Al Gore Doesn’t Want You To See


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Arthur M. Anderson stuck in global warming in the great lakes
The freighter Arthur M. Anderson is beset in ice near Ashtabula, Ohio, Feb. 19, 2015. (Photo: U.S. Coast Guard)


Hat/Tip to BFH at

That dastardly Global Climate Warming Change is at it again. This time Global Warming is trapping ships in the Great Lakes.

Cleveland –The U.S. Coast Guard and its Canadian counterpart are working to free a 647-foot freighter that got stuck in the almost completely frozen Lake Erie Wednesday near Conneaut Harbor.

The Bristol Bay US Coast Guard Ice Breaker
The USCGC BRISTOL BAY (WTGB-102) is the second of the U.S. Coast Guard’s 140-foot icebreaking tugs and one of just two Bay-class cutters that work in conjunction with a special barge.


The Bristol Bay, a 140-foot American ice breaker based in Detroit, headed back to Cleveland early Saturday after days of trying to free the freighter from 8 to 10 feet of ice. A larger Canadian ice cutter named The Griffon was about seven miles from the freighter Saturday morning, according to Coast Guard Petty Officer Lauren Laughlin.

canadian coast guard ship ice breaker Griffon
The Canadian Coast Guard Ship Griffon, a 234-foot multi-mission medium icebreaker, breaks ice in Lake Erie en route to a rendezvous with the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Bristol Bay, Feb. 19, 2015. (Photo: U.S. Coast Guard)

Crews were first called out about 7 p.m. Wednesday when the Arthur M. Anderson freighter became lodged in ice. It was on its way to Conneaut to pick up a load of cargo.

Laughlin said the Bristol Bay might have had to turn back today because it was low on fuel, making it lighter and therefore unable to break the ice.

Here are satellite images of some of the Great Lakes, showing how Global Warming has them in its clutches.

global warming has the great lakes in its clutches 002
A view of The Great Lakes from space. (Photo by NASA/Getty Images)





Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan on February 15, 2015. Satellite photo from NOAA website


Lake Superior
Lake Superior on February 15, 2015. Satellite photo from NOAA website


Lake Erie on February 15, 2015. Satellite photo from NOAA website





GLSEA 001 2_15_15





Global Warming Update: It’s Now Confirmed that Data was Altered to Suit Political Agenda


global warming snow

We see that the “settled science” only got settled after the numbers were significantly fudged.  Via Weasel Zippers…

Via Telegraph:

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Keep reading…

Read the entire thing.  It really seems that there was an outright fabrication involved.


Sen. Jim Inhofe Outfoxes Dems on Climate Change in Keystone Vote

jim inhofe
Senator Jim Inhofe, R-OK

Hat/Tip to Melissa Clyne at Newsmax.

For those of us who are political junkies, or even those of us who are simply trying to keep the newly minted Republican-controlled Congress’ feet to the fire, we’ve all noticed the posts making the rounds on Facebook, and the other social media sites stating that we’ve been sold out. Headlines like, “GOP Senate votes in favor of man-made Global Warming!” have been getting lots of “likes” and “shares” along with comments that really can’t be reprinted here.

But wait, oh faithful minions of the Tea Party movement, not so fast there!

In what The Washington Post characterizes as a “nifty, if insincere, bit of politics,” Republicans successfully parsed language in an amendment to the Senate’s Keystone XL pipeline bill that stated climate change “is real and not a hoax.”

Democrats had been trying to force Republicans to state, on the record, their positions on human contributions to climate change.

In an act of chicanery, Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, who authored a book on the subject entitled “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future,” argued in favor of the amendment, stating climate change is not a hoax.

 Senator Inhofe explained himself on the floor of the Senate.

“Climate is changing, and climate has always changed, and always will, there’s archaeological evidence of that, there’s biblical evidence of that, there’s historic evidence of that, it will always change,” Inhofe said.

“The hoax is that there are some people that are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful that they can change climate. Man can’t change climate.”

The hoax, according to Inhofe, was the idea that man was responsible for global warming.

Then, just before the vote, Sen. Inhofe tweeted this unusual message:


After the vote, when all was revealed, the Democrats walked away looking petty, and had a whole bunch of egg on their collective faces.

Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island had attached the “hoax” language to the Keystone bill.

It was expected to fail, but Republicans successfully altered the wording so that they could vote for the bill while continuing to argue that climate change was not man-made.

“With Inhofe’s re-framing the question, the Democrats, trying to engineer a gotcha moment, ended up empty-handed on the vote, with neither the satisfaction of nailing down opposition to scientific consensus and without a point of leverage for future discussions of addressing the warming planet,” according to Post writer Philip Bump.

Then, after all the hub-bub had died down a bit, Senator Inhofe went back to the Senate floor to offer a bit of context, he also made sure to get it on tape so that it could be posted on Youtube.



Half Dozen Climate Facts That Make Global Warming Alarmists Squirm


As I’m giving Don the weekend off, so to speak, I’d like to address perhaps the single most covered topic in the history of the CH 2.0-the global warming hoax.   We’ve had so much fun with it, as the alarmists make startling OMG DOOM AND GLOOM predictions, and they all fall flat.  Then, the explanations as to why their predictions didn’t come true are even more far fetched than their originals.   It”s nearly endless blog fodder.

Earlier this week, The Lid published A Dozen Facts Debunking Global Warming Obama Can’t Answer (Despite The Phony China Deal).  Our of courtesy, I will publish six. You’ll have to click the link for the rest.

For those of you who want to think for themselves rather than simply listen to the scary speeches of the global warming proponents, I have created a list of a dozen facts about global warming, that those those folks making the scary speeches cannot respond.

Everything below is a fact and I invite the POTUS and /or his climate friends to respond. But they wont. Instead they will call me names like denier or member of the Flat Earth Society (actually there really is a Flat Earth Society and its president believes in the global warming hypothesis so who is the real “flat-earther?)

1) Through Halloween of 2014- The Global Warming Pause has lasted 18 years and one month. Heartland Institute analyst, Peter Ferrara, notes“If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.” So there was thirty years of cooling followed by 20 years of warming and almost 18 years of cooling…and that’s what the global warming scare is all about.

2) Antarctic Sea Ice is at record levels and the Arctic ice cap has seen record growth.  Global sea ice area has been averaging above normal for the past two years. But to get around those facts, the global warming enthusiasts are claiming that global warming causes global cooling (really).

3) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant it’s what you exhale and it is what “feeds” plants. Without CO2 there would not be a single blade of grass or a redwood tree, nor would there be the animal life that depends on vegetation; wheat and rice, for example, as food. Without CO2 mankind would get pretty hungry. Even worse the global warming proponants keep talking about population control because they don’t want more people around to exhale, and let’s not talk about what they say about stopping methane (no spicy foods, no cows, no fart jokes).

4) There is not ONE climate computer model that has accurately connected CO2 to climate change. In fact CO2 is at its highest levels in 13,000 years and the earth hasn’t warmed in almost 18 years. Approximately 12,750 years ago before big cars and coal plants CO2 levels were higher than today. And during some past ice ages levels were up to 20x today’s levels.

5) Even with the relatively high levels there is very little CO2 in the atmosphere. At 78% nitrogen is the most abundant gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. Oxygen is the second most abundant gas-of-life in the atmosphere at 21%. Water vapor is the third most abundant gas-of-life in the atmosphere; it varies up to 5%. Exhale freely because carbon dioxide is the least abundant gas in the atmosphere at 0.04%.

6) The climate models pushed by the global warming enthusiasts haven’t been right. Think about that one for a second. If you believe what people like Al Gore the polar ice caps should have melted by now (actually by last year), most coastal cities should be underwater and it should be a lot warmer by now. As my Mom always said, Man plans and God laughs. The Earth’s climate is a very complicated system and the scientists haven’t been able to account for all the components to create an accurate model.

Of course, when they predict doom, and doom doesn’t happen, they say that global warming caused the opposite to occur!  And, even though there has been no statistically significant global warming since I was a 20-something, the established “science” will tell us, once again, that this year was the “hottest on record.”

Because science!


Why Global Warming Alarmism Isn’t Science – THE best article on why, and how the “Greenies” are wrong




noun: science

~ the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment ~

There is it, ladies and gentlemen; the definition of the word science. But that’s what it is, not what it isn’t.

Science is not a set of dogmas, and it is not a pronouncement by a committee. It is a method. Richard Feynman, perhaps the world’s most eminent physicist, put it this way:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.

Science is just that, science, not predictions, suppositions or sooth-saying. Science isn’t based on a “model,” computer or otherwise, which tries to predict the future. Science is the systematic study of our world.

The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is based entirely on models, which are programmed by their creators to predict disaster. But we know for a fact that the models are wrong, because they disagree with reality. When the facts collide with a theory, the facts win.

And when you actually apply real, functional scientific principles to the climate models, an odd thing happens.

At Watts Up With That?, Don Easterbrook applies the scientific method to the recently-produced National Climate Assessment (NCA). The NCA predicts all kinds of awful consequences from a hypothetical rise in temperature that is based exclusively on models, not on observation. Easterbrook finds that the NCA fails the test of reality. Here are a few examples.

NCA assertion: “Temperatures are projected to rise another 2°F to 4°F in most areas of the United States over the next few decades.” “By the end of this century, a roughly 3°F to 5°F rise is projected under a lower emissions scenario, and a 5°F to 10°F rise for a higher emissions.”

Facts: How do we check the validity of this prediction? Well, we can look at comparisons of previous computer model results to recorded satellite temperatures. Figure 2 shows Roy Spencer’s plot of 44 of the latest climate models versus satellite measurements. As his graph shows, the models were not even close to the real measured temperatures. The obvious conclusion here is that the models failed miserably, a fact admitted to by the IPCC in their latest report.

global lower atmospheric temps versus reality

2. NCA assertion: “It has been known for almost two centuries that carbon dioxide traps heat.”

Facts: That’s not the question—it’s not if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it’s how much is there in the atmosphere (Fig. 3) and how much can it affect climate? CO2 makes up only 3.6% of the greenhouse gases (Fig. 4) and coupled with the fact that the atmospheric concentration has changed only 0.0065% since recent warming began in 1978 (Fig. 3), there is no way that this miniscule amount can have any significant effect on climate. Water vapor accounts for ~95% of the greenhouse effect and computer modelers put a large arbitrary water vapor factor in their computer programs, claiming that if CO2 increases, so will water vapor. But that isn’t true—atmospheric water vapor has been declining since 1948 (Fig. 5), not increasing, so modelers who put a water vapor driver in their programs will not have a valid output.

So the “Greenies” don’t like CO2, but without it, our world would be a vast frozen wasteland.


This is a critically important point. Everyone agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (That’s a good thing; the Greenhouse Effect makes life on Earth possible.) The problem from the hysterics’ point of view is that doubling the tiny concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would, without more, have only an insignificant–and in fact, beneficial–effect on the Earth’s climate. The Earth would become a greener and slightly warmer place. (It is ironic that “greens” are obsessively hostile to the very substance–carbon dioxide–that makes the Earth green.) The hysterics admit this, so their models are programmed to amplify the effect of increased CO2. They hypothesize positive feedbacks, most notably by assuming that increasing CO2 will lead to a higher concentration of water vapor. The supposedly baleful consequences of burning fossil fuels are mostly indirect; they derive primarily from the feedbacks, not from the CO2.

But, as Easterbrook says, we know that this assumption is false. Carbon dioxide levels have been increasing for some decades now, and that has not led to an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. On the contrary, as Easterbrook notes, atmospheric water vapor has declined since 1948. So, once again, the alarmists’ models are simply wrong.

Remember Al Gore’s wild claims about the rising sea levels and how they were going to flood our coastlines by now? Well, as we all know, it was bunk. Here are two graphics to show how wrong he is.

Okay, so this first graphic shows actual sea level rise (in blue at the bottom of the chart) and predictions based on hard numbers, versus the wild claims of the “Greenies,” (in red on the graph) which base their claims on faulty computer models.

nca sea level rise predictions versus reality

But I think the best evidence that our sea levels won’t be rising anytime soon is this. Global Climate Warming Change huckster, Albert Gore purchased himself a $9 million mansion overlooking the ocean in Montecito, CA. I’m guessing if he really believed the bunk he peddles, he’d be living on a mountainside somewhere.

Al Gore's Montecito, CA Oceanside Mansion
Al Gore’s Montecito, CA Oceanside Mansion

Read the full story here.


Scientists Rebut White House Global Warming Claims


Facts are stubborn things… Barack Obamagoes the famous refrain. But we’ve got ourselves a President who is so awesome that he doesn’t have to rely on those pesky facts. This allows him to say things like this:

“The shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way,” Obama said. “But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say, ‘Yes, we did.’”

“We can’t have an energy strategy for the last century that traps us in the past. We need an energy strategy for the future – an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.” – President Barack Obama, March 15, 2012

And around the same time we began exploring space, scientists were studying changes taking place in the Earth’s atmosphere. Now, scientists had known since the 1800s that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide trap heat, and that burning fossil fuels release those gases into the air. That wasn’t news. But in the late 1950s, the National Weather Service began measuring the levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, with the worry that rising levels might someday disrupt the fragile balance that makes our planet so hospitable. And what they’ve found, year after year, is that the levels of carbon pollution in our atmosphere have increased dramatically.

The 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years. Last year, temperatures in some areas of the ocean reached record highs, and ice in the Arctic shrank to its smallest size on record — faster than most models had predicted it would. These are facts.

That last one’s a doozy!!! I mean why should President Obama be bothered with the truth when it just doesn’t fit his redistribution of wealth agenda? But the 12 warmest years in history have occurred in the last 15 years?? The SAME 15 years that the numbers SHOW there was NO WARMING???

Well Mr. President, I’m sorry to do this, but here are the facts.

  • Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months
  • 212 months without global warming represents more than half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979
  • Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming
  • The fastest centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº per century – before the industrial revolution began. It cannot have been our fault.
  • The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
  • The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
  • Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend is equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.

According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for April 2014 is just in, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 months since August 1996 is zero. The 212 months without global warming represents more than half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.

RSS Data: Global Mean Temperatures September 1996 to April 2014
RSS Data: Global Mean Temperatures September 1996 to April 2014

The long Pause may well come to an end by this winter, when an el Niño event is expected in the equatorial eastern Pacific, causing global temperature to rise quite sharply. The el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are visible in the graph. El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them. They cause a temporary spike in temperature, often followed by a sharp drop during the la Niña phase, as can be seen in 1999, 2008, and 2011-2012, where there was a “double-dip” la Niña.

The ratio of el Niños to la Niñas tends to fall during the 30-year negative or cooling phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the latest of which began in late 2001. So, though the Pause may pause for a few months at the turn of the year, it may well resume late in 2015.

Either way, it is ever clearer that global warming has not been happening at anything like the rate predicted by the climate models, and is not at all likely to occur even at the much-reduced rate now predicted. There could be as little as 1 Cº global warming this century, not the 3-4 Cº predicted by the IPCC.

Read the full report at .

You see, there is a growing movement in the scientific community which is pushing back on the UN and their IPCC.

A group of independent scientists, economists, and meteorologists has issued a pointed response to the scientific foundation of the Obama administration’s claims that humans are drastically changing the climate by burning fossil fuels.

With expertise in multiple disciplines, including climate research, weather modeling, physics, geology, statistical analysis, engineering, and economics, the 15 signers make the case that the foundation of the White House National Climate Assessment (NCA) is a “masterpiece of marketing” that crumbles like a “house of cards” under the weight of real-world evidence.

“They promote their ‘Climate Models’ as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection,” assert the scientists.

The NCA report is flawed, because it relies on computer models and not raw data.

The 829-page NCA report was released on May 6 and was characterized by administration officials as “the most comprehensive, authoritative, transparent scientific report on U.S. climate change impacts ever generated.”


According to the NCA, “human influences are the primary driver of recent climate change is based on multiple lines of independent evidence.”

The scientists describe that contention as “grossly flawed” and take issue with the EPA’s claim — used to justify greenhouse gas regulation — that there is “90-99 percent certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity.”

That claim “is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature,” they wrote. “Therefore, EPA’s theory … must be rejected.”

These scientists strongly believe that the human burning of fossil fuels is not only not a driver of “climate change,” but it isn’t even a factor and doesn’t belong in our nation’s energy policy.

The scientists’ rebuttal, however, strongly challenges the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), which it says is “based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions” that human burning of fossil fuels is driving up atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and “is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes.”

And laughingly, even the UN’s IPCC report tends to rebut the President’s assertions and the NCA report.

According to their rebuttal report, “over the last 130 years the decade of the 1930s still has the most U.S. state high temperatures records.”

Their assertion that climate disruptions are not increasing, ironically, is echoed in the most recent report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which the White House often cites to support its own argument.

Globally, according to the IPCC in its 2012 special report on extreme events, “since the 1950s some regions of the world have experienced a trend to more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.”

Furthermore, the IPCC in 2013 concluded that “current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and “no robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

 Read the full story here.


Frenetic Headlines About West Antarctic Ice Melt Are Unequivocally Deceptive


Hat/Tip .

You may have seen the alarming news stories that the West Antarctic ice sheet is going to collapse, leaving low-lying areas completely flooded. With apologies to Al Gore, it’s just not gonna happen anytime soon, if ever. The harrowing headlines refer to the Thwaites Glacier study, posted online yesterday, and quickly became grist for the mill for our front-page grabbing news media reporting the most implausible, and silliest, scenarios that may or may not happen in 200 to 900 years based on data fed into computer models.

antarcticaEven Andrew Revkin of the NY Times, a long-standing, fully pledged, global-warming ‘enthusiast’, took issue with the mainstream media’s handling of this non-catastrophic news, subtly blaming it on the language used, not the messenger. He even encourages his savvy readers to “consider clashing scientific and societal meanings of ‘collapse’ when reading antarctic ice news”. If that sounds similar to, “that depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is“, you’re not alone. Revkin doesn’t explicitly hand-wring his fellow journalists, but instead asks you, fellow reader, to analyze the amped-up rhetoric for yourself. As Revkin writes,

Some headlines are completely overwrought — as with this NBC offering: “West Antarctic Ice Sheet’s Collapse Triggers Sea Level Warning.” This kind of coverage could be interpreted to mean there’s an imminent crisis. It’s hard to justify that conclusion given the core findings in the studies. (Am I trying to maintain a hold on reality or am I a “scold”?)

Take the Science paper: “Marine Ice Sheet Collapse Potentially Under Way for the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West Antarctica.” Using ice-flow models and observations, the researchers, led by Ian Joughin of the University of Washington, concluded:

Except possibly for the lowest-melt scenario, the simulations indicate that early-stage collapse has begun. Less certain is the time scale, with the onset of rapid (>1 mm per year of sea-level rise) collapse in the different simulations within the range of 200 to 900 years.

To translate a bit, that means sometime between 200 and 900 years from now the rate of ice loss from this glacier could reach a volume sufficient to raise sea levels about 4 inches (100 millimeters) a century. At that point, according to the paper, ice loss could pick up steam, with big losses over a period of decades.* But in a phone conversation, Joughin said the modeling was not reliable enough to say how much, how soon.

“Collapse is a good scientific word,” he told me, “but maybe it’s kind of a bad word” in the context of news. There’s more on this work in a well-written news release from Joughin’s university.

Eric Rignot at the University of California, Irvine, admitted in a NASA recording of a conference call with reporters that the term “collapse” was inappropriate in this case.

Read the full story here.


It’s Cold Because It’s Hot — Ask Any Leftist


Warm Yet, Al?

“They’ve got to find a way to attach this to the global warming agenda, and they have.  It’s called the “polar vortex.” The dreaded polar vortex. Do you know what the polar vortex is? Have you ever heard of it? Well, they just created it for this week … If they can make it sound new and unprecedented, then they can blame it all on man (particularly Republicans).” – Rush Limbaugh

Like a dog with a chew toy — and a frozen one at that — the doctrinaire Left won’t stop gnawing at their phony “climate change” bone as long they can convince a random useful idiot or two that there’s still a scent of marrow in it. Give ‘em credit for hutzpah; only the most arrogant of “progressive” mutts can spit into a mid-western wind chill of -70 and complain about the heat.  It’s easier, after all, to fox your chickens if you first convince them that the sky is falling.  Or, in this case, burning up.

Victim Of Global Warming


Original Post:  Be Sure You’re Right, Then Go Ahead


Story Update: Police Share How They Caught Meghan Lanker-Simons Faking a Rape Threat


If you recall, I covered that Meghan Lanker-Simons, campus lefty and feminazi, was alleged to have faked her own hoax.  She allegedly crafted a Facebook post threatening to rape herself- clearly a sign of the self loathing that permeates most liberals.  

meg lanker simmonsmeg lanker simmons2

Note how she allowed the drama to build, and then came in made the longest, and golly-gee, the bravest post of them all?  Almost as if she knew it was coming, and was set up to draw attention to herself.  In fact, this entire affair can be spelled out out in five words…

Please pay attention to me?

Of course, when she was caught and accused, there were many indignant claims of innocence.  Then, we found out the “Meg” had an interesting history, including being charged with a gun crime…

The Other McCain has more

When last we checked in on Think Progress award-winning blogger Meg Lanker-Simons, the progressive feminist was charged with making a fake Facebook threat to “hate-f*ck” herself. Now it turns out that “Meg Lanker-Simons” is the alias of a dangerously crazy criminal formerly known as Meghan Michelena, who in 2006 pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after getting fired from a Wyoming radio station:

According to court records, she was charged in November 2005 in District Court with aggravated assault.
Lanker-Simons, then Meghan Michelena, pleaded guilty to the charge in May 2006 as part of a plea agreement, records indicate. . . .
Lanker-Simons walked into an Albany County radio station she’d been fired from with a Glock 22 .40 caliber handgun.
She confronted a man who had decided to terminate her, the affidavit reports. The man also told her, the court documents state, that she would not be rehired.
Lanker-Simons “pulled a semi-automatic pistol from her purse, waved the firearm around and pointed (the) firearm at (the man),” according to the affidavit.
The man, according to the affidavit, said he was “in fear for his life.” . . .
She was sentenced to six years of probation in July 2006.
The probation sentence was subject to numerous stipulations, including . . . undergoing counseling . . .
Court documents state she violated probation by being “unsuccessfully discharged” from a residential treatment program.
In April 2007, she was again sentenced to probation with the stipulation she complete a treatment program in Utah.

So, today, we find the in the arrest affadavit, the Police tracked the fake rape threat right back to her own computer…

The Daily Caller’s Eric Owns share a local publication’s details about the investigation:

The Laramie Boomerang has now published details from a court-filed affidavit describing how police believe the strident leftist perpetrated her failed hoax.

The kerfuffle began in April when an unsigned posting was made to a Facebook page called UW Crushes. “I want to hatefuck Meg Lanker-Simons so hard,” the post read. “That chick runs her liberal mouth all the time.”

The posting brought national attention to the Cowboy State’s flagship college. There was a feminist rally. Initially, the administration stood firmly behind Lanker-Simons. A school official denounced “rape culture.”

Police investigated the incident, quickly determining that Lanker-Simons posted the message on her computer while it was in her possession. It was her alleged obstruction of the investigation that led to a misdemeanor change or interfering with a peace officer.

According to the affidavit, a search warrant served on a company called was essential.

The post went through SurveyMonkey’s website, so the online questionnaire outfit was able to provide a slew of useful information including IP addresses and login information for the administrators of UW Crushes. The website also provided the IP address of the computer which generated the post.

University police then asked an information technology staffer at the school to “research the IP address of the original sender of the message” and “see if he could track that to one specific computer or individual,” explains the Boomerang.

The employee soon struck gold. He told police the IP address belonged to a computer called “ElComputerdeMeg.”

“The user logged into the computer at the time was meghanm, or Meghan Michelena, also known as Meghan Lanker-Simons,” the affidavit testifies.

The only mystery is whether or not the denials will continue, or if silence will be the response.  Either way, it’ll take more than a name change for Meghan Lanker-Simons to have much of any credibility.


Meg Lanker-Simons Really Meghan Michelena, Guilty of Gun-Related Crime


Wow, when it rains, it pours.  And if by pouring, you really mean batsh*t insane moonbattery!  If you recall, both Jim and I covered the sad tale of Meg Lanker-Simons, a typical liberal-feminazi-commie that gained notoriety by engaging in the fine liberal tradition of staging her own atrocity.  She posted a rape threat against herself (which is hard enough to believe if you look at her), and then bravely defended herself against the marauding, evil conservative.  If by marauding, evil Conservative you really mean Meg Lanker-Simons.  For, you see, old Meg was caught red-handed by the campus police, and cited.

But, that isn’t the end of the story.  It gets even more interesting.  As it turns out, Meg Lanker-Simons is apparemtly really Meghan Michelena.  And, Meghan Michelena, has a claim to fame-she was fired from a radio station, and responded by showing up and pointing a gun at people! The Other McCain has more

When last we checked in on Think Progress award-winning blogger Meg Lanker-Simons, the progressive feminist was charged with making a fake Facebook threat to “hate-f*ck” herself. Now it turns out that “Meg Lanker-Simons” is the alias of a dangerously crazy criminal formerly known as Meghan Michelena, who in 2006 pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after getting fired from a Wyoming radio station:

According to court records, she was charged in November 2005 in District Court with aggravated assault.
Lanker-Simons, then Meghan Michelena, pleaded guilty to the charge in May 2006 as part of a plea agreement, records indicate. . . .
Lanker-Simons walked into an Albany County radio station she’d been fired from with a Glock 22 .40 caliber handgun.
She confronted a man who had decided to terminate her, the affidavit reports. The man also told her, the court documents state, that she would not be rehired.
Lanker-Simons “pulled a semi-automatic pistol from her purse, waved the firearm around and pointed (the) firearm at (the man),” according to the affidavit.
The man, according to the affidavit, said he was “in fear for his life.” . . .
She was sentenced to six years of probation in July 2006.
The probation sentence was subject to numerous stipulations, including . . . undergoing counseling . . .
Court documents state she violated probation by being “unsuccessfully discharged” from a residential treatment program.
In April 2007, she was again sentenced to probation with the stipulation she complete a treatment program in Utah.

There is more at The Other McCain, so get over there and check it out.

So, not only did she commit a crime, which got her involved in the criminal justice system, she also had a rather rocky course through the mandated treatment that she was to receive.

I wonder what the reaction will be from the supporters of Meg Lanker-Simoms Meghan Michelena will be?  Or will this be someone else’s fault, just like always?


Liberal Loons: Were They Born That Stupid or Did They Have To Work At It?


Most of us on the right of the political spectrum recognize that not all liberals are loons. Most of us are capable of admitting that there are some loons on the right, as well. But, to this humble observer of the asylum. it does seem that the liberals have a disproportionate share of the loons.

I came across this liberal loon story at American Thinker. The protagonist in this story is a young woman by the name of Meg Lanker-Simons. She is a student at the University of Wyoming. She is a liberal activist and she writes a popular blog where she expresses her liberal views. That, by itself. does not qualify her for being exceptionally stupid. The rest of the story, however, does qualify her as being exceptionally stupid. Miss Lanker-Simons has demonstrated a level of stupidity that she could not possibly have come by naturally. She has acquired a level of stupidity that she could only have achieved with great dedication and  hard work on her part. Let’s see if you agree.

Someone on the university campus operates what is referred to as “ a college “crush” Facebook page.” A vile message was posted on this page, which was directed at Miss. Lanker-Simons. Language Alert:

“I want to hate f**k Meg Lanker-Simons so hard. That chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn’t care who knows it,” it read.  ”I think its hot and it makes me angry. One night with me and she’s gonna be a good Republican bitch,” the post reads, according to a screenshot.

Our young liberal activist wasted no time posting the comment on her own blog and commented calling it :

disgusting, misogynistic, and apparently something the admins of this page think is a perfectly acceptable sentiment.

A surprisingly civilized response, don’t you think? But, the U of W students were rightly outraged. I would hope that most conservatives would be equally outraged by such vile and childish prank. The campus police were not amused. They began investigation. I assume they wanted to find  the perpetrator and charge the person with a “hate” crime. The police were successful in finding the “hater”:

The University of Wyoming Police Department issued a citation to Lanker-Simons for “interference” for “false statements she made to the UW Police Department,” according to a UW statement referred to by Laramie Boomerang Online.

“Subject admitted to making a controversial post on UW Crushes webpage and then lied about not doing it,” according to the citation.

The University of Wyoming also confirmed a statement that the police had “”obtained substantial evidence verifying that the offending Facebook post came from Lanker-Simons’ computer, while the computer was in her possession.”

Oops! My guess is that had the vile message been sent by someone from the right side of the political spectrum, they would have been smart enough not to use their own computer. Miss Lanker-Simons was not that smart.

What’s the chance that she will be charged with a “hate” crime? You probably shouldn’t hold your breath.

Sane people might think that the fans of Miss Lanker-Simons’ blog would have dropped her like a hot potato. Sane people would be wrong. Her fans have set-up a Facebook page to defend her actions, which they believe were justified:

“Meg Lanker-Simons is innocent we believe what she did was justified and deserves not to be held accountable for her accusations we stand behind you sister,”

I rest my case. The left does have a disproportionate number of loons.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post: Asylum Watch


Liberal Blogger, Meg Lanker-Simons Accused of Embracing Leftist Tradition: Stages own Rape Threats


Liberals have a long an historic traduiti0n…of lies and deceit.  We’ve covered quite a bit of that here, especially when they stage their own “atrocities.”  That fine tradition was recently continued by one Meg Lanker-Simons, a liberal blogger, and student at the University of Wyoming.  Viral  Read has more on the story…

A student at the University of Wyoming who claimed she was targeted for a Facebook rape threat because she “runs her liberal mouth all the time” faked the threat against herself, police say. Meg Lanker-Simons, 26, has been charged with interference with a police investigation by giving false statement.

The phony threat, posted on a Facebook page called “UW Crushes” was cited as “an example of rape culture” by Lanker-Simons in an April 24 item on her Tumblr blog, where she urged readers to tell the administrators of the page that “this kind of misogyny is not okay.”

However, UW police said, they interviewed Lanker-Simons and searched her computer, and ”obtained substantial evidence verifying that the offending Facebook post came from Lanker-Simons’ computer.” Lanker-Simons “admitted to making a controversial post on UW Crushes webpage and then lied about not doing it,” according to the citation for a misdemeanor, which can be punished by up to a year in jail.

So, yet another liberal fakes their own threat/attack/injury.  A PDF of the citation can be found here.

Here is the screencap of the the actual “threat.”

meg lanker simmonsmeg lanker simmons2

Note how she allowed the drama to build, and then came in made the longest, and golly-gee, the bravest post of them all?  Almost as if she knew it was coming, and was set up to draw attention to herself.  In fact, this entire affair can be spelled out out in five words…

Please pay attention to me?

And, of course, Think Regress, who has a history of fakery themselves, has honored Meg Lanker-Simons in the past as well (again from Viral Read).

Lanker-Simons’s “Cognitive Dissonance” site was recognized for an award last year by the Center for American Progress’s Think Progress site. She also hosts a weekly talk-radio program on Laramie’s KOCA-FM.

Birds of a feather…

To have these kinds of disconnects from reality takes some truly twisted logic.  For example, she protested in an attempt to prevent Dick Cheny from speaking on campus, and the very next year, she filed suit to have Bill Ayers, who belonged to leadership of an organization that built bombs and BLEW PEOPLE UP, speak on campus.  the legal underpinnings of the suit? 

UPDATE:  Here’s the stuff about her and Ayers working together:

University of Wyoming student Meg Lanker and University of Illinois-Chicago Professor Dr. William Ayers filed suit against UW and UW President Tom Buchanan in federal court in Cheyenne Thursday afternoon seeking an immediate injunction against the university for the “current and imminent violations of plaintiff’s (Lanker and Ayers) rights guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

University of Wyoming Communications Director Jessica Lowell had no comment.

Filed by attorney David Lane, the complaint alleges that UW “acting under color of state law” has barred Ayers from speaking on campus and further declared that such actions are prior restraint against the rights of Ayers and Lanker to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.

Note that Ayers, and to repeat, a guy who was in the leadership of an organization that BLEW PEOPLE UP, has rights. Dick Cheny?  Not so much.  Why?  Because in the the Marxist future that Meg Lanker-Simmons and Bill Ayers want for us, only THEY have rights. You have rights, but only in as much as you completely agree with them.  You don’t agree, well, we know what happens to you…

That’s their brave new world, and they’ll keep working hard to implement it, even if they have to fake atrocities to do it.


Another Hate Crime Hoax? Is Sharmeka Moffitt the Latest to Fake a Hate Crime?


If you recall my commentary on the Occupy Movement, I made the point that leftists love to set up “atrocities” so they can claim to be victims.  For example, they will antagonize and provoke others into either attacking, or defending themselves.  Then, they try and tell the world that they are the victims.  However, when they cannot set one up, they aren’t above faking one completely.  In that vein, enter one Sharmeka Moffitt, who claimed she was attacked, and set on fire.  Then, “KKK” was carved into her car.  However, after garnering a great deal of sympathy from the left, she was exposed as a fraud.  Michelle Malkin has more...

Via The Franklin Sun:

Two days after multiple law enforcement agencies began an investigation into the attack and burning of a Winnsboro woman at Civitan Park, authorities now believe the wounds were self-inflicted.

According to Winnsboro Police Chief Lester Thomas, evidenced gathered at the scene of the incident shows 20-year-old Sharmeka Moffitt’s initial claims that she was attacked and set on fire turned out to be false claims made up by Moffitt. “This is a case in which the investigators had to pursue the facts that were presented,” Thomas said. “It’s been a very disturbing case for everyone involved.”

On Sunday, officers responded to a 911 call around 8 p.m. near the walking trail at Civitan Park to find Moffitt with burns covering her body. It was less than a minute from the time the call from Moffitt came into the 911 center that officers from the Winnsboro Police Department and the Franklin Parish Sheriff’s Office were on the scene at the park located on Hwy. 15.

Moffitt could not identify the race of her attackers, but said three men wearing “T-shirt hoodies” doused her in a flammable liquid and set her on fire at the park. The responding officers found no suspects or vehicles at the park where the attack allegedly occurred….State Police arrived by helicopter with its crime lab team to gather evidence shortly after Moffitt was taken for medical assistance. Law enforcement officials gathered evidence from the scene all night, finishing its scaling of the crime scene by Monday morning.

After analyzing the evidence at the State Police Crime Lab, it was discovered Moffitt’s fingerprints were on the cigarette lighter and the lighter fluid recovered near the wooded area around the crime scene.

“There is more physical evidence along those lines that back this up,” Thomas said.

Um, once again, another hate crime hoax.  I had seen this story a few days ago, and put it on the back burner, as time was needed to see if the actual facts jived with the story.  However, the Huffington Post had no problem running the story, without any actual evidence at all…

A Louisiana woman was the victim of a horrific attack during which she was reportedly set on fire and had her car defiled with the letters “KKK,” police reported Monday.

Sharmeka Moffitt, a 20-year-old African-American woman, made an emergency call to police on Sunday night claiming three men wearing white hoods or hats attacked her, doused her with flammable liquid and set her on fire at a park in Winnsboro, La., CBS News reports. Moffitt, who said she was unable to identify the race of her attackers, was able to extinguish the fire with a water spigot before police arrived.

Officers found the letters “KKK,” an apparent reference to the Ku Klux Klan, written on the hood of her car, according to CBS News. “KKK” was smeared on her hood in a paste-like substance.

Franklin Parish Sheriff Kevin Cobb confirmed that “KKK” was written on the hood of Moffitt’s car with a racial slur underneath, WMBF News reports.

To their credit, the Huffpo did update the story to reflect that it was a hoax.  However, they ran with it as if it were true, only to be exposed as a hoax.  And this little blogger is responsible enough to wait to see where the actual facts led?

As for our hoax artist, considering the fact that she set herself on fire, it might be safe to guess that she is suffering from some sort of mental illness.  But the comparison to the left is still valid.  When attention needs to be drawn to their causes, nothing is off the table, including faking a hate crime.


How to NOT Stage a Bigfoot Sighting


On an aside from from our normal political banter, there are ways to not stage a Bigfoot sighting.  This is one of them…

KALISPELL, Mont. (AP) — A man dressed in a military-style “ghillie” suit and apparently trying to provoke reports of a Bigfoot sighting in northwest Montana was struck by two cars and killed, authorities said.

The man was standing in the right-hand lane of U.S. Highway 93 south of Kalispell on Sunday night when he was hit by the first car, according to the Montana Highway Patrol. A second car hit the man as he lay in the roadway, authorities said.

Flathead County officials identified the man as Randy Lee Tenley, 44, of Kalispell. Trooper Jim Schneider said motives were ascertained during interviews with friends, and alcohol may have been a factor but investigators were awaiting tests.

“He was trying to make people think he was Sasquatch so people would call in a Sasquatch sighting,” Schneider told the Daily Inter Lake  on Monday. “You can’t make it up. I haven’t seen or heard of anything like this before. Obviously, his suit made it difficult for people to see him.”

Um,  it might be a fun idea to trick people into thinking that they’re seeing bigfoot.  However, it should probably be done far away from a busy road.


Alarmists Complain About Heartland Institute Pointing out “Inconvenient Truths”


What happens when a Conservative think tank points out that some mass killers, or other bad guys, were also climate alarmists?  Alarmists go on a tirade of hypocrisy! Here is some more from the Guardian…

The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based rightwing thinktank notorious for promoting climate scepticism, has launched quite possibly one of the most ill-judged poster campaigns in the history of ill-judged poster campaigns.

I’ll let its own press release for its upcoming conference explain, as there’s simply no need to finesse it further:

Billboards in Chicago paid for by The Heartland Institute point out that some of the world’s most notorious criminals say they “still believe in global warming” – and ask viewers if they do, too…The billboard series features Ted Kaczynski, the infamous Unabomber; Charles Manson, a mass murderer; and Fidel Castro, a tyrant. Other global warming alarmists who may appear on future billboards include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010).
These rogues and villains were chosen because they made public statements about how man-made global warming is a crisis and how mankind must take immediate and drastic actions to stop it.
Why did Heartland choose to feature these people on its billboards? Because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the “mainstream” media, and liberal politicians say about global warming. The point is that believing in global warming is not “mainstream,” smart, or sophisticated. In fact, it is just the opposite of those things. Still believing in man-made global warming – after all the scientific discoveries and revelations that point against this theory – is more than a little nutty. In fact, some really crazy people use it to justify immoral and frightening behavior.

But then comes the best bit:

Of course, not all global warming alarmists are murderers or tyrants.

Seriously?  The Unabomber bombed out of concern for the environment.  Bin Laden did speak of concern for the environment.  It’s true!  Now, for the flip side, what have alarmists said of people that see through the political power grab?

The idea is simple, if someone presents facts that run counter to the narrative, smear them, so no one will pay attention to the facts.  Here is the latest example comes from Professor Kari Norgaard, via The GateWay Pundit…

Professor Kari Norgaard, from the University of Oregon, has labeled an entire population of people who think for themselves… racists.  But, it’s even more absurd than that.  If you reject the junk data, corruption, and blatant grab for power that is the Green Movement she wants you diagnosed with a disease.  And treated.

Via Bluegrass PunditThe Register reports,

Scepticism regarding the need for immediate and massive action against carbon emissions is a sickness of societies and individuals which needs to be “treated”, according to an Oregon-based professor of “sociology and environmental studies”. Professor Kari Norgaard compares the struggle against climate scepticism to that against racism and slavery in the US South.

According to an Oregon uni statement announcing the paper:

Resistance at individual and societal levels must be recognized and treated …

“This kind of cultural resistance to very significant social threat is something that we would expect in any society facing a massive threat,” [Norgaard] said.

The discussion, she said, is comparable to what happened with challenges to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.’

Well, I guess it not as bad as suggesting that people that don’t “cooperate” with the alarmist agenda be killed…

Oh wait!

Alrighty then, the Heartland Institute puts up billboards citing actual murderers that committed crimes in the name of the environment, or plan on using tyrants that supported the alarmist cause.  That’s apparently bad.  However, I seem to be missing the moral outrage over the two stories I covered in the past.  I guess the lack of perspective there is a side effect of drinking the AGW Kool Aid.  Or, as we like to call it, hypocrisy.


If I wanted America to fail


Okay all, I found a great new site and stumbled upon them after seeing their video in the Facebook group, Conservative Blogger Meet Up. This group, by the way is always chock full of videos, stories and info that help articulate the Conservative message. Great group, I encourage all to join.

As I said above, I watched the video on my FB group page. It is a powerful, yet simple video which really exposes the left’s agenda for our beautiful country. Those responsible for the video call themselves Free Market America. Check out their website, it is well worth the time and effort to do so.

From their site:

We’re Free Market America.

Our mission is to defend economic freedom against environmental extremism. Since the 1960s, environmental regulation has skyrocketed by over 7,000 percent! It’s a no-brainer that everyone wants clean water and clean air. But when it comes to environmental regulation, we’ve catapulted past commonsense.
Free Market America began as Free Market Florida. In 2011, we began campaigning against the U.S. EPA’s so-called “Water Tax” – a Florida-focused measure that would’ve required the water in roadside drainage canals to meet the same standards as Florida’s pristine rivers and streams. Economists estimated the “Water Tax” would’ve cost Florida’s farmers, taxpayers, businesses and consumers billions each year.

A year earlier, in 2010, we led a coalition of more than 330 business, civic and labor groups against a Sierra Club-backed ballot initiative that aimed to shut down economic growth in the Sunshine State. We won that battle; but we realized that fringe environmental groups are well-financed litigation engines determined to steamroll commonsense whenever it’s convenient for them. We founded Free Market Florida to fight back.

Now, we’re taking the same approach to environmental issues of national concern. That’s why we want to hear from you. Where is environmental extremism threatening the free market? Drop us a line.

And without further ado, here is the video:


Earth Day 2012: Mythical Creatures Plan Protest


Here is another classic CH 2.0 post in honor of Earth day 2012.  

I recently received a message from none other than Bigfoot!  Not wanting to miss an opportunity for a good story, I decided to interview him.

Me:  Hello Bigfoot, thanks for contacting me.  BTW, do you go by Bigfoot?

Bigfoot:  Thanks for answering, FYI, my name is Bill.

Me:  Mmkay, Bill it is.  What was the reason for contacting me?

Bill:  Well, we’re planning a protest.  We’re tired of being compared to something so ridiculous, that we end up looking bad.

Me:  OK then, I have a couple of questions then.  Who are “we?”  and what are you being compared to?

Bill:  “We” are a variety of different monsters around the world.  So far, we have Nessie, Champ, and the Yeti on board. What we are opposed to is the whole notion of Man Made Global Warming.   It is infuriating to be compared to something that is being disproved every day!  Don’t these idiots realize that the Earth is cooling?

Me:  So, your issue is the lack of evidence?

Bill:  Absolutely!  There are pictures of Nessie, Champ, and myself.  There are eyewitness sitings of all of us.  There are footprints of myself and the Yeti-he’s my cousin, by the way.  What is there of Global Warming?  Falling temperatures??  It makes us all look bad!

Me:  I see.  What do you intend to do?

Bill:  Initially, we we going to eat environmentalists, but we changed our minds.

Me:  How come?

Bill:  I ate a earth first terrorist once.  Did ya know that most of them are vegans?  He tasted terrible, and I had terrible gas for days!  Even the other monsters avoided me!  As you might guess, there’s no dosage of pepto or beano for a guy my size.  I just had to suffer through it.

Me:  So what’s your plan?

Bill:  Well, we’re going to hold marches and protests, but the MSM won’t cover it.

Me: ORLY???

Bill:  Yeah, they said they’d rather cover a myth that fits their agenda rather than one that can be proved correct.

Me:  Typical… sad, stupid, but typical.  We’ll cover it though.  By the way, what about the chupacabra?

Bill:  Well, there’s a couple problems there.  He refuses to learn English, and he’s (whispers) an illegal immigrant.

Me:  (Facepalm)

Bill:  Thanks…Gotta go, Nessie is texting me.   Bye, and thanks!!!

There you have it folks.  Mythical monsters, who have more evidence on their side than does global warming.  This can only happen in the Liberal Zone.

Disclaimer: No mythical creatures were harmed in the writing of this post.