Like MENSA, Only Thicker

Climate Gumbo; How Hot Do You Want It?

In this week’s dENSA post:

When did George Will become a nut job?  Lately, if a person dares to question the rational of proposed government policy regarding climate change, they are often derided as either stupid or some kind of nut job.  It would be difficult to sustain a claim that  George Will is stupid, so… check out Mr. Will’s column from the Mt. Pleasant, MI Morning Sun.

$billions already spent on government grant$ and university research;  $billions more still pending; job$ and academic career$ highly dependent upon this massive government $pending.  Is there any chance that some of the, “settled global warming science” could be a bit conflicted?

The government has allegedly $pent billion$ to prove global warming is a problem (dENSA has no confirmed knowledge as to where all the money actually went).  How much has the government $pent to prove climate change is not a problem?   Maybe the nation can only afford one, “inconvenient truth” at a time.

dENSA was considering sponsoring a $1 million research project to prove climate change is not a problem, but since government spending is the, “new green,” it is now only considering sponsoring a request for a $1 million dollar federal research grant.

If dENSA failed to prove that global warming is not a problem, it would still be a bargain compared to the billion$ spent to  prove that it is.  Perhaps dENSA could eventually substantiate a claim that is 90% certain global warming is not a problem, and then who knows, maybe another $1million from the government!  No matter what the government decides to do, it will probably need lots of consultant$, so…

The Acting Czar has called for additional consideration of a dENSA sponsored climate change research proposal; after a review of the Third Annual International Conference on Climate Change, as reported by the Virginia Pilot.


Attendees of this conference appear to have already completed a great amount of this type of research on climate change, so all that may be left for dENSA is to over-charge the government.  Hey, we live in Spokane! There are lots of people around here that know how to do that!

For a taste of how climate gumbo can affect private sector companies, read the story about G.E. and its news networks.  Talk about the, “new green”  G.E. doesn’t plan to miss this sustainability train to ma$$ive government $pending.

By Nikki Finke from: http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/


This week’s featured video:

From the Green Hell Blog: http://greenhellblog.wordpress.com/

The Pelosi 2012 GTXI SS/RT Sport Edition



If you’ve had enough  climate gumbo, consider a little lighter fare from Sharyn Mayer’s, “my two cents,” and her Talk of the Town blog.

“Put your ‘stock’ in the Ponies”



dENSA prefers Cajun Style Gumbo! It’s the kind of warming we can get into!

Jouir d’ une bonne sante’









From the Morning Sun in Michigan:


By George Will: The Green Bubble Has burst.  4 06 2009


Graphic by Anthony

WASHINGTON – There once was an Indianapolis concert featuring 50 pianos. Splendid instruments, pianos. Still, 50 might have been excessive.

As is today’s chorus summoning us to save the planet.

In the history of developed democracies with literate publics served by mass media, there is no precedent for today’s media enlistment in the crusade to promote global warming “awareness.” Concerning this, journalism, which fancies itself skeptical and nonconforming, is neither.

The incessant hectoring by the media-political complex’s “consciousness-raising” campaign has provoked a comic riposte in the form of “The Goode Family,” an animated ABC entertainment program on Wednesdays at 9 p.m. Eastern time. Cartoons seem, alas, to be the most effective means of seizing a mass audience’s attention. Still, the program is welcome evidence of the bursting of what has been called “the green bubble.”

Gerald and Helen Goode, their children and dog Che (when supervised, he is a vegan; when unsupervised, squirrels disappear) live in a college town, where T-shirts and other media instruct (”Meat is murder”), admonish (”Don’t kill wood”) and exhort (”Support our troops … and their opponents”). The college, where Gerald works, gives students tenure. And when Gerald says his department needs money to raise the percentage of minority employees, his boss cheerily replies, “Or we could just fire three white guys. Everybody wins!” Helen shops at the One Earth store, where community shaming enforces social responsibility: “Attention One Earth shoppers, the driver of the SUV is in aisle four. He’s wearing the baseball cap.”

The New York Times television critic disapproves. The show “feels aggressively off-kilter with the current mood, as if it had been incubated in the early to mid-’90s, when it was possible to find global-warming skeptics among even the reasonable and informed.”

That is a perfect (because completely complacent) sample of the grating smugness of the planet-savers, delivered by an entertainment writer: Reasonable dissent is impossible. Cue the pianos.

“The Goode Family” does not threaten Jonathan Swift’s standing as the premier English-language satirist. But when a Goode child apologizes to his parent for driving too much, and the parent responds, “It’s OK … what’s important is that you feel guilty about it,” the program touches upon an important phenomenon: ecology as psychology.

In “The Green Bubble: Why Environmentalism Keeps Imploding” (The New Republic, May 20), Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, authors of “Break Through: Why We Can’t Leave Saving the Planet to Environmentalists,” say that a few years ago, being green “moved beyond politics.”

Gestures – bringing reusable grocery bags to the store, purchasing a $4 heirloom tomato, inflating tires, weatherizing windows — “gained fresh urgency” and “were suddenly infused with grand significance.”

Green consumption became “positional consumption” that identified the consumer as a member of a moral and intellectual elite. A 2007 survey found that 57 percent of Prius purchasers said they bought their car because “it makes a statement about me.”

Honda, alert to the bull market in status effects, reshaped its 2009 Insight hybrid to look like a Prius. Nordhaus and Shellenberger note the telling “insignificance,” as environmental measures, of planting gardens or using fluorescent bulbs.

Their significance is therapeutic, but not for the planet. They make people feel better: “After all, we can’t escape the fact that we depend on an infrastructure – roads, buildings, sewage systems, power plants, electrical grids, etc. – that requires huge quantities of fossil fuels.

But the ecological irrelevance of these practices was beside the point.”

The point of “utopian environmentalism” was to reduce guilt. During the green bubble, many Americans became “captivated by the twin thoughts that human civilization could soon come crashing down – and that we are on the cusp of a sudden leap forward in consciousness, one that will allow us to heal ourselves, our society, and our planet. Apocalyptic fears meld seamlessly into utopian hopes.”

Suddenly, commonplace acts – e.g., buying light bulbs – infused pedestrian lives with cosmic importance. But: “Greens often note that the changing global climate will have the greatest impact on the world’s poor; they neglect to mention that the poor also have the most to gain from development fueled by cheap fossil fuels like coal. For the poor, the climate is already dangerous.”

Now, say Nordhaus and Shellenberger, “the green bubble” has burst, pricked by Americans’ intensified reluctance to pursue greenness at a cost to economic growth. The dark side of utopianism is “escapism and a disengagement from reality that marks all bubbles, green or financial.”

Re-engagement with reality is among the recession’s benefits.

George Will’s e-mail address is georgewill@washpost.com.

Read the complete column at the Morning Sun



Global warming? Not so fast, skeptics say at meeting



By Scott Harper, From The Virginian-Pilot © June 6, 2009-Washington D.C.


U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher was in a froth, and his audience loved it.

The California Republican was talking about global warming and could barely contain his disgust.

“Al Gore has been wrong all along!” Rohrabacher yelled into the microphone. “This is outrageous! All of this is wrong! The people who have stifled this debate have an agenda that is just frightening!”

Welcome to the third annual International Conference on Climate Change, a daylong session of speeches and scientific presentations that took place Tuesday just blocks from the U.S. Capitol. Almost no media covered the event.

Organized by The Heartland Institute and other conservative think tanks and groups, the conference drew about 250 guests, most of them researchers and policy analysts, some from as far away as Japan and Australia.

There was plenty of wry laughter during the day, especially when former Vice President Gore and his award-winning movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” were brought up, which was often.

The conference hall also was filled with a tangible air of frustrated defeat, like the brainy kid in math class who thinks he knows all the answers, raises his hand time and again, but is never called upon.

“We are seldom heard in the policy debate,” said Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland Institute. “If you open your newspaper, turn on your TV set, you’re likely to see global warming alarmism, and nothing else.”

Bast labeled as “popular delusion” the current conventional wisdom on the issue – that man-made emissions, notably carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels is dangerously heating up the planet, causing sea levels to rise and is increasing the ferocity of storms and drought.

As such, the conference represents a lingering – and still powerful – sentiment that global warming is not such a big deal after all.

Instead, attendees argued, the slow and slight increase in air, water and atmospheric temperatures during much of the 20th century is part of a natural cycle of the Earth’s unpredictable, roller-coaster weather patterns.

Carbon dioxide, they debated, is not a pollutant that should be regulated, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Supreme Court now hold; it is an attribute that helps plant and sea life.

Bast acknowledged that the conference was hurriedly organized, and moved from New York City to Washington, to counteract proposals from President Barack Obama for a “cap-and-trade” program aimed at fighting global warming by drastically limiting carbon emissions.

Bast and others described the proposed programs as a complete waste of money, with potentially crippling consequences for the economy, and without any attainable goals.

“How do you control the weather?” asked Bob Carter, an Australian scholar from James Cook University. “For us to assume we can somehow control nature and regulate weather patterns, when we cannot even predict them correctly, is patently absurd.”

Others saw darker motives in the climate debate.

These skeptics, including Rohrabacher, contended that global warming is a liberal-inspired hoax, intended to wrest control of world energy policy and wealth from Western countries so the United Nations can have its way.

To them, liberty, capitalism and the U.S. economy are at stake.

“I have to wonder what has happened to the sovereignty of the United States,” said U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the keynote speaker at the conference and the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which debates climate policy.

Skeptics, or “realists,” as they call themselves, focus much of their scorn on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Gore in 2007.

The IPCC consists of hundreds of scientists from across the globe who, for two decades, have tracked climate research and temperature trends, and attempted to interpret what they mean for policymakers.

Its most famous pronouncement, in 2007, was that a marked increase in greenhouse gases from mostly man-made sources is “very likely” causing climate change.

“Very likely,” the IPCC wrote, means a 90 percent certainty that human activity, not natural variability, is the driving force.

The IPCC also noted that many geographical areas seem especially susceptible to climate change, including low-lying coastal areas, such as southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina.

But scientist after scientist at the conference pointed out flaws and shortcomings in the calculations of the IPCC, especially its reliance on computer models to make forecasts.

One researcher, Roy Spencer, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted that the IPCC did not adequately calculate how clouds play a major role in ground temperatures.

When there are few clouds in the sky, temperatures typically are warmer, Spencer said, and when it is cloudy outside, conditions typically are cooler.

Is it possible then, Spencer asked, that decreasing clouds in recent decades caused the warmings recorded on Earth?

Spencer said he asked the IPCC about this and was surprised to learn that the organization had not researched this point and had assumed that cloud cover does not change over time but is fairly consistent.

The two revelations sparked more wry laughter from the audience.

“If a 1 percent change in cloudiness could trigger global warming, or global cooling, wouldn’t you think that’d be a pretty important thing to nail down?” Spencer asked. “They have never gone there.”

Skepticism over climate science is hardly new. Indeed, skepticism has always been a part of scientific discourse and has been around global warming since the 1970s, when the theory first gained credence.

William “Skip” Stiles, a Norfolk environmentalist, was working as a congressional aide back then, and he remembers the committee hearings, the charges and countercharges of bias and flawed science.

“I will agree that these models are only as good as the data that goes into them,” Stiles said. “But when you think of all the shots these folks have had at this, and all the years of research by the IPCC – we’re talking 25 years! – you have to think we’ve reached some fairly solid conclusions that global warming is real and we, as humans, are playing a major role in it.”

Carl Hershner, a researcher and professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science who has tracked sea level rise in Virginia for years, expressed similar thoughts.

“One thing about science is that you never get rid of all the naysayers,” Hershner said. He described the IPCC as “an extremely conservative group” that “constantly looks at achieving consensus, and updates its findings regularly.”

In his keynote address Tuesday, Sen. Inhofe predicted that cap-and-trade will pass the House of Representatives – “Nancy Pelosi has the votes,” he said – but will stall in the Senate, where previous climate-change programs have similarly died.

Last year, without any action coming from Washington, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine appointed a Climate Change Commission to suggest ways Virginia can reduce carbon emissions and lessen its role in accelerating warming.

The theory that global warming is a natural phenomenon, and not man-made, was not part of commission deliberations.

“The fact that global climate change is happening and is largely human-caused is now widely accepted,” reads the commission’s final report, published in December.

At the bottom of the page, however, is a footnote: “While we have concluded that the overwhelming evidence supports these points, we have heard testimony providing contrary information during public comment periods at our meetings.”

State Sen. Frank Wagner, a Republican from Virginia Beach, was a member of the climate commission. He also has attended one of the skeptics’ conferences in New York City.

“I’ve tried to keep an open mind,” Wagner said. “There are so many theories out there, and so much detail, you’re kind of overwhelmed.

“I mean, even the scientists themselves are debating with each other at these meetings. You’re left wondering what the truth really is.”

Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com


More information:




From http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/

By Nikki Finke on Fri, Jun 5th, 2009 at 05:47PM

EXCLUSIVE: GE/NBCU TRYING TO STIFLE OTHER MEDIA’S COVERAGE OF COMPANY: Immelt Orders Nielsen Media Iced Over GE-NBCU-Obama Story: NBCU’s Zucker Follows Orders And Freezes Out The Hollywood Reporter For Past 6 Weeks










It’s a very dangerous situation when any huge multinational corporation wages war against media companies. Especially when that huge multinational corporation is General Electric, which itself owns a media company, NBC Universal, and it’s using all its power and influence and money to try to harm another media company, Nielsen, and Nielsen Business Media, and its trade publication The Hollywood Reporter. This certainly sounds like a situation which the FCC, and the FTC, and the U.S. Justice Department should be investigating. Just one problem: the controversy stems from GE/NBCU’s coverage of President Obama. Here’s what happened:According to my sources inside and outside Nielsen Business Media, The Hollywood Reporter trade publication ran a story dated April 22nd and updated on April 24th covering the “drama” at the most recent GE shareholders meeting in Orlando. THR‘s West Coast Business Editor Paul Bond wasn’t sent to the meeting, but he interviewed about half a dozen people who’d been inside the shareholders meeting and told him what transpired (see below). Bond’s THR story focused on the attempts by stockholders and Fox News Channel and other media to find out whether or not GE Chairman/CEO Jeffrey Immelt ordered his news operations to be less critical of President Obama and his policies.

Bond’s story was immediately picked up by The Drudge Report under the headline “GE shareholders outraged over MSNBC bias; Microphone cut off.” It became a widely posted news story on conservative and liberal and media websites everywhere. That’s when, sources inside and outside Nielsen Business Media tell me, GE Chairman Jeff Immelt ordered a GE company-wide ban on all of THR‘s parent company: advertising, editorial, the works. After a few days, the ban was reduced to GE’s NBC Universal which chief Jeff Zucker carried out against Nielsen Business Media’s The Hollywood Reporter and lasted six weeks. My NBC Universal sources believe the ban was lifted yesterday.My reporting is the first about the ban or what led to it. “People need to know that GE is using its media arm to stifle coverage about its company, and this is coming from Immelt and Zucker,” a Nielsen Business Media insider said. I’d attempted multiple times over several weeks to speak with NBCU about this story but the company won’t discuss it.Here’s what’s also interesting: the current Chairman/CEO of Nielsen is David Calhoun, who prior to joining in 2006 served as Vice Chairman of GE. After rising through GE since 1979, Calhoun had been in contention to run the conglomerate after Jack Welch retired. But Immelt got the top spot instead. As President/CEO of GE Infrastructure, the largest of six GE business units and responsible for 25% of the company’s sales, Calhoun surprised Wall Street when he became the first top exec to quit after Immelt took over in 2001.In that THR article, Bond’s reporting revealed:

“…Attendees who spoke to The Hollywood Reporter said shareholders asked about 10 politically charged questions concerning MSNBC as well as one about CNBC.

First up was a woman asking about a reported meeting in which CEO Jeff Immelt and NBC Uni CEO Jeff Zucker supposedly told top CNBC executives and talent to be less critical of President Obama and his policies.

Immelt acknowledged a meeting took place but said no one at CNBC was told what to say or not to say about politics.

During the woman’s follow-up question, her microphone was apparently cut off. A short time later, Watters asked a question and his mic was cut, too.

“The crowd was very upset with MSNBC because of its leftward tilt,” one attendee said. “Some former employees said they were embarrassed by it.”

…But one of those questions came from Jesse Watters, a producer on [Fox News Channel’s] “The O’Reilly Factor” whose criticisms were cut short when his microphone was cut off, according to several attendees. Watters apparently did not publicly identify himself as a Fox employee… Watters has built a reputation as an ambush interviewer, specializing in on-the-street confrontations. But this is arguably the boldest move by a Fox newsie to utilize the tactic inside their chief rival’s tent, as it were… When he got the floor, Watters [a producer on Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor”] focused his question about MSNBC on Olbermann’s interview of actress Janeane Garofalo, who likened conservatives to racists and spoke of “the limbic brain inside a right-winger.

“He (Watters) was complaining that Olbermann didn’t bother to challenge her,” another GE shareholder said.

Immelt told the assembled he takes a hands-off approach to what is reported on the company’s news networks, which prompted a shareholder to criticize him for not managing NBC Uni more effectively….”

In the update to the story, THR pointed out that a GE corporate spokesman later pointed out that “there was no attempt to cut anyone off who had questions or comments to make. In fact, corporate spokesman Gary Sheffer said, the meeting did not conclude until everyone who wanted to speak had a chance — and some shareholders returned to the standing microphone multiple times.”

Because of that story, sources inside and outside Nielsen Business Media tell me, GE Chairman Jeff Immelt personally issued a GE ban on all of the Nielsen company. “Jeff Immelt severed relations between all of GE with all of Nielsen over that story. Immelt called Zucker, and Zucker took it from there. Then, after a few days, GE backtracked, and then it became NBC Universal severing relations with The Hollywood Reporter.”

According to my sources, Zucker ordered NBC Universal employees “not to talk” to THR. “They took away passes and tickets,” says one insider. Another told me advertising was affected: it appears all or almost all advertising was stopped by NBC Universal at what was and continues to be a very important revenue time for the trade — just before the Emmy nominations. Still another told me that NBC Universal employees stopped returning THR reporters’ calls. One NBC Universal employee actually said to a THR reporter: “I’m not allowed to talk to The Hollywood Reporter.”

Only a handful of people within the publication knew about the GE/NBC Universal ban. “It was all very mysterious,” one reporter whose calls stopped being returned by NBC Universal told me. “No one told me specifically why. But I think some story really pissed them off.”.

NBC Universal also attempted to have Paul Bond fired. The company went to Nielsen/THR and complained not just about his shareholders meeting coverage, but also about the tone of that story and others he’d written about NBCU. But Bond’s bosses refused to buckle under the pressure.

“They defended him, showing a lot of courage especially in this environment where ad money is hard to come by,” a Nielsen Business Media insider told me. “It’s fairly remarkable because Jeff Immelt is a very powerful man. If that doesn’t prove THR is a real newspaper, I don’t know what does.” (Well, you still have to prove that to me. But this is a start.)



From the Green Hell Blog at http://greenhellblog.wordpress.com/




From http://talkoftown.wordpress.com/

By Sharyn Mayer, June 5, 2009

...my two cents

PUT YOUR ‘STOCK’ IN THE PONIES……….This pun came to me via one of the blog readers, and has probably made its way around the block, but in case you haven’t enjoyed this little pony ‘tale’………………..read on my friends.

Economic experts and strategists are cautioning investors not to get to far ahead of themselves in terms of buying opportunity due to the recent nine week rally.  One of those experts, Al Goldman, chief strategist at Wells Fargo, cited this joke as a reminder…………..The crux of the joke centers around young, twin boys around the age of 5, one of whom was a pessimist, the other an optimist.  Because of their extremely opposite personalities, their parents took them to see a psychiatrist.“First the psychiatrist treated the pessimist. Trying to brighten his outlook, the psychiatrist took him to a room piled to the ceiling with brand-new toys. But instead of yelping with delight, the little boy burst into tears. “What’s the matter?” the psychiatrist asked, baffled. “Don’t you want to play with any of the toys?” “Yes,” the little boy bawled, “but if I did I’d only break them.”Then the psychiatrist moved on to the optimist.  In an attempt to dampen his bright outlook, the psychiatrist took the young boy to a room filled to the ceiling with horse manure.  Instead of being disgusted, the young child yelped with delight and climbed atop the pile, dropping to his knees and digging out scoops with his bare hands. ‘What do you think you are doing,?’ asked the psychiatrist, now just as baffled by the optimist as he was his brother, the pessimist.‘With all this manure,’ the boy responded, ‘there must be a pony in here somewhere.”

Spokane Events

********A funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum – performance at the Spokane Civic Theater http://www.spokanecivictheatre.com/

Spokane Indians Home Opener:  June 20th

4th of July Tea Party Details at:  http://northwestteaparty.org/

20th Anniversary of the Spokane Hoop-fest June 27th and 28th http://www.spokanehoopfest.net

Mariners: http://seattle.mariners.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=sea

dENSA returns to the Maxwell House on Wednesday, June 17th.


No Responses to “Climate Gumbo; How Hot Do You Want It?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: