Have You Ever Tried to Throw Away a Garbage Can?

Seriously. Have you ever tried to throw away a garbage can?

I have, and I can tell you, it’s damn near impossible.

I once had one of those black, square, RubberMiad jobbies.

You know, the ones with the handles that double as locks for the lid and wheels to make the trip to the curb a lot easier?

Anyway, with the low-rider wheels, the bottom of the container would drag on the cement driveway on the way to the curb and – over time – the edge opposite of the wheels gave way to a hole.

With several more trips, the hole got bigger, creating an open seam — which began to sag open beneath the weight of the can’s contents — allowing the garbage bag inside to scrape the ground, tear open and leave a trail of coffee grounds, egg shells and whatever else was in there along the path to the curb.

Eventually, the sagging bottom caused stress on the container’s corners and the open edge began to send cracks up the sides until the bottom was more like a flap that threatened to extricate itself if I dared to drag it once more.

It was time to throw it away.

Little did I know that such a seemingly simple task would prove to be so challenging.

◾Trash Day #1 – Dragged the empty, broken garbage can to the curb with its lid locked to the top and stood it next to another. The next morning after pick-up, both cans were still there.

◾Trash Day #2 – Dragged the empty, broken garbage can back to the curb with the other. But this time, I turned the broken can over to expose the broken bottom. The next morning, both cans still there.

◾Trash Day #3 – Dragged both garbage cans to the curb, propping the useless garbage can on TOP of the other. The next day… both… still there.

◾Trash Day #4 – Dragged broken garbage can to the curb… again… with tin snips. I cut the plastic can into pieces, stuffed the parts into the other can and propped the lid against the good garbage can. The next day, only the good garbage can remained but the lid from the useless garbage can – now reduced to confetti — was laying on the ground next to the other can.

Where is all of this going?

From day one we have been trying to throw away the Global Warming Garbage Can.

Not only did we see the hole in the bottom, we turned it over to expose the defects.

But no matter how tattered and torn the global warming/climate change garbage can gets, the Environmental Social Engineers refuse to see it and thus, refuse let us throw it away.

On Thursday, Jason Samenow of The Washington Post reported that  “a major NOAA-lead report” has concluded that “manmade climate change played a substantial role in the exceptional warmth in the eastern U.S. during the spring of 2012.”

Approximately 35 percent of the extreme warmth experienced in the eastern U.S. between March and May 2012 can be attributed to human-induced climate change,” NOAA says about the results of one of the report’s 18 studies.

Drawing from another study, NOAA adds: “High temperatures, such as those experienced in the [north central and northeast] U.S. in [summer] 2012 are now likely to occur four times as frequently due to human-induced climate change.

So?

What about the record low temperatures being experienced in the [mid-west] U.S. in [summer] this year in places Michigan and Chicago or in places like [southwest] Colorado  and the “unusually cold temperatures” the National Weather Service said “allowed for sleet and snow to mix in with the rain across eastern Oklahoma and northwest Arkansas” between May 2-4 – and the 1,122 record cold temperatures recorded across the entire U.S. in one week in July?

What about The Weather Channel’s Aug. 18 report that “it’s been a cool summer across a large portion of the central and eastern U.S and that “the persistent cool weather is well-reflected in national extreme temperature statistics from the National Climatic Data Center?

For the year to date, the total number of daily record lows across the country is outnumbering the number of record highs by about a 6-to-5 ratio, a stunning reversal from the dominant pattern in recent years.

“Although links between human-induced climate change and some extreme weather phenomena are minimal (tornadoes) to equivocal (hurricanes),” Samenow opined, “the evidence that warm weather extremes are increasing is difficult to dismiss, in my view.”

It was a “view” curiously void of any substantiating “evidence” — other than the NOAA report.

So what if Steven Goddard of “Real Science” produced “evidence” that the earth is experiencing the “slowest start to a hurricane season on record” and that the number of intense storms are decreasing.

So what if ABC News’ Chief Meteorologist Jennifer Zeppelin reported May 17 that “meteorologists with the national severe storms laboratory track all the tornado stats for the U.S. and have noticed an interesting trend over the last decade – fewer tornadoes.”

Of the nine paragraphs in Samenow’s article – seven of which are a single sentence in length and two of which are composed of a pair of sentences — six contain one of the following terms:

“Manmade climate change,” “human-induced climate change,” or “human-caused climate change.”

We’ve all heard the Joseph Goebbels quote:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website, Goebbels’ use of social engineering – ensuring that the Nazi message was successfully communicated through art, music, theater, films, books, radio, educational materials, and the press – “created an atmosphere tolerant of violence against Jews” and “encouraged passivity and acceptance of the impending measures against Jews.”

The term “sociale ingenieurs” (social engineering) was introduced in an essay – titled “Industrial Social Organization” — in 1894 by the Dutch industrialist, J.C. Van Marken.

The purpose was to push the idea that employers needed the assistance of specialists—”social engineers”—in handling the human problems of the industrial planet.

The World English Dictionary defines “social engineering” as “the manipulation of the social position and function of individuals in order to manage change in a society.”

According to Search Security — an IT company that offers services to keep corporate data, applications and devices secure – “Social engineering” in the computer world “is a term that describes a non-technical kind of intrusion that relies heavily on human interaction and often involves tricking other people to break normal security procedures.”

“A social engineer,” Search Security explains, “runs what used to be called a ‘con game.’”

Appeal to vanity, appeal to authority, appeal to greed, and old-fashioned eavesdropping are other typical social engineering techniques.

After the evidence presented in the trial of George Zimmerman lead the jury to deliver a not guilty verdict – a verdict the “Justice for Trayvon” crowd didn’t like — the lawyer for Trayvon Martin’s family, Jasmine Rand, told Greta Van Susteren July 15 that she has “a greater duty beyond being an attorney, and that’s to be a social engineer.”

Rand asserted that, “when the law doesn’t get it right” and “there are millions of people out there who don’t agree with that decision,” – “millions of people, which Van Susteren noted out, “didn’t watch the case, didn’t sit in the courtroom, didn’t weigh the evidence, didn’t listen to jury instructions” – they “have the right to peacefully and morally, conscientiously object to the decision of the jury.”

To Van Susteren — who earned her first law degree in 1979, a master of laws in trial advocacy from Georgetown Law Center in 1982 and served as a civil and criminal attorney in Wisconsin for several years — “social engineering” sounds “more like social manipulation.”

It’s the same approach being used by climate change theorists.

In a July 2011 article — “Environmental Science or Social Engineering” — Jason Sutherland took umbrage with many of the tactics used by environmentalist fanatics to push the climate change theory.

Sutherland – a self-described “environmentalist, scientist, pescatarian” (a vegetarian who eats fish) and devout “atheist” – is “firstly” and “frankly appalled at how children are educated about climate change.”

My personal opinion as an environmentalist is that scaring children to death about environmental catastrophe, no matter how well intentioned, is ultimately unhelpful.

Sutherland also said that “people who claim that climate change is simple and that it is obvious that we humans have caused it are actually very ignorant.”

While most scientists believe humans are affecting climate change most of them are really unsure how much of an impact we are actually happening: 100%, 50%, 1%?

As Examiner reported Aug. 10, in an effort to help President Barack Obama push his climate change agenda, Ivan Frishberg — the Climate Campaign Manager for Obama’s agenda squad, Organizing for Action, formerly known as Obama’s reelection squad, Obama for America – is dutifully encouraging climate change enthusiasts to take aim at “climate deniers” on Capitol Hill.

As Examiner reported June 11, Frishberg “announced the new initiative in a rather humorously trite email.”

It’s 2013, right? Why is it then that in 2013 we have to convince some of our lawmakers to believe in science?

“Well, Ivan,” Examiner explained, “maybe it’s because these lawmakers have been laughing themselves silly ever since all of this global warming nonsense began because every time you try to hold one of your global warming/climate change expeditions, conferences, lectures, summits or meetings — including a global warming House subcommittee meeting in March — it’s cancelled due to snow.”

Frishberg – predictably — also dragged out the liberal environmentalist default argument that “ninety-eight out of 100 climate scientists agree climate change is real, human activity is contributing to it, and it poses significant risks to our environment and our health.”

“No they don’t,” Examiner argued, “and no it doesn’t.”

As Forbes reported July 17, 2012, that famous “consensus” claim — that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” — is bogus.”

Additionally, according to the petition initiated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and signed by over 31,487 scientists:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.

In another email – naming Florida Sen. Marko Rubio as the first “climate denier” target — Frishberg pushed even more proven phony statistics.

Scientists — from NASA to the National Academy of Sciences in every major country in the world — agree that manmade climate change is real and dangerous. And the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) just announced that last year was among the 10 warmest on record.

“First,” Examiner countered, “let’s address NASA, NAS, NOAA and “all that science.”

As a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute named Chris Horner wrote for American Spectator Nov. 4, 2010 of his efforts to sue NASA — for refusing for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and to explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data dating as far back as the 1930s — “those corrections destroyed NASA’s stance that U.S. temperatures have been steadily rising in recent years and returned 1934, not 1998, to being the warmest year on record.”

As for the NAS, remember that petition, signed by over 31,487 scientists?”

As William F. Jasper reported for The New American July 13, 2012 — in an article titled, “’Climate Science’ in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda” — Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, participated in the petition project and is among those 31,000 scientists who “refutes claims that there is any kind of “consensus” regarding man-made global warming as a crisis or existential threat.”

Then there’s NOAA.

According to a Jan. 29, 2010 report co-written by Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org., NOAA started systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world in 1990.

By eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures – dropping the number of stations from which they collected data from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500 — they effectively drove up the average measured temperature artificially.

In other words – just like NASA — NOAA cooked the numbers.

That creates a bit of a problem regarding the credibility of NOAA’s new “major” report.

“It is also a problem,” Sutherland the pescatarian wrote, “that the temperatures of the other planets are warming at the same time as Earth suggesting that this is a solar system wide event and not limited to Earth at all.”

As Fox News reported Feb. 22, 2010, Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark — who published a study in Nature Geoscience predicting that sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century due to global warming — were forced to retract their claims after elements of falsified data errors were discovered that supported undermined the results they wanted.

What was Siddall’s response after being caught?

“It’s one of those things that happens,” he said. “People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science.”

Retraction is a regular part of the publication process.

Yeah. No biggie. It’s just, “one of those things.”

And issuing retractions after getting caught pushing fake data has apparently become a major part of the global warming/climate change publication process as well.

Still — in spite of the many efforts to throw away the crumbling global warming/climate garbage can – and the use of many tin snips, which have reduced it to mere confetti — the Environmental Social Engineers refuses to haul it away.

They choose to recycle it.

When the world did not heat up as predicted, “global warming” became “climate change.”

And here’s another curious thing.

Remember Samenow’s repetitive and near frantic Thursday effort to drum the “manmade climate change/human-induced climate change/human-caused climate change” mantra into our heads?

On Aug. 22, in response to an article written the day before by fellow Washington Post contributor, Ezra Klein from an “exclusive interview” with Al Gore, Samenow wrote a scathing attack of the Global Warming Godfather, saying Gore’s “characterization of the links between global warming and hurricane intensity is a bit fast and loose.”

Whereas Gore tells Klein hurricanes are “stronger now” due to manmade warming, the freshly leaked United Nations climate assessment is much more equivocal.  Although the assessment says hurricane activity has become more intense in the Atlantic since 1970, there is “low confidence” of a human contribution.

Samenow also raked Gore over the coals for a specific quote that Kline used.

The extreme events are more extreme. The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now they’re adding a 6. The fingerprint of man-made global warming is all over these storms and extreme weather events.

“If you believe former Vice President Al Gore,” Samenow excoriated, “global warming is morphing science fiction into reality.”

But Gore’s statement about this new breed of hurricanes is patently false. There’s no new hurricane category in the works.

Samenow even “contacted Chris Vaccaro, director of the National Weather Service’s office of public affairs, and asked him whether the National Hurricane Center is about to unveil the doomsday Category 6.”

“In less than 10 minutes,” Samenow added, “he fired back this response:”

No, we’re not pursuing any such change.  I’m also not sure who VP Gore means by “they.” I’d also point out that the top rating, Category 5, has no ceiling: it includes hurricanes with top sustained winds of 157mph and higher.

Then – after all of that — Samenow issued a “correction.”

“According to Ezra Klein, who interviewed Al Gore,” Samenow wrote Aug. 23, “he may have inaccurately transcribed Gore’s comments pertaining to hurricane categories.”

Gore’s staff said the former VP did not say: “The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now they’re adding a 6.” Rather, Gore (according to his staff’s transcript) told Klein : “The scientists are now adding category six to the hurricane….some are proposing we add category 6 to the hurricane scale that used to be 1-5.

“It would seem (assuming his staff has an accurate transcript),” Samenow obfuscated painfully, “Gore at first misspoke and immediately corrected himself.”

Thus, I retract the balance of my criticism – although his characterization of the links between hurricanes and climate change could have been more precise.

Damn, that had to hurt. So much so that – less than two weeks later — he not only jumped on the global warming/climate change bandwagon, he has seized the reigns in a personal mission to drive everyone off the cliff!

Perhaps he should change his last name to “Differentnow?”

Have you ever tried to throw away a garbage can?

I have, and I can tell you — just like trying to get rid of the global warming/climate change trash — it’s damn near impossible.