Defiance of Tyranny

Posted 1:17 PM by Steve
The Credit racket.

I have excellent credit and I have worked to improve it to that level and to keep it that way. To do this I have been forced to "play the game". I open up lines of credit and buy things with credit in order to "establish a credit history". Despite this, I see many fairness and transparency issues in the credit "racket" as I like to call it.

1. Simply never being late on a payment or not borrowing is looked at as a derogatory information. If you have no bad information, the creditors should not legally be able to discriminate against you.

2. Creditors should have to provide people with a written notice that will inform them of any actions that will lower their score in any way. The score should remain the same until the person confirms in writing that they accept the consequence of their action. For instance, if Joe Schmo opens up a new credit card because it has a better rate, his credit score may actually go down even though a company just let him borrow money! That is ludicrous.

3. Also inquiries should not lower the score of the individual. This is a total racket set up by the creditors to exploit the people who borrow. If it is NOT good to NOT borrow (see #1), then you cannot also make it NOT good to borrow!! Inquiries with intent to purchase could be looked at as legitimate inquiries.

4. Derogatory information should be accessible and, with the skyrocketing of identity theft cases, the burden of proof should lie with the creditor if the issue is contested.

Posted 3:43 AM by Steve
Sheryl Crowe is stupid.

Those now touting "Global Warming" as the latest doomsday scenario to frighten mankind were the same simplistic and warped people who touted the "population bomb" which mistakenly predicted mass worldwide starvation by the year 2000. (They also have changed their minds four times in the past century on whether mankind's imminent demise will be due to global warming or ice-ages...)

These people are anti-Capitalist Pro-Socialists who believe in the consolidation of power and the "redistribution" of wealth.What the I.P.C.C. has never admitted or even addressed is the affect of solar output on climate temperature variations. Our planet has experienced extreme temperature variations from the beginning with or without the presence of human beings. Long after we have left this planet and/or are extinct on Earth the climate will experience change.The data shows that there have been warmer and cooler periods in the Earth's recent history. The I.P.C.C. simply ignores the Medieval Warm Period because the increase in temperature does not conveniently coincide with the Industrial Revolution, which is the period in which they say the damage was done. It also happenedto be the period of the greatest growth in wealth of our planet. Coincidence?

Additionally,the climate experienced a significant drop in temperature between 1500 A.D. and 1900 A.D.,sometimes called a mini-"Ice Age"?. The steady increase from the low temperature atabout 1625 AD corresponds to the same time period the I.P.C.C. claims human behavior started affecting the climate. In reality, the upslope is simply a natural cycle and eventually the Global temperature will start to level off until the next cyclical climatic event. Also ignored by the I.P.C.C. is the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period during which the sun had virtually no sunspot activity at all. Looking at a timeline we can see that the Maunder Minimum occurred precisely at the time of our last Ice Age?. The inference is clear, it was the variation in solar output that caused the little Ice Age and in all probability caused the Medieval Warm Period too.

Carbon 14 isotopes are used as a proxy for solar activity prior to 1600 AD and this indicates a high levelof solar activity during the medieval period, resulting in climatic warmth. and also areduced level of solar activity during a cold period known as the Sporer Minimum? centered around 1350 A.D.Climatic history contains two serious difficulties for the "Global Warming" theory:
1. If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no human greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also?
2. If the variable solar output of our sun caused both theMedieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, would not the stronger solar output ofthe20th century account for most, if not all, of the claimed 20thcentury warming?

Both propositions pose a serious threat to continued public acceptance of the "Global Warming" theory as advanced by the I.P.C.C.. This is because the new findings in solar science suggested that the sun, not greenhouse gases, were the primary driver of 20th century climate trends. The power of the sun to modulate our climate has been reinforcedby a large body of recent research that shows it is not only the cyclicalwarming and cooling of the sun (manifested by the 11 year sunspot cycle)causing our climate to change but also changes in the solar spectrum towards the greater ultra-violet radiation compared with visible or infra-red light. The problem with the Global Warming theory is that it is based on questionable conclusions on questionable data on many levels. In other words, it is guesswork about guesswork.

1. If in fact the global temperature is increasing is it due toincreased greenhouse gas or increased solar output?
2. If in fact it is greenhouse gas that is responsible for theincrease in temperature, is reasonable to conclude that it is man's meager 1 to 1.5% contribution that is causing the increase?

The Earth may indeed be on a warming trend due to higher solar output. But it's industrialization and mankind that "chicken-littles" of the left ultimately NEED to pin the blame on. They have LOST THE DEBATE on the political front and the military front and now their only retreat are places where unproven theory can safely incubate: Academia and media-driven hysteria.