silentsummer.com Lyrics

Silent Summer

A Sequel to Rachel Carson's   Silent Spring
Al Gore said it's urgent to cool the planet down,
'cause if we don't the ice might melt, and we will surely drown.
The data won't support it, but no one really cares.
We'll put a tax on carbon to nullify our fears.
If that won't work, well-this is good-this is really wise-
We'll block the Sun by shooting pollution to the skies!

Science is politicized to back the latest tax.
"Emergency!" Just pass it quick! Don't worry 'bout the facts.
The stats are insignificant, some data have been faked!
Were it so bad, Medieval England should have been a lake.

Heaven help us if the Feds should leave us all alone.
To eat our Ben & Jerry's with dioxins in each cone.

Eagles eggs are fragile, a "scientific fact."
Or did you hear the scientists decided to retract?
Your nest egg is broken and we wonder who's the crook.
Obama's throwing parties with your money that he took.      Arugula!

Al Gore sells "Carbon offsets" GE has lots of green.
Just add a tax on Carbon to get the environmental dream.
UN folks are happy with the taxes they extract.
Why are we unhappy with the rules that they enact?

And:
Why is the Summer silent. Why is the sky so grey?
Where is the childrens' laughter, now the sunshine's gone away?
Why is the harvest skimpy? The plants need Co2!
Why are the people starving and the highways empty too?

Bedbugs and mosquitoes thrive, but fewer folks are left alive.
Why are the Children dying? Where is the DDT?
The birds and rats ate all the grain, The polar bears have gored again,
the wolves run wild across the plain.
Fake "Science!" We've been fooled again!

Al Gore has private jets. GE has lots of green .
but the carbon tax has not fulfilled the environmental dream.
The ban on coal was difficult 'cause in our final hour,
Coal was used to make 'bout half of our electric power.

And now the Summer's silent and the skies are filled with grey.
I miss the childrens' laughter, now the sunshine's gone away.
I miss abundant harvests and long summers in the sun.
I dislike frequent blackouts-and I'm not he only one.
Winter now seems endless, but the birds and bugs abound.
The howl of wolves across the plain is such a doleful sound.

Why is the Summer silent? Why is it so cold?
We "Saved the Earth!"
...for what?
        ...For whom?

....um... for the mosquitoes??

(Holy ozone! let's go eat some Saccharin!)

Robert J. Banis, PhD
St Louis Missouri
May 7, 2009
Politically Correct Economics- Selling the Same Old Socialism under the banners of Hope & Change-A Semanitic Primer for the Realistic Radical. You might also want to look at Dr Chuck Holmes'  new book Politically Correct Economics:
A light-hearted entertaining look at the origins of the current financial crisis.
Print version 222 pp.Includes a basic review of politically correct terminology, an allegorical review of how the American banking system works, a collection of politically correct bumper sticker slogans, a review of American financial history, and numerous quotations from our esteemed leaders. If you think Socialism is great stuff and you do not have a robust sense of humor, do not read this book. You won't like it. Free Preview downloadable at  at pceconomics.com, politicallycorrecteconomics.com politicallycorrectbook.com heuristicbooks.com sciencehumanitiespress.com , politicallycorrectbooks.com
Also available at amazon.com, and as a Kindle book.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Statistics in the news: 
 

Slight adjustment in Al Gore's "Statistics about "Warmest US years on record"

This probably won't get as much publicity as the original reports, but seems the 1930's- 1940's, when carbon dioxide was much less significant, were warmer than recent years in the US. 
Global warming advocate James Hansen, the director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was slow to acknowledge and correct these misstatements, and said "the differences weren't statistically significant." 
One must wonder about why the results are "significant" only if they support the global warming industry (including James Hansen at NASA). If results go against the global warming industry pet theory then they are "not significant." 
Research grants to those who are touting the man-made global warming story are in the Billions of dollars per year. The reticence to admit the errors is a statement about how some "researchers" are invested in the billions of our tax money spent on "global warming research."  Good thing their results are not biased by this financial incentive. 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293498,00.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/866013/posts
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/science/earth/07co2.html?ex=1320555600&en=803028cb05066921&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/    no consensus among climate scientists. Errors abound in the alarmist literature. 
http://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+dioxide+follows+warming&hl=en&start=10&sa=N
http://pceconomics.com

Interesting links on controversial statistics issues in the news:

Global warming 

This is a fascinating and hotly argued issue that provides some stimulating examples of poor statistical reasoning. 
The base issue appears to be relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and climate change. Correlation is not causality, and a look at the data allows strong questioning of the supposed "causal relationship" of CO2 to climate change. 
CO2 science
The petition project and Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Response to skeptics by advocates of AGHG models--this site purports to refute the skeptics, but much of the refutation appears to be name-calling and the discussions reinforce skepticism if you look at the data--see, for example, the discussion about correlation and causality for CO2 and temperature change:  "There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming"
Climatescience.org is a website by people who are making their living in the global warming industry. This is pretty much the official gospel by those who are paid to preach it. 
Annotated UN IPCC paper on the "scientific basis" of the AGHG model mostly pointing out that the press reports on confidence levels were highly exaggerated and that the calamitous predictions are based almost solely not on data, but on computer models that have failed to predict even the past. See, for example, the data on storm frequency and severity in the 2007 paper on Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
The UN has a strong incentive to promote the AGHG fears as it's been proposed that the solution is to grant the UN power to tax industries and to regulate "carbon offset" schemes. This tax would help to redistribute wealth by "supporting UN development projects in poor countries." 
[UN Committee] "Members agreed that reversing the widening and 'shameful' gap between rich and poor countries 'is the pre-eminent moral and humanitarian challenge of our age.'" 

If you want to read more about this, just google united nations carbon tax. 
Fascinating- and frightening. 
So now we know what the "Global Warming" hubbub is all about. 
 



related sites
pceconomics.com
politicallycorrecteconomics.com
politicallycorrectbook.com