San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, November 11, 2016

Moderation In Some Things

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day and he made a statement that got me to thinking.  He proudly proclaimed that he has never been a moderate and that he opposes moderation in all things.  I assumed he was making fun of the old slogan that it is wise to practice moderation in all things.  I also realized that he was casting a jaundiced eye at career politicians who no longer hold to his conservative views and have become hated moderates.  As I was thinking about what he had said I realized that many people in the last election cycle talked about the need to elect moderate politicians.  I was told that only a moderate is capable of engaging in the act of compromise that is so essential to get the country moving forward once again.  Sadly, moving forward is a slogan for nothing more than writing hoards of new laws, so those who want moderate career politicians are calling for an ever increasing body of oppressive and contradictory laws to be forced upon us.  As I continued thinking it occurred to me that a better lifetime principle than the ones mentioned above is moderation in some things.  Let's think about that for a while today.
Moderation is not a virtue when absolute truth is involved.  I know, I know, nobody believes in absolute truth anymore, except the Welsh.  As a believer in absolute truth it is foolish and stupid to not demand total compliance with the dictates of absolute truths.  For example, God exists and people who claim to be atheists or agnostics are really just liars since they all know by virtue of being living human beings that the God of the Bible exists.  To compromise that truth would be heresy.  To compromise that truth would allow people to continue to justify their unbelief in their own minds.  That will not do.  Christians must continue to offend the world with biblical truth. 
There are economic absolute truths just like there are theological ones.  Government intervention into the marketplace by means of minimum wage laws that set the minimum wage higher than what the market would establish are guaranteed to reduce employment.  That truth is true a priori and by logical necessity.  Other economic absolute truths are things such as the fact that taxation always reduces overall wealth and government spending never creates either jobs or economic growth.  Did you hear that King-elect Trump?  I was shocked and dismayed when I heard that the Donnie has joined forces with none other than air-head Nancy Pelosi to plan for a massive half-trillion dollar government spending program on "infrastructure," whatever that is.  Donnie justified it because he claims it will create jobs and economic growth.  If that is true, and it is not, then why not spend $27 trillion on infrastructure, thus creating jobs for everyone who wants to work and making us all wealthy beyond our wildest dreams?
Another place where moderation is downright stupid is politics.  Prior to the election King Obama, King-elect Trump and Hillary "I didn't do it" Clinton called each other the most colorful names.  They did not even attempt to hide their disgust and hatred for each other.  I found that refreshing, although meeker and milder souls found it offensive.  Now, a couple of days after the election is over, they are all buddy-buddy, talking about how much they respect each other.  Now tell me, which of your statements are, or were, lies?  Were you lying before the election or are you lying now?  Both can't be true.  It is not surprising that a career politician would lie (that is all they do) but why not remain consistent and maintain the same opinion about someone after the election?  Would it not be wonderful if Obama, Trump and Clinton continued to talk to each other the way they did before?  One of the television networks could set up cameras at the White House and we would have a superb reality show.
Much of life has nothing to do with theological or economic absolutes.  Indeed, much of life is nothing more than thinking about consumption.  People are always thinking about what they want to buy next, except the Welsh of course.  As a result, most folks spend a great deal of their time and money obsessing about their future purchases.  These crazy people need to learn the principle of moderation.  Excessive spending, excessive eating, excessive exercising (hear that Yuppies?), excessive drinking, excessive talking, excessive giving your opinion to others when they have not asked for it, excessive shopping and excessive watching of sports on the television are all harmful to your mind, body and soul.  Most of the time the principle of moderation makes sense.  And most of the time we would all be wise to practice it.
Most of life's arguments and fights are about silly things of little or no importance.  Just listen to the things people argue about.  Generally someone will say something and another person will offer up his opinion on the matter and the fight begins.  Susie says that she thinks she is going to paint her bathroom blue and her sister Grizelda says she thinks that is a bad idea.  Next thing you know they are not speaking to each other.  For matters that are not related to absolute truth it is important to always be willing to compromise.  What difference does it make to you if someone disagrees with you?  Maybe, just maybe, you are wrong!  Even better than the art of compromise, in my opinion, is the art of not saying anything at all.  Try it some time.  Spend an entire day saying absolutely nothing unless you are asked a direct question.  If you are asked a direct question answer it as succinctly as possible and then fall silent once again.  It will unnerve everyone around you.  People do not know how to deal with people who do not continually spout off on their opinions about things.  People also do not know how to deal with people who don't care about the great majority of the things they care about.  
That brings me to those ignorant folks who declare that it is important for career politicians to be moderates.  A moderate is someone who can compromise and work with those of differing opinions so that laws can be made and handed over to the bureaucracy for further expansion into rules.  Those rules, often contradicting previous rules and almost always counterproductive for economic growth, are then enforced by the jack-booted, gun-toting thugs who rule over us these days.  I have another name for a moderate politician....hypocrite.  A person's political views should not be subject to change or compromise.  When you believe abortion is murder you should not agree to vote for some other proposed law that says just the opposite.  When you believe taxation of the top 49% to pay all of the federal bills of the bottom 51% is theft, you had better oppose all taxes and tax laws that do precisely that.  In politics, compromise is not a virtue, it is a vice.  Not only is it a vice, it allows career politicians to continually expand the body of immoral law that enslaves all of us.  So I conclude that Rush was right about compromise in should never exist.  If only politicians would stick to their guns and refuse to compromise, then we would have the gridlock that would allow us to live in peace. 

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Who Is Wall Street?

I have been hearing a lot recently about a fellow named Wall Street.  The things I am hearing about him are not good.  In fact, career politicians competing with each other for a continuation of their jobs this election season constantly try to distance themselves from him by asserting that their opponent is a friend of Wall Street and has had the audacity to take money from him in the past.  The one thing that seems to be universally acknowledged as true is the idea that Wall Street is an evil person with no redeeming characteristics whatsoever.  Apparently all career politicians want some of his money, and his endorsement, but nobody wants to call him a friend.  Why just last night I saw a report that a bunch of envy-filled protesters gathered outside the mansion of King-elect Trump complaining that he was a friend of Wall and, as a result of that, he is not going to be their King.  This Wall fellow must be the devil incarnate.  Let's consider this absurd behavior for a while today.
I contacted former Colorado Rockies closer Huston Street to see if he could give me a lead on who this Wall fellow might be.  Huston said he had no personal knowledge of him but based upon his name he sounded like a rock solid individual.   I then contacted Picabo Street to see if she had any knowledge of who Wall might be.  She said her outgoing mail would be checked by the guards and her attorney advised her to not answer my question but she then went on to tell me, strictly off the record, that she does not personally know Wall but believes he might be a very shady character.  She suggested he might have beaten his wife at some point in the past.  Having exhausted my only two personal sources in the matter I took up another course of action.
According to what I have read in the newspapers and heard on the cable television news networks I have been able to put together a bit of a sketch of who this Wall Street fellow might be.  Here is what I have learned so far:
  • Wall is very rich.  He is so rich he is personally able to buy powerful politicians all around the country who then promise to look the other way as he engages in various nefarious activities.  He is free to do whatever he wants and nobody will ever hold him accountable. 
  • Wall is greedy. Somehow he is able to get his hands on boat loads of other people's money, which he then uses to invest in wild schemes designed to enrich himself at the expense of the rest of the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Every business deal Wall has ever put together has enriched him at the expense of the people he went into business with. 
  • When Wall is successful in his business endeavors he becomes even more obscenely wealthy.  When one of his business ventures fails his buddies in career political positions convince their personal banker, currently a lady named Yellen, to give him enough money to cover his losses.
  • Despite being a very well known person, Wall has never engaged in a single socially redeeming activity.  Everything he does, whether it earns or loses him money, is evil and harmful to the economy.  Furthermore, he is a narcissistic sociopath.  He rejoices when he does harm to other human beings. 
  • Wall loves to rub people's noses in his success.  He gives himself an enormous salary from his various companies and then, to top it all off, gives himself huge bonuses every time he loses money or one of his companies goes bankrupt.  He does this just to goad the highly moral and genuinely good working people in this country.  Speaking of working people, Wall has never worked a day in his life.  All he does is move paper around. 
  • Wall has a brother named Main.  They fight all the time but Wall always wins.  When they fight and Wall wins it is always bad for Main.  You have heard the mantra before I am sure....what is good for Wall Street is bad for Main Street.
  • Hillary Clinton is somehow evil because she has accepted large amounts of money from Wall simply for coming over to his place and delivering lectures to the employees of his companies.  Hillary, to her credit, immediately after receiving her stipends for her lectures then proceeds to inform the media that she believes Wall is evil and needs to be regulated, whatever that means.
  • Donald Trump accuses Hillary Clinton of being evil because she has taken money from Wall.  Donnie proudly trumpets the alleged fact that he has never taken a nickel from Wall, even though they live almost next to each other.  I wonder if he has ever had Wall over for dinner?
  • Several years ago a group of spiritualists started a movement they called "Occupy Wall Street."  From their name I assumed they believed they had the power to possess other people. Whether they were successful at possessing Wall I do not know.  I do know that most evangelical Christians believe Wall is possessed by a demon of greed and avarice.
  • Wall Street has been convicted in various courts of law of doing something the politicians and bureaucrats call "predatory lending."  Predatory lending, as I understand it, is giving people who want money a loan.  When those people do not want to pay their loans back they run to the civil government and claim that they do not have to pay it back because they were victim's of Wall's predatory lending practices.  They always win their cases but it does not matter.  Wall is so rich he can pay off those folks and still sleep on a huge pile of money at night.
  • Wall has amazing economic power.  Whenever he wants to he can plunge the Socialist Democracy of Amerika into a recession.  He did it in 2001 and again in 2008.  The two main reasons he plunges the country into recessions are to make people lose their jobs and give him an opportunity to extract more money from his friends in powerful political positions.  He causes recessions because he loves to watch people suffer.
  • People tell me that Wall is too big to fail.  I don't know as I have never seen him personally.  He must be a very large man if he is too big to fail.  But I at what?  I ran across some articles about Wall that said his political buddies and his personal banker, that woman named Yellen, would never let him fail at anything.  I wonder if that means he is like Yuppie children who get trophies just for showing up?  If so he must have a very tender psyche.
Despite my best efforts to discover who this vile human being is, I have come up with nothing in my search for Wall Street.  If you happen to run into him would you please tell him I would like to talk to him?  I need a loan and I would also like some investment tips.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

What Will, Will Not and Might Happen Now

It sure was fun last night.  Sure, I lost money betting on Hillary to win but it was worth it to watch the talking heads on MSNBC and Fox News goes through a roller-coaster of emotions as the chances for each of their candidates to be the next King/Queen rose and fell.  For people who claim to be fair and balanced in their coverage of political news they sure went through a lot of emotional states.  Meanwhile, a friend who works at a building that housed some of the Democrat political machinery just called me to tell me that many of the folks who worked there have been arriving at work today in tears.  Boo Hoo.  It sure hurts when your god disappoints you, doesn't it?  Anyway, today I will tell you what will, will not and might happen now that Donald, King Donnie as he likes to be called, Trump is our next King of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.

What Will Happen:
  • Despite the fact that the Republicans now control both houses of Congress and the all-mighty White House, acrimony and bitter feelings will reign supreme.  Many of the people populating the Republican controlled Congress were part of the anti-Trump movement.  His victory is not going to change their minds.   So as much as I despise not having a divided power structure, this is as close to a divided power structure as we can have with the Republicans in control of everything.
  • The stock market will rise in 2017 by a higher than average amount.  Expectations for King Donnie are so low the stock market futures in this country plunged by 4-5% last night as it became obvious he was going to win.  In a normal year that would happen if the Democrat candidate won.  Given the terrible economic policies expounded by King Donnie what happens next economically can only be better than expectations.  That will cause the markets to rise.
  • King Donnie will sit down with King Putin and work things out.  The only truly good thing about King Donnie's win is his lack of saber rattling and calls for expansion of the Empire during the election.  If he doesn't completely mess things up Donnie has the ability to dial back the rate of expansion of the Amerikan Empire around the world.   That would be a good thing.
  • A leopard does not change its spots.  Given the fact that most of the men inhabiting the Oval Office have succumbed to the enormous power they wield, as well as their testosterone, and had sex with women who were not their wives, how can a man who praises himself for his sexual exploits be expected to not do the same?  Expect sexual scandals.
What Will Not Happen:
  • Despite having total control over the federal government legislative apparatus the Republicans will not repeal the civil right of Amerikan women to murder their children simply because it is inconvenient to have them around.  Four years from now, when King Donnie will be on the way out, over four million more children will be dead.   
  • There will be no wall built along the border with Mexico.  Mexico will not spend any of its pesos on any construction projects in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.
  • Hillary will not be imprisoned.  Neither will she be put on trial.  Neither will she be indicted.
  • Amerikan citizens who are Muslims will not be deported.   
  • Perhaps most significantly, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the host of militarized law enforcement agencies around the country and the military/industrial complex will not be dismantled.   Your 4th Amendment rights will continue to erode and disappear and the SDA will continue on its path to a police state.  The Patriot Act will still be in effect and daily life will be dominated by worship of the military and the Empire.
  • The majority of the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika will continue to worship government and career politicians.  That will never change.  When one god fails another pops up to take its place. 
  • The top 49% of the income population will continue to pay almost all of the federal income taxes in this envy-filled country.  The members of the bottom 51% of the income population will continue to say that the top 49% are "not paying their fair share" of the taxes, whatever that means.
  • The LGBTXYZ agenda will continue to advance and, at the same time, the impact of the Christian Church will continue to be marginalized.
  • I have to stop somewhere so I will stop here.  Most of what is currently taking place will continue to take place.  Very little will change under King Donnie, just as very little ever changes under the rule of any King.
 What Might Happen:
  • King Donnie might be able to get together with the Republicans and repeal Obamacare.  It really does not matter if they do or they don't however.  If they repeal Obamacare they will replace it with some form of Republicancare and the show will continue to go on.  What most certainly will not happen is a movement for free market health care.  
  • King Donnie might be able to appoint some justices to the Supreme Court but that makes little difference in our country these days.  Even self-styled conservative justices vote for the progressive agenda.  Go here for the story.
  • If you are a believer in conspiracy theories, as I know so many of you are, and you believe that the CIA, under the command of King George I, had JFK executed for his refusal to expand the Amerikan Empire (most notably in Cuba), is it not possible that the same thing might take place with King Donnie?  Note to FBI, CIA, NSA:  I am not advocating anything here.  I am simply asking a question that seems reasonable.  If the Neo-Cons are sufficiently upset with King Donnie for sweet-talking King Putin, is it not possible they would use their henchmen to take him out?
  • King Donnie might be able to get some sort of anti-trade bill passed.  I don't think it is likely in a Republican controlled Congress but Republicans keep their fingers to the wind like all other career politicians.  They see that King Donnie got elected by promising the unwashed masses jobs.  He promised to create jobs by shutting down all freedom of companies to hire outside the SDA.  Just like Obama promised a new cell phone for each citizen, King Donnie promised a job to each unemployed miner, automobile and steel worker.  That promise cannot be fulfilled but the mere act of trying might be enough to buy a lot of votes.  Republicans will take note of that and many will be willing to jettison their professed belief in free markets in exchange for a vote, especially in the mid-term elections.

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Radical Homosexual Attacks Church Leaders For Being Biblical

The specifics of this story may be found here.  Jason Thomas is an unrepentant homosexual who was removed from  membership in his church as an act of discipline for his sin.  Rather than repenting of his sin Jason decided to take his story to social media.  Rather than going quietly into the night Jason did what most radical homosexuals do, he attacked the biblical behavior of a Christian church and pronounced himself an expert on the nature and character of God.  Let's consider his case for a moment today.
Support for homosexual behavior is growing in Evangelical churches.  In the name of a grossly distorted concept of love many Evangelicals are declaring that God loves homosexuals and has a wonderful plan for their lives.  The biblical teaching that homosexuality is a sin worthy of death is being diluted and ignored by people who profess to believe the Bible.  Self aggrandizing and self promoting homosexuals are ignoring God's opinion about their lifestyle choices and, in this case, posting private letters in public forums in an attempt to shame Christian leaders who are attempting to do the right thing.  Jason took the letter he received from the church informing him that he was no longer a member due to his rebellious decision to continue to behave as a homosexual and posted it on social media.
According to the story, "In the posting, he accuses the church of tarnishing the name of God among Christians and non-Christians alike and suggests that the church – which has followed the biblical model of discipline – should be ashamed of itself. Jesus, Thomas wrote, was angry with people who told others they were not worthy to be His followers."  When did Jason become an expert on what Jesus said and believed?  How does Jason ignore the clear statements in the New Testament that homosexuality is a sin and those who practice it should be executed by the civil authorities?  Where did Jason concoct his doctrine that Jesus was "angry" when people would say that certain people could not be His followers?  How can Jason ignore the clear biblical passages in which Jesus Himself tells people they are not qualified to be His followers?   Why has Jason not brought charges of sin against the church leaders and prosecuted his case in the church court?  Jason does not say.  He just pronounces himself to be an expert on what Jesus taught in order to justify his lifestyle choices.  He also hates everyone who disagrees with him.  How loving he is!
Jason goes on to mock the church leaders who dropped him from the church roles.  He wrote, "Thank you for removing yourself from my life! I am who God made me to be. I cannot change my sexual orientation and nor would I want to. I now have internal peace and happiness like never before."  Well there you have it.  Jason is the perfect Evangelical.  His primary litmus test for what is true is how it makes him feel.  He has a real peace about the fact that he is continuing to mock and anger God daily by engaging in homosexual behavior so his homosexual behavior must be honoring to God, despite what the Bible says.  I wonder....would Jason defend a pedophile with the argument that he is simply being what God made him to be?  Would he defend a murderer with the argument that he is simply being what God made him to be?  Would he defend an adulterer with the argument that he is simply being what God made him to be?  God makes people to be many sinful things and He does that to magnify His own glory as He condemns them to the Lake of Fire for their sins.
There is a proverb, found in the book of Proverbs in the Old Testament, which says, "There is a way which seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."  That pretty well describes Jason's predicament.  He has convinced himself that he is right, despite all evidence to the contrary, and unless he repents his future will be the Lake of Fire.  Not to worry though, I am sure that Jason would respond to my quote by saying, "That is the Old Testament!"  For those who are not aware, Evangelicals dismiss everything taught in the Old Testament as irrelevant because it was written by the angry, hateful, vengeful and murderous God of the Old Testament.  The kind and loving God of the New Testament loves everyone and has wonderful plans for their sin filled lives.  In rejecting the Old Testament they become advocates for the heresy of Marcionism but they are too historically ignorant to know that.  
The church which has removed Jason from its membership roles, sadly, did not follow all of the biblical procedures for discipline.  They were correct to rebuke him for his sin and they were correct to remove him from the church membership roles but they should have followed through and excommunicated him as well.  Furthermore, the members of the church should have been publicly informed to shun him until he repents of his sin.  Rather than doing what the Bible requires, "the church also said that until the letter was published on social media, only those closest to Thomas and the friends attempting to help him in his Christian walk were aware of the change in his membership status. He was not told he could not attend the church."  It is a shame that the church leaders were only willing to go half-way with their discipline.  Jason will be less likely to repent given their cowardly and half-hearted efforts at discipline.
May I be so bold and offer Jason a suggestion about what he should do next?  If Jason really wants to expose the leaders of the church for the hypocrites he believes them to be he should contact his real god, the god of civil government, and initiate a lawsuit against the church for sexual discrimination.  It is high time that homosexuals who profess to be Christians take the offensive and attack the churches of this immoral land that continue to enforce biblical standards.  Sue the church into oblivion.  Likewise Jason should bring criminal charges of hateful behavior, slander and hate speech against the leaders of the church and demand prison sentences for what they have done.  Jason, like all limp-wristed homosexuals, is unwilling or incapable of following through on his sissy-like threats.  Stand up Jason and be a man, or whatever you are.  Attack the church with a passion and a vengeance and do not stop until your enemies are bankrupt and in prison.

Monday, November 7, 2016

Yeow! I Am Melting Arctic Ice!

I was shocked and dismayed to discover that I am destroying the planet every time I make a run to Dunkin Donuts for a chocolate kreme filled delight.   I am now being forced to consider my every action in order to determine how much terrible damage I am doing to the planet every time I take a breath.  I had no idea the planet was so sensitive to my presence and I certainly had no idea how much damage I am doing to the most holy and perfect planet earth we live upon simply by living upon it.  Surely I deserve to die for my environmental sins.  Maybe the government can send an execution squad to my home, if only they can get here without driving a car.
I was reading my Denver Post last week when I came across a feature article, complete with a photograph of shrinking glaciers in Argentina, informing me that I am personally responsible for the dissolution of the Arctic ice cap.  Man was I surprised to find out that fact.  Here is what, in part, the article told me:
"Here is how much of the Arctic you are personally responsible for melting.  Dirk Notz calculates that for every person who drives a car 1,000 miles or takes a round trip flight from New York to London, about 32 square feet of sea ice vanishes from the Arctic.  That is about 1 square foot for every 90 miles of driving a gas powered car.  Researchers have long documented that human fueled carbon dioxide emissions contribute to the overall warming of the planet -- and, by extension, accelerate the diminishing of sea ice in the Arctic each year.  But in a paper published Thursday in the journal Science, Notz and a colleague detail the complex set of calculations that allowed them to estimate how much Arctic sea ice melts for every metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere.  Their answer?  About 3 square meters."
Are you impressed by the "research" that appeared in a highly respected scientific journal about how much you are contributing to the melting of the Arctic ice and thus, destroying the world we live in?  Are you rendered speechless by the complex mathematical functions used to determine how much ice is melting?  Or did you catch the amazingly obvious and exceedingly stupid flaw in the argument?  According to Notz, every 90 miles I drive causes 1 square foot of Arctic ice to melt.  I do not know what sort of world Notz lives in but the world I live in is three dimensional.  When selling my home I measure the size of my home in square feet but it is not possible to measure a volume of something in square feet.  A volume measurement must be in cubic feet.  The world is three dimensional (four dimensional when time is included). Telling me that I am responsible for the melting of one square foot of ice tells me nothing.  Am I responsible for melting a square foot of surface ice that is one molecule thick?  Or am I responsible for melting a square foot of surface ice that is twenty feet thick?  Notz does not say and nobody, including the editors of the article, seems to have caught this huge error in his thinking.  Notz's allegation about the amount of damage I am doing to the Arctic ice is completely and utterly meaningless. But it does serve as an excellent piece of propaganda, does it not?
In search of a more scientifically and logically rigorous argument in favor of the religious doctrine of man-made global warming I went to the taxpayer funded and government operated organization known as NASA.  Did I find more logical and scientific rigor among this group of scientists?  You be the judge.  In regards to the Antarctic ice pack, which has been steadily growing in size despite the claims of "global" warming, I found this statement, "Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s."  Commenting on this fact, a NASA scientist asserted, "The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent."
Did you get all that?  Although the high priests of the religion of global warming continue to use the word 'global' in their statements, when cornered by actual data they resort to claiming that global warming continues to exist around the world, although not all of the globe is actually warming.  Then they have the audacity to claim that they expected parts of the globe to get colder as a result of global warming.  Make sense to you?  Then you could work for NASA.
Here is another brilliant insight from the taxpayer sponsored government employees at NASA, "A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers."  This insight, as it is acknowledged in the paper, goes contrary to what the IPCC believes to be the case.  That does not interest me here. What does interest me is the apparent disconnect in the minds of NASA scientists between glacier formation and snowfall.  Does anyone know where glaciers come from?  Right!  Glaciers are compressed snow.  Glaciers are formed when snow falls and does not melt completely.  NASA acknowledges that snowfall in the Antarctic has been increasing for the past 10,000 years (how that they know that is a mystery to me) but, at the same time, repeats the global warming mantra that the glaciers found there are thinning.  Then, to make things even more confusing, they say that the increased snowfall will "outweigh" the thinning glaciers.  In other words, the glaciers are not thinning.  In fact, they are getting thicker. Why not simply say that?  Because it goes contrary to global warming dogma.
Proponents of global warming are blinded by taxpayer dollars.  When the job of a climate scientist is contingent upon finding global warming in the universe guess what that scientist will find?  Global warming of course.  There is global warming when the ice is getting thicker and there is global warming when snowfall is increasing.  In fact global warming is a direct result of my driving around in my car.  All this science has set my head to spinning.  It is time for me to go out for a donut.  I fully expect that I will be responsible for the melting of one molecule of ice in the Arctic as I drive to the donut store.  Forgive me planet earth for my sin.