The Debates Explained

Scott Ott is good.

Inconvient Facts

The Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, yesterday released the following information (November 28): ‘U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Declined 1.5 Percent in 2006’.

Total U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were 7,075.6 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2006, a decrease of 1.5 percent from the 2005 level according to Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2006, a report released today by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Since 1990, U.S. GHG emissions have grown at an average annual rate of 0.9 percent. The 2006 emissions decrease is only the third decline in annual emissions since 1990.

U.S. GHG emissions per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or “U.S. GHG-intensity,” fell from 653 metric tons per million 2000 constant dollars of GDP (MTCO2e/$Million GDP) in 2005 to 625 MTCO2e /$Million GDP in 2006, a decline of 4.2 percent. Since 1990, the annual average decline in GHG-intensity has been 2.0 percent.

Total estimated U.S. GHG emissions in 2006 consisted of 5,934.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (83.8 percent of total emissions), 605.1 MMTCO2e of methane (8.6 percent of total emissions), 378.6 MMTCO2e of nitrous oxide (5.4 percent of total emissions), and 157.6 MMTCO2e of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (2.2 percent of total emissions).

Emissions of carbon dioxide from energy consumption and industrial processes, which had risen at an average annual rate of 1.2 percent per year from 1990 to 2005, declined by 1.8 percent in 2006. The decline in carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 to 2006 can be attributed to a one-half percent decline in overall energy demand and a decrease in the carbon intensity of electricity generation. Favorable weather patterns, where both heating and cooling degree-days were lower in 2006 than 2005, and higher energy prices, were the primary causes of lower total energy consumption. The decline in carbon intensity of electricity generation was driven by increased use of natural gas, the least carbon-intensive fossil fuel, and greater reliance on non-fossil fuel energy sources. Methane emissions, meanwhile, decreased by 0.4 percent, while nitrous oxide emissions rose by 2.9 percent. Emissions of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, a group labeled collectively as “high-GWP gases” because their high heat trapping capabilities, fell by 2.2 percent.

The full report can be found on EIA's web site.

Meanwhile, China and India continue on their way increasing CO2 while not worrying about CO2. Scroll down to page three for a comparative chart. US is number three in total emissions of CO2.

Sanctuary Mansion

Caught

These CNN potted plants say more about CNN and their own agenda politics than anything else.





Michelle Malkin has the full wrapup of all the DNC plants in the CNN debate.




Did know he was some sort of activist, but the fact checkers at the major news outlet CNN couldn't do a google search. A simple search on his name turned up that fact. CNN News organization is an oxymoron.

1990s Campaigner in a 2007 World

NewsBusted

Lessons For Modern Communists

November 21, 2007
The Tragedy of the Commons
By John Stossel

Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. "Isn't sharing wonderful?" say the teachers.

They miss the point.

Because of sharing, the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn't happen.

The failure of Soviet communism is only the latest demonstration that freedom and property rights, not sharing, are essential to prosperity. The earliest European settlers in America had a dramatic demonstration of that lesson, but few people today know it.

When the Pilgrims first settled the Plymouth Colony, they organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share everything equally, work and produce.

They nearly all starved.

Why? When people can get the same return with a small amount of effort as with a large amount, most people will make little effort. Plymouth settlers faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. Total production was too meager to support the population, and famine resulted. Some ate rats, dogs, horses and cats. This went on for two years.

"So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented," wrote Gov. William Bradford in his diary. The colonists, he said, "began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length after much debate of things, [I] (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. ... And so assigned to every family a parcel of land."

The people of Plymouth moved from socialism to private farming. The results were dramatic.

"This had very good success," Bradford wrote, "for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. ... By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many. ... "

Because of the change, the first Thanksgiving could be held in November 1623.

What Plymouth suffered under communalism was what economists today call the tragedy of the commons. But the problem has been known since ancient Greece. As Aristotle noted, "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it."

When action is divorced from consequences, no one is happy with the ultimate outcome. If individuals can take from a common pot regardless of how much they put in it, each person has an incentive to be a free rider, to do as little as possible and take as much as possible because what one fails to take will be taken by someone else. Soon, the pot is empty and will not be refilled -- a bad situation even for the earlier takers.

What private property does -- as the Pilgrims discovered -- is connect effort to reward, creating an incentive for people to produce far more. Then, if there's a free market, people will trade their surpluses to others for the things they lack. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit makes the community richer.

Secure property rights are the key. When producers know that their future products are safe from confiscation, they will take risks and invest. But when they fear they will be deprived of the fruits of their labor, they will do as little as possible.

That's the lost lesson of Thanksgiving.

Thanks for reading, Hillary voters.

George Washington's First Thanksgiving Proclamation

Thankful to God for America ...

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation

[New York, 3 October 1789]
Page Image.

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

Congress had weighed in before ...

Continental Congress Thanksgiving Proclamation November 1, 1782

STATE OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE.
IN COMMITTEE of SAFETY,
EXETER, November 1, 1782.

ORDERED, THAT the following Proclamation for a general THANKSGIVING on the twenty-eighth day of November [instant?], received from the honorable Continental Congress, be forthwith printed, and sent to the several worshipping Assemblies in this State, to whom it is recommended religiously to observe said day, and to abstain from all servile labour thereon.
M. WEARE, President.

By the United States in Congress assembled.

PROCLAMATION.

IT being the indispensable duty of all Nations, not only to offer up their supplications to ALMIGHTY GOD, the giver of all good, for his gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public manner to give him praise for his goodness in general, and especially for great and signal interpositions of his providence in their behalf: Therefore the United States in Congress assembled, taking into their consideration the many instances of divine goodness to these States, in the course of the important conflict in which they have been so long engaged; the present happy and promising state of public affairs; and the events of the war, in the course of the year now drawing to a close; particularly the harmony of the public Councils, which is so necessary to the success of the public cause; the perfect union and good understanding which has hitherto subsisted between them and their Allies, notwithstanding the artful and unwearied attempts of the common enemy to divide them; the success of the arms of the United States, and those of their Allies, and the acknowledgment of their independence by another European power, whose friendship and commerce must be of great and lasting advantage to these States:----- Do hereby recommend to the inhabitants of these States in general, to observe, and request the several States to interpose their authority in appointing and commanding the observation of THURSDAY the twenty-eight day of NOVEMBER next, as a day of solemn THANKSGIVING to GOD for all his mercies: and they do further recommend to all ranks, to testify to their gratitude to GOD for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience of his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.

Done in Congress, at Philadelphia, the eleventh day of October, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two, and of our Sovereignty and Independence, the seventh.

JOHN HANSON, President.
Charles Thomson, Secretary.

Source, other interesting writings as well.

From Rush Limbaugh.com:

RUSH: Now, the real story of Thanksgiving: "On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible," and this is what's not taught. This is what's left out. "The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure.

"When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well." They were collectivists! Now, "Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.

"He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. ... Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson," every kid gets. "If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future." Here's what he wrote: "'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote.

Facts To Think About

When you talk about Iran and their nuclear ambitions keep in mind the past. Two crude nuclear bombs, by today's standards, did this ... The bomb at Hiroshima immediately killed 140,000 Japanese men, women and children, and another 60,000 in its aftermath, while the bomb at Nagasaki killed 70,000 immediately with 140,000 subsequently. A nuclear bomb today could do far worse.

Give thanks for men like George W Bush.

Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Fred Thompson weighs in ...

The Second Amendment does more than guarantee to all Americans an unalienable right to defend one’s self. William Blackstone, the 18th century English legal commentator whose works were well-read and relied on by the Framers of our Constitution, observed that the right to keep and bear firearms arises from “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” This view, reflected in the Second Amendment, promotes both self-defense and liberty.

Rudy Giuliani weighs in ...

"I strongly believe that Judge Silberman’s decision deserves to be upheld by the Supreme Court. The Parker decision is an excellent example of a judge looking to find the meaning of the words in the Constitution, not what he would like them to mean."

Mitt Romney weighs in ...

"It is my hope that the Supreme Court will reaffirm the individual right to keep and bear arms as enshrined in the Bill of Rights and protect law abiding gun owners everywhere. To further guard this fundamental liberty, as President, I will take care to appoint judges who will not legislate from the bench but will instead strictly interpret the Constitution."

More info here.

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

The Court did not mention any other issues that it might address as questions of its jurisdiction to reach the ultimate question: did the one individual who was found to have a right to sue — Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. resident — have a right to challenge all three of the sections of the local law cited in the Court’s order, and, is the District of Columbia, as a federal enclave, even covered by the Second Amendment. While neither of those issues is posed in the grant order, the Court may have to be satisfied that the answer to both is affirmative before it would move on to the substantive question about the scope of any right protected by the Amendment.

The D.C. Circuit ruled that the Amendment does apply to the District because of its federal status, subject to all provisions of the Constitution. At this point, therefore, it appears that the Court’s review may not reach a major question — does the Second Amendment also protect individual rights against state and local government gun control laws? But a ruling by the Court recognizing an individual right to have a gun almost surely would lead to new test cases on whether to extend the Amendment’s guarantee so that it applied to state and local laws, too. The Court last confronted that issue in Presser v. illinois, in 1886, finding that the Amendment was not binding on the states.

Some observers who read the Court’s order closely may suggest that the Court is already inclined toward an “individual rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment. That is because the order asks whether the three provisions of the D.C. gun control law violate “the Second Amendment rights of individuals.” But that phrasing may reveal very little about whether the Amendment embraces an individual right to have a gun for private use. Only individuals, of course, would be serving in the militia, and there is no doubt that the Second Amendment provides those individuals a right to have a gun for that type of service. The question the Court will be deciding is, if there are individuals who want to keep pistols for use at home, does the Second Amendment guarantee them that right. Just because the Second Amendment protects some individual right does not settle the nature of that right.

One of the interesting subsets of the question the Court will be confronting is whether the 1939 case of U.S. v. Miller is a precedent for what the Second Amendment means — individual or collective right. If that decision did find in favor of a collective right, the current Court would have to decide whether this was a binding precedent, or whether it should be overruled. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., has already taken a stand on that question. At his nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said that “the Miller case sidestepped” the issue of whether the Amendment protected a collective or an individual right. He added: “An argument was made back in 1939 that this provides only a collective right, and the Court didn’t address that….So people try to read into the tea leaves about Miller and what would come out on this issue, but that’s still very much an open issue.”

The local law at issue in Heller has been discussed widely as a sweeping ban on private possession or use of handguns. But the Court order granting review took it a step further: the one section that will be at issue that goes beyond handguns is the provision that requires that any gun kept at home be unloaded and disassembled, or at least be locked. Thus, that provision also applies to rifles and shotguns kept at home, in terms of whether those weapons would remain “functional” in time of emergency if that provision were upheld. That part of the order appeared to widen the inquiry in a way that the local residents who challenged the law had wanted.

It's Back

The Medieval Warming Period that is. Despite the best efforts of the 'Mann Team' to make it go away, it's back in all it's glory.

All the graphics in Al Gores movie, The Inconvenient Truth, the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age we gone, or diminished to little bump on the graph. Just 1000 years of benign climate with a 20th century hockey stick. All this based on the numerous tree ring studies by Dr Mann and the rest of the Hockey Stick Team, now know simply as "the Team." How Dr. Craig Loehle has published his study of A 2000-YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTION, BASED ON NON-TREERING PROXIES.

Readers can down load a copy of Dr Loehie's study using the link on Climate Audit, and then stick around for the discussion of this latest contribution to the climate change discussion. Please note that the MWP was not, as some claim, just a European event, but one with global implications as the MWP was warmer than it is today, indicating that the earth had warmed without the aid of SUVs spewing CO2.

You see, the reason the Medieval Warm Period had to disappear from climate history charts is that it shows the temperature in recent times was warmer than it is today. You may also note two other things, the period of time of the beginning of America,, it was much colder. Remember Washington crossing the Delaware and pushing aside the ice floats? And secondly, temperatures have been going up and the sea level has been rising slightly ever since the end of the little ice age -- Just like the data today shows.

Like the Soviets and their science, these inconvenient truths simply don't fit the Goracle's alarmist narrative and ruined the whole 'we are all going to die' scenario presented in the last week by the ever helpful UN. Who BTW would be the recipient of the trillions in taxes for their devious plans. Hmmm, anyone else see a huge conflict of interest here?

I wonder what the alarmists and especially the 'Mann team', will do next? Since their vaunted computer models does not predict it even existed, they are faced with a messy situation -- Who will tell the Goracle?

As the chart above and the fossil record shows, there really was a reason that the Vikings named Greenland, well you know, Greenland instead of Glacierland. But it didn't last, eventually the little ice age overwhelmed the Vikings and their paradise and they had to evacuate to warmer climates.

For comparison, here is the Goracle in the film displaying the Mann Team hockey stick, see if you can spot the difference.


Scene from AIT, with Gore standing in front of a hockey stick graph


The chart in all it's close up glory


Dr Thompson’s Thermometer from Inconvenient Truth.
A site that needs special mention to anyone who wants to look into the details is Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre's site. A great resource, where science goes on hourly ...

You may take from this that while the alarmists argue the science is settled, it is not even settled what the historical temperature record for the last 2,000 years is. What does the UN-IPCC settle on, that would be the cherry picked data which supports their alarmism, and leave all the rest hidden from the people -- Who will likely have little time, nor care, to look into the situation and find out for themselves the details. And why did they settle on the 'hockey stick look', simple, their computer models could not be made to reproduce the real data, so they settled on what the computer models could reproduce. Otherwise, and easy test would be to run the computer models against the past and see how they do. They did, and won't share the results. How scientific is that?

Polar Bears Not Going Extinct

They are getting ready for Florida.

NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face

This shows contours of the trend in ocean bottom pressure from 2002 to 2006 as measured by GRACE along with hypothetical trends that would apply at the circles if ocean salinity reverted from 1990s values to climatological conditions over the same period.

The Arctic is changing, the ice is melting, and now we know why. This carefully written press release, carefully written to not alarm the alarmists, or unnecessarily disturb the hysterical alarmists' narrative, explains the reason -- Decade-long cycles, i.e. changes in the Arctic winds. A previous NASA study concluded the same thing, winds were causing the ice to clump up more, and pushed the ice drift into warmer currents. Weather causes climate change.

The full press release ...

A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.

The team, led by James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory, Seattle, used data from an Earth-observing satellite and from deep-sea pressure gauges to monitor Arctic Ocean circulation from 2002 to 2006. They measured changes in the weight of columns of Arctic Ocean water, from the surface to the ocean bottom. That weight is influenced by factors such as the height of the ocean's surface, and its salinity. A saltier ocean is heavier and circulates differently than one with less salt.

The very precise deep-sea gauges were developed with help from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the satellite is NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace). The team of scientists found a 10-millibar decrease in water pressure at the bottom of the ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006, equal to removing the weight of 10 centimeters (four inches) of water from the ocean. The distribution and size of the decrease suggest that Arctic Ocean circulation changed from the counterclockwise pattern it exhibited in the 1990s to the clockwise pattern that was dominant prior to 1990.

Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors attribute the reversal to a weakened Arctic Oscillation, a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere. The weakening reduced the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, decreasing its weight and changing its circulation.

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.

"While some 1990s climate trends, such as declines in Arctic sea ice extent, have continued, these results suggest at least for the 'wet' part of the Arctic -- the Arctic Ocean -- circulation reverted to conditions like those prevalent before the 1990s," he added.

The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend, until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized. During its strong counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic environment changed markedly, with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major changes that persisted into this century. Many scientists viewed the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate shift, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.

Morison said data gathered by Grace and the bottom pressure gauges since publication of the paper earlier this year highlight how short-lived the ocean circulation changes can be. The newer data indicate the bottom pressure has increased back toward its 2002 level. "The winter of 2006-2007 was another high Arctic Oscillation year and summer sea ice extent reached a new minimum," he said. "It is too early to say, but it looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990s again."

Source here

Second Amendment

Where Is Shrek

While watching -- Think Hillary Matters and drivers licenses for illegals ... See if this doesn't sound exactly like her.

White Flag Democrats

Running out of time. The fully invested in defeat crowd sees the light at the end of the tunnel, and it is a train. Zogby said in his poll today, in 2008 anything could happen, he had no prediction on the Democrat Congress remaining -- Probably because it was so bad that he didn't want to put it out. Overall, Congress' approval remains stuck at 11% according to Zogby.

Fred On Illegal Immigration

2006 Exit Polls

Top three reasons for the voter to vote in the 2006 election

• 1. Corruption
• 2. Economy
• 3. Terror

No Iraq withdrawal in the top three. Imagine that. So why have the Democrats put in 40 votes to withdraw from Iraq? Answer, their nutroots want out, and they want to hang the lose around Bush['s neck. But, now that Iraq is turning around, time is growing really short.

So we have another withdrawal vote pending. Wait for it, number 41 is up.

Have you paid attention to the size of the anti-war rallies?

------

Bush vetoes the last pork laden Democrat bill, reason given loaded up with pork, EARMARKs for those who know how it works in the corruption business. Yes, the leftists in Congress are attempting to repay their leftist supporters. Earmarks need to be removed from the process and brought into the sunlight, just like the Democrats promised before the won the election -- Hah didn't mean it did you? Now look at what is going on, corruption is back in vogue, run by Democrats.

Democrats, Having Worries

Bloomberg reports that Democrats are becoming worried

When the Democratic Party called up recently to ask Myrna Burgess for a campaign contribution, she answered with an emphatic ``no.''

``Nothing has been done as far as the war is concerned,'' said Burgess, 72, an Amtrak worker from Levittown, Pennsylvania.

More than a year after anti-war voters like Burgess helped give Democrats control of Congress, there are more troops in Iraq, lawmakers have approved almost $100 billion in new war spending and congressional approval ratings are at record lows.

Democrats now worry that their inability to make good on campaign promises to end or slow the war in Iraq will have consequences. The disaffection has already fueled at least four anti-war primary challenges to party incumbents, raising fears among some lawmakers of an intra-party fight that could drain momentum before next year's elections.

And the most vocal are the kooks and nuts

Still, there are some trouble spots for Democrats, as groups across the country begin to try to harness the voter disapproval. In Washington state, the anti-war group MoveOn.org has produced ads condemning Democratic Representative Brian Baird for his refusal to support legislative timetables for a withdrawal from Iraq. The group is also polling members on whether to mount primary challenges against the lawmakers they consider ineffective in trying to end the war.

Going to be fun in 2008 --- Live by the Moonbats, die by the Moonbats. Hate is really a blinding feature of Moonbat worship. It doesn't look like the Liberal elite has learned that lesson.

Media Bias

You know it when you don't hear about it. At the time of the Gen Petraeus report to Congress, the media were primed by the Democrats to expect a meltdown in Iraq policy. The NYTimes ad was at the ready, "Gen Betray US", the speakers were ready, the committee members were ready, declaring Iraq a failure before the first words were spoken by Gen Petraeus. The stage was set, the stage curtain was ready to rise, the committee leaped into action --- But then finally after all the canned 'we've lost in Iraq' speeches were given, the General took the stand. The 'Betray US' ad was so over the top, it all came tumbling down. Democrats are good at this, overplaying their hand and crashing and burning. Hate blinds, they should know that by now.

Oh, and BTW you Democrats, the parrot media who used to trumpet your story and squelch all other voices is dying, near death. Not able to do it anymore. The new way will be the way from here forward. The Internet age has arrived.

IBD is running the series, here and here are the latest instalments. The media has been doing this for years, controlling the public view on subjects by what they omit. Seen any AGW stories which were not of the alarmist kind?

And on it goes ...



The difference is now fewer and fewer are listening. It is now said that 80% of Americans are wired. Newspapers are dying and TV news is decidedly shifted local.

What Is Wrong With The IPCC

What is Wrong with the IPCC?

by Hans Labohm

Summary for Policy Makers

In the international discussion about climate change, which is now going on for almost twenty years, the IPCC has played a questionable role. From its inception, is has almost exclusively focused on the AGW hypothesis, while systematically ignoring alternative hypotheses.

Some main points of criticism of the IPCC include:

- The hypothesis that an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will lead to a rise in temperature has not been proven and is even at odds with the observations.

- Satellite-based temperature measurements show that the earth has warmed a few tenths of a degree Celsius between 1979 and 1998. It is not likely that this is caused by mankind.

- There is still a lack of scientific understanding, required to model all assumed radiative forcings. The most important one, for which there are not sufficient quantitative data to date, is the variable impact of clouds.

- Climate models, which are being used to achieve a better understanding of the climate system, are not suited to serve as basis for predictions. This is, inter alia, related to the stochastic nature of climate.

- The global climate is very much determined by extra-terrestrial phenomena, of which the fluctuation of sun activity is the most important.

- Should there still be global warming in the future, for which there are only model-based indications, then mankind will not be able to do something about it. Moreover, also according the IPCC, a modest additional warming (e.g., of 2 degrees Celsius) will on balance be beneficial for mankind.

- The IPCC has ignored the climate projections of astrophysicists, which suggest global cooling.

The advent of climate alarmism, fuelled by statements of many prominent politicians and the media, has no scientific justification. Many catastrophic consequences of climate change, such as floods and extreme weather events, have been predicted, which are not based on scientific knowledge. Especially the European governments have opted for a climate policy which is completely unrealistic and results in a massive waste of scarce resources.

Finally, one should not discount the possibility that the average global temperature will fall considerably in the near future. This might have harmful implications, as opposed to a modest rise of temperatures, which on balance will have positive effects.

Part 1

IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is a kind of network/think tank, which operates under the aegis of the UN. It consists of thousands of scientists, many of them climatologists. Once every five years or so, it takes stock of the peer-reviewed scientific literature on climate change. It publishes its findings in a series of comprehensive reports, which serve as the scientific underpinning for policy measures, including the Kyoto Protocol, to counter the `threat' of man-made global warming.

The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its mission is: `to assess the scientific, technical, and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.'

Various authors have pointed out that the mandate of the IPCC is too narrow and not purely scientific, since its wording presupposes that there is such a thing as man-made global warming (often referred to as AGW: Anthropogenic Global Warming), which excludes other explanations for the (modest) warming which has taken place over the last century. But at the time, AGW had not been proven - and since then the situation has not changed. However, a prominent Netherlands participant in the IPCC has recently stated that today the IPCC is interpreting its mandate more comprehensively and does also take alternative explanations into consideration. But climate sceptics are not convinced that this is the case.

Yet, the IPCC is generally believed to be the single most authoritative body in the field of climate science and its reports serve as scientific basis for climate policies of governments, which have profound implications for society. As such the panel occupies a monopoly position.

AGW proponents often claim that there is a consensus among scientists about man-made global warming. However, this is contradicted by the facts. A recent opinion poll among 133 German climatologists, by Hans Kepplinger und Senja Post, revealed that 37% of climate researchers adhere tot the AGW hypothesis, whereas 36% remain sceptical. The rest occupies an intermediate position. It is likely that in other countries the outcome would not have been substantially different. By no stretch of imagination this can be construed as a pro AGW consensus.

Nevertheless, opinions which deviate from those of the IPCC are more often than not ignored by politics, even if they come from prominent scientists, who are attached to the most prestigious universities and/or scientific institutions in the world. Apparently politics considers that it can do without a second opinion.

From a technical and logistical point of view, the IPCC is a well-oiled piece of machinery. It displays an exemplary degree of professionalism. Time and again it succeeds to produce reports which comprise thousands of pages. Both AGW adherents and climate sceptics use these reports as standard reference literature.

One of the Netherlands participants of the IPCC has even qualified the IPCC process as 'a triumph of worldwide interdisciplinary and intergovernmental cooperation.'

But outside the official circles there are also opposing views about the IPCC. At the other extreme there is the judgment of Lord Nigel Lawson, former chancellor of the exchequer of the United Kingdom. He told a Washington committee that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change `is so flawed, and the institution ... so closed to reason, that it would be far better to thank it for the work it has done, close it down, and transfer all future international collaboration on the issue of climate change to other world institutions with a better focus on economics.'

This rather strong statement was preceded by some failed attempts to communicate with representatives of the IPCC about the conclusions of an inquiry, published in July 2005, by the Economic Affairs Committee, one of four permanent committees of the House of Lords, on the economics of climate change. This report had been approved by all political parties. But discussions about the outcome of the inquiry with the IPCC stranded in a dialogue des sourds. Moreover, in the latest Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC, no reference had been made to the results of the inquiry. The Lords were not amused. They were not accustomed to such a treatment. It is also remarkable that the British government has so far dismissed the inquiry of the House of Lords.

Much more here

Lumpy Gravity Ball

Both computer drawings are exagerated to show the effect, but not drawn to scale.

Is the Earth's gravity constant over the entire surface? Warts and all: The Earth as seen by the GRACE satellites. The red spots represent places where the Earth's gravity is unusually strong. The blue ones are where it's weak. Image: NASA/University of Texas Center for Space Research

The short answer is Earth's gravity is constant. The red spots represent places where the Earth's gravity is unusually strong. The blue ones are where it's weak. Not that the force of gravity itself varies. Rather, it's an indication that the Earth's mass distribution isn't quite uniform. Mountain building in South America and the Himalayas produces dense, red zones; elsewhere, tectonic movements produce thin, blue, ones.

The ice stacked up on Greenland and Antarctica is piled so high it has depressed the center of these continents below sea level. If it were to melt it would form a huge lake. The Great Lakes are still "exhaling" from the ice that was piled on the surface surrounding the lakes from the last ice age. Soon the levels will stabilize and the Niagra River will flow no more.

RSS MSU: October 2007 was 2nd coolest month in this century

When facts don't line up with promises ... we have a giant oops. The sun has gone quite since 2006, no one knows why, no one knows when it will fire up again. The sun watchers are now issuing 'it's all quite' alerts for the sun on a regular basis. They used to issue alerts when the sunspots were dancing, and tried predicting whether the solar storms would effect Earth. Now, nothing to do but watch and wait, when will it end? Last time this happened we had the "Little Ice Age".

California CARB is already, swinging into action, well on their way to planning the doom of the California economy, no time to look at the data and see what is going on. No time to see the complete reversal of fortunes since 2006, when the sun went on a silent holiday. Nope, don't let facts intrude on the hoax.



According to the latest RSS MSU satellite data for the lower troposphere, October 2007 was globally the 2nd or 3rd coldest month among the 82 months since January 2001. July 2004 remains the coolest month because the anomaly was 0.053 Celsius degrees.

May 2007 and October 2007 share the silver and bronze medals with the anomaly of 0.091 Celsius degrees which is 0.81 Celsius degrees cooler than the warmest RSS month, April 1998. Using Al Gore's terminology, two of the three coldest months in this century have occurred in this year! ;-)

If we don't act and the temperature decreases by 0.81 Celsius degrees every decade, the moderate zone will be covered by a huge ice sheet by 2100. China, 1 billion people. India, 1 billion people. U.S., 0.3 billion people. Well, let me stop. Otherwise it would look like I am working on my Nobel prize. :-)

The snows come early this year, New York, Michigan, Rocky Mtns, all already having snow. Winter officially starts December 21, 2007. See a pattern? Climate changes, always has, always will. The 'modern maximum' looks to be coming to an end. The next ice age may be just around the corner.

More here.

Fred's First Ad

Fred Pounds Huckabee

Don't mess with Fred.

Climate Of Fear

1997, Al Gore put forth the Clinton administration's position on the Kyoto protocol ... "We will not submit this for ratification as long as there is no inclusion of developing nations." A standard that has not been met to this day. The Kyoto protocol was voted down by 95-0, a razor thin margin wouldn't you say?

A very interesting expose air on CNN about global warming. It demonstrate the lies that Al Gore use to impose a global tax on us and the world.

Socialism, Communism served by the glass.

Dermocrats And The US Military

Never forget who these people are. They send your sons and daughters into a war, then when it is politically convenient they turn around and tell you "just kidding". Now that is patriotism.

Back To The Future With The Clintoons

One thing you can say about the Ms, she lacks the brains and the talent to tell the effortless lies with poise and aplomb. Telling the lie, over and over, as if were the word from God, never missing a beat, just not in the cards for the Ms. She caves, buckles, confused, obfuscates, the whole lie dissembles in real time.

Friday -- Giuliani took it to the Clintoons

"What Bill Clinton did to you in the 1990's most Americans don't even know. They don't even know the worst thing that he did," said Giuliani.

"The worst thing that he did was not any of the stuff that got all the attention and sometimes exaggeration and who knows what. The worst thing he did was to cut our military and intelligence budgets. That is the worst thing he did."

Noting that Clinton "slashed" both the agencies' budgets, Giuliani charged that the former president had his "head in the sand."

"And now as I said, I don't pretend that he (Clinton) could predict September the 11th. People are not prophets, even presidents," said Giuliani. "But he did have his head in the sand. He was cutting those military budgets and intelligence budgets while Islamic terrorists were killing Americans."

And I might add, when the time came to "take the shot", Clinton took a pass, time and time again. What if someone had killed Hitler in 1930's Germany, the world would have been a better place for it. What if Clinton had killed UBL in the 1990s???

"Over 500 before September 11th. The first attack on America was not September 11th, it was 1993. And then Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and then Kenya, and then Tanzania, and then the attack on the USS Cole, to which we didn't even respond. So let's not go back to that."

Ending his Clinton focus, Giuliani noted, "Hillary Clinton really wants to take you in reverse to the 1990's. She thought things were wonderful in the 1990's and there was only one thing missing in the 1990's and it was the socialized medicine she couldn't do for us. So now she wants to take us back to the 1990's and give us the socialized medicine too. Let's not let her do that."

And that is the real truth, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

Source

Savage

MRAPs In Iraq

The first shipments of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles arrived at Camp Liberty in western Baghdad and are being fielded to units who operate in areas with the highest threat levels. These are the first of an estimated 7,000 MRAP vehicles expected in theater by early summer.

There are currently about 500 MRAPs in use in Iraq prior to this new production. Afghanistan has about 20 MRAPs.

More here.

Real Time Campaign Implosion

The media used to marvel at Bill Clinton's ability to look the camera in the eye and lie with the conviction of an edict from God. That talent is not transferable. The Ms. has neither the brains nor the talent to pull that 'lie with impunity' off. The end.

Soros Inc.

The chosen one, Hillary Matters thinks she built all this. That's what Howdy Doody thought.Until one day, someone said, hey you are just a wooden puppet sitting on the ventriloquist lap.