Republican Presidential Straw Poll

At GOP Bloggers.

Unscientific to be sure, but interesting results nonetheless.

Hillary's Star Descendant

So says Dick Morris.

Excerpt:

"No politician looks their best when they are evasive, and Hillary looks worse than most."


Dems are in a quandary.

Hillary is still the favorite to win the nomination. She's got the money and she's got the organization.

But many Dems are well aware that she may be unelectable in the general election.

Cartoon of the Day

"The American public has a general sense of unease over the Democrats lack of budget spending restraint, and their failure to extend the Bush tax cuts......"

Quote of the Day, "Global Warming" file

.....from John Hawkins, at Town Hall.

"Quite frankly, if you buy into manmade global warming, you should have good answers for these questions or, if you don't, admit that your opinion is based more on faith and guesswork than it is on science."

Friend speaks my mind.

Political Correctness and Historical Revisionism

This year marks the 400th anniversary of the establishment of the first permanent English colony in the New World. It should be a time of celebration.

Yet look at how some people are using it to make a politically correct agenda item point, as well as re-writing history in the process.

Noteworthy:


"But the timid, apologetic tone of some of the exhibitions detracts from the experience. As Edward Rothstein reported in The New York Times, “The Indians, we read, were ‘in harmony with the land that sustained them’ and formed an ‘advanced, complex society of families and tribes.’”

Rothstein continues: “English society — the society that gave us the King James Bible and Shakespeare . . . is described as offering ‘limited opportunity’ in which a ‘small elite’ were landowners.” England, they tell us, suffered from social dislocation, unemployment, difficult working conditions, and so forth. The exhibit goes on to suggest that Virginia's history evolved out of the “interaction” of three different cultures: British, Native American and African.

This sort of hokum has become de rigueur at American museums."

Exactly so.

Political correctness and its accompanying historical revisionism are perfidious in the lies these philosophies tell about our nation and its heritage.

Giuliani's the Man redux

He's the best choice for fiscal conservatives.

So says Steve Forbes in Opinion Journal this morning.

Excerpt:

"Rudy Giuliani can unite the Republican Party and restore our traditional claim as the party of fiscal conservatism. He has already proven he can stand up to liberal special interest groups and achieve tax cuts, even with a Democrat-controlled City Council. That's the kind of leadership we need in Washington. That's the kind of leadership that will inspire the next generation of the Reagan Revolution. And that's why America's Mayor should be America's next president."

It's about leadership.

And no one else who is considered a candidate or potential candidate for the presidency in 08 can match his credentials in this critical area.

Giuliani/Rice in 08.

Regarding "free trade" and "climate change"

A reader at Donald Luskin's blog wonders why the debate standards on each point differ.

Summation:

" If the proponents of climate change could put that sort of evidence on the table, we'd have a real consensus and a basis for policy. In the absence of such evidence, consensus its just another way to package the Kool Aid."


One little problem......they can't provide that kind of evidence.

Not that that little detail stops them from peddling their nonsense.

Following the money

....takes you to a deeper level of understanding regarding the "scientific consensus" on "global warming".

Key point:

"If the global warming virago collapses," Stott predicts, "there will be an awful lot of people out of jobs."

Yet another example of Dem "Do as I say, not as I do"

And there's no real news coverage of Dem Darling DiFi's dirty little former secret.

Excerpt:

"When we talk about political corruption, this is exactly what we mean. Politicians who use their power and assignments to fill their own pockets with federal dollars corrupt our system and deserve to be tried in court for violating the public trust. Feinstein never should have sat on subcommittees that hand out federal contracts for markets in which her own family businesses compete. If the Democrats meant what they said in 2006, Feinstein provides an excellent test case for their new sense of ethics. They should expel her from the Senate and have California hold a special election to replace her. If they do nothing, then they have exposed themselves as the party of self-enrichment at the expense of taxpayers."

So where's the outrage from the Dem/Progressive/Lefty side??

It's time to repeal McCain-Feingold.

It's a deeply flawed bill, and it violates the First Amendment rights of many.

My former Washington Automotive Press Association colleague Mark Tapscott has the details.

Excerpt:


"And five years later, none of the promises of the McCain-Feingold advocates has been fulfilled. The "corrupting influence of money in politics" is as strong as ever and there is no evidence that the law has had one iota of influence on the degree of citizen participation in politics.

If anything, earmarks financed with tax dollars - the real corrupting influence of money in politics - is at an all-time high. Several congressmen have been convicted of crimes related to earmarks and the Republicans lost their congressional majority last November largely because they couldn't resist this genuine form of the corrupting influence of money in politics."

Democrat Budget Resolution to increase taxes, provide no reform

Get Out Your Checkbook alert: $2641 per household tax increase if we let the Dems have their way.

Furthermore:

"Projected over the ten-year period, the expiration (or required offset) of all existing tax cuts would raise projected revenues by $3,268 billion[2]—easily the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.[3] Over the ten-year period, the average household's taxes would increase by $2,641 annually, or 12 percent above current tax levels. Tax revenues would spike from 18.5 percent of GDP today to 19.8 percent by 2012 and then 20.1 percent in 2017—the second highest level since World War II.

And even that may not be all. The Senate budget contains 22 "reserve funds" that would give Congress virtually unlimited authority to raise taxes further if Members decide to increase spending above the budget resolution's spending targets. By the time Congress is finished, the tax increase could easily top $1 trillion over five years and $4 trillion over ten years."

Barone: "Gore's Faith is Bad Science"

...but we already knew that, didn't we?

Details.

Noteworthy:


"Even The New York Times bridles at this. After Gore won the Academy Award for his film on climate change, the Times printed an article in which respected scientists -- not Republicans, not on oil company payrolls -- charged that Gore has vastly exaggerated the likelihood of catastrophic effects."




Life just keeps getting tougher for the Church of the True Believers.

Gore struts his, ummm, "stuff"on The Hill

And when we fisk his theatrics, this is what we find.

"But Gore's exaggerated scientific claims are just cover for his real agenda.

Most reports on his testimony have neglected to mention the most important thing Gore said. Here is my transcription of the crucial passage, starting about four minutes into Gore's House testimony:

--- 'America is the natural leader of the world, and our world faces a true planetary emergency. I know the phrase sounds shrill, and I know it's a challenge to the moral imagination to see and feel and understand that the entire relationship between humanity and our planet has been radically altered.' [Emphasis added.]

Get that? The real issue here isn't about carbon dioxide or global temperature readings or coal-burning power plants or federal fuel efficiency standards. It's about mankind's relationship to nature."



And just how noteworthy is this excerpt?


"In New York's Newsday, Ellis Hennican describes a three-on-three debate held last week in New York City, in which opponents of the global warming hysteria--including that meddling novelist Michael Crichton, along with distinguished British scientist Phillip Stott and MIT's Richard Lindzen--took on some of the scare's defenders. The interesting things about this debate is that the organizers polled the audience before and after the event. The result? The number of people who thought that global warming is a "crisis" dropped from 57% to 42%.

That's why folks like Al Gore have to keep claiming that there is an iron-clad 'consensus' on global warming and that the debate is "over"--because the moment the debate on the scientific merits of global warming is actually allowed to begin, the alarmists start to lose.

Al Gore is trying to dragoon science in an attempt to win over converts who don't share his sense of personal spiritual crisis and don't find his anti-industrial moral vision compelling. But the moment people see through his charade--and realize that what Gore is really pushing is a not a scientific campaign against 'pollution' but a quasi-religious crusade against industrial civilization--his campaign will collapse."



UPDATE:

Potential Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson shares his thoughts on Gore's grandstanding comments.


"Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn’t even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There’s a consensus."
"

The REAL history of 20th century CO2 levels

....is established here.

Excerpt:


"It shows that actual past measurements of atmospheric CO2 have undergone great variation in levels from time to time in the period surveyed. Levels were not 'flat' before the 20th century, as is usually asserted."

What an Inconvenient Truth for the True Believers!

I wonder what kind of bogus reply they'll dream up to counter this latest hole in their "scientific consensus"?

So Tim Bellamy is the permanent GSO police chief

....Who were the candidates?

...How were they chosen?

...Who actually made the final choice?

Picture of the Day

Obviously just another Republican Agent Provocateur, right?

The New Free Speech Movement

"Indoctrinate U".

Watch the trailer, then go to the website.

Political Correctness/Libthink indoctrination on our campus may be more dangerous to this country than than Islamic terrorism.

(hat tip: Powerline)

Make sure you fill out the form at the website.

Here's the story about last Saturday's

....."anti war protest" in Washington DC that you haven't seen or heard anywhere else.

Excerpt:

"A pure, grass-roots effort, the Gathering of Eagles' volunteers matched the massive Soros-funded anti-war machine sign for sign, chant for chant, and marcher for marcher. The contrast was most stark right before the entrance to the Memorial Bridge, where Eagles gathered with a field of American flags--while anti-Bush, 9/11 co'spiracy nuts wrapped themselves in a figurative blanket of yellow 'Out of Iraq' placards.

Several of the vets shouted, "Yellow! How appropriate!" in between spirited chants of 'U.S.A! U.S.A!' While the classless Cindy Sheehan ranted profanely, the Eagles raised their voices in polite, but roaring disapproval and raised their American flags in answer to the ANSWER socialists' Che banners and peace pennants."

From National Park Service observations, it may well be that the defender/counter protestor force was LARGER than the protestors.

And we've heard nary a peep from the blowhards over at Cone's who were so bent out of shape at the credible notion that some attempt at desecration of national memorials might take place.

My favorite comment from the Usual Suspects in reference to the bottom feeders who deface military, other memorials, and national landmarks was this:

"Anyone care to guess how many of the 'anarchists' who continue to give the Peace movement a bad name are in actuality agents provacateurs?

It is unbelievable the lengths some of these people will go to cloak the behavior and the nature of support for "anti-war protesters".

I'm sorry I didn't go, as I had originally intended.

It would have been very, VERY satisfying to me if I had done so.

In regard to "speaking truth to power", here's the REAL thing

Just in case you missed it in the N&R this morning, here's the link.

(hat tip: Fred Gregory)

Excerpt:


"So Cheney was speaking a simple truth: Al-Qaeda wants the United States out of Iraq. And congressional calls to give up, regardless of conditions on the ground or what happens next in the wider war, validate that strategy."
but in this case Cheney is right. And he speaks from experience. He worked in the White House 32 years ago, for President Ford, when Southeast Asian allies were abandoned to their enemies. Millions were killed and displaced.

If that nightmare is replayed in Iraq, Pelosi and the anti-war powers will have to answer for the truths they've left unspoken."


There is no question about the truth of that last statement.

How much more clear can the case be made?

What part about what al Zawahiri wrote do these defeatists not understand?

Why would we purposely follow a policy that would result in a major setback against our plans to defeat terrorism?

Are we as a nation really that stupid?

Cartoon of the Day

Here's yet ANOTHER example

....of how the "Progressives" show their belief in free speech.

Excerpt:

"Johnson told a group of conservative bloggers at The Heritage Foundation that he heard from hundreds of angry callers, many of whom used profane language. The research center’s vice president, whose phone number was listed on the Web page, eventually had to change her number when the attacks became so persistent and threatening.

The phone blitz was only one avenue liberals used to intimidate. Johnson said his organization received thousands of e-mails, the vast majority of them negative and hate-filled."

Just one more in the long line of incidents in the "Free speech for me, but not for thee" lefty watchers' notebook.

Apologize for Slavery?

Why?

Who benefited from slavery?

Exactly who TODAY actually benefits from slavery, and the "apologies" forthcoming in different areas?

Noteworthy:


"The effort to get apologies for injustices committed decades and centuries ago emanates from the view of activists as superior to their predecessors. It is the shout of the child to the parent: 'Apologize!'"


"It is also a way to keep their status visible and to continue victimhood in order to continue such policies as affirmative action, an idea that directly contradicts notions of fairness and universal rights."


"But rather than using the examples of their forebears as inspiration, many blacks and their white liberal exploiters, capitalize on slavery for their own advancement. If anything, the black descendants ought to criticize how the white elite have used the legacy of slavery to their own advantage, to cull political favor, to position themselves as superior to others in their own race, to write the books that publishers want and that will earn them royalty checks and gain them tenure."



"Face it: It’s the elites who want to live off the capital of slaves in one way or another. The agitation for apologies reeks of insincerity and self-promotion.

It’s time to move on. Black descendants should display some of the dignity of their forebears. White elites should finally do some real, productive work."



Exactly so.

It's time for certain elements in our media, government, and society in general to STOP PLAYING RACIAL POLITCS. both nationally and especially locally here in Greensboro and Guilford County.

"Stewards" of the public money.

Sam Hieb blogged about the defeat of the Guilford County commissioners' attempt to ask the state to allow them to increase the sales tax by one percent.

Billy Yow's "cover your butt" comment certainly reduces the matter to the basic truth.

Elected officials of all stripes think that the public funds are theirs to "eat" without recourse. They know there's always more to be had. There always is.

Feeding at the public trough is an instinctive habit for certain animals, isn't it?

Valerie Wilson's testimony before Congress

Was she lying about certain things?

Excerpt:

"Did Plame lie to the House committee today, or does that question hinge on the meaning of the word “recommend,” or the meaning of the word “suggest,” or the meaning of the words “did not”?"

Also, there's this (from a comment):

"There are other problems with her testimony today. She said something about everyone on the “Georgetown Cocktail Circuit” knowing she was an “agent”.

This corresponds to what Andrea Mitchell said several years ago, and corroborates testimony from a old friend, a veteran of the inside Washington political/social scene, who said that Ms. Wilson's occupation was common knowledge, information that he had personally heard several different times before any of this became an issue.

UPDATE:

Byron York asks several questions that should have been asked of Ms. Wilson.

FURTHER UPDATE:

...from Flopping Aces.

Advance notice for those who are interested

The line is drawn.


UPDATE: March of the Moonbats

....once again, from Flopping Aces.

"Mother" Sheehan will be there.

Play the video. It's funny......

Quote of the Day, "global warming" department

"Unless we know how the greenhouse-limiting properties of precipitation systems change with warming, we don't know how much of our current warmth is due to mankind, and we can't estimate how much future warming there will be, either. To solve the global-warming puzzle, we first need to learn much more about the precipitation-system puzzle.

What little evidence we now have suggests that precipitation systems act as a natural thermostat to reduce warming."

Roy W. Spencer

Principal research scientist at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center of the National Space Science and Technology Center.

As quoted here, in this article about climate models.

Notable:

"The practical experience of numerical modeling in allied fields such as semiconductor process modeling should cause us to question the claimed accuracy for Global Climate Models. The UN's distortion of historical climate data should further undermine our faith in climate models because such models can only be 'tested' against accurate historical data."

Debunking the myths about our war with terrorism

To sum it up, "Either we are serious about fighting the war on terror, or we are not".

As usual, the VPOTUS gets it right. Contrast that to the Usual Suspects, locally and nationally, who do not.

UPDATE

NRO exposes the "Let's Lose Now" crowd.

Noteworthy:

"The bill does succeed in showing the emptiness of Pelosi’s claim that her Democrats support U.S. troops even as they oppose the war. The message is: We don’t believe you should be there; we don’t believe you can win (even as the surge shows early signs of progress); so be warned that we mean to pull the rug out from under you as soon as we can get away with it.

Trying to avoid giving this impression, Pelosi has filled the bill with billions of dollars for veterans’ health care, new armored vehicles, and military operations in Afghanistan. But these gestures should — and probably will — ring hollow. They are on the order of buying a man a nice dinner after you have burned down his house."

"Shattering Three Myths about Liberals"

John Hawkins has the details.


Excerpts:

"Meanwhile, another study from a professor at Stanford showed that Democrats were prejudiced about whom they chose to donate money to after Katrina,

'But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority....(While Republican) responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues.'"



"Just as robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't compassion, taking tax dollars from one person and giving that money to another isn't compassion either. Giving your own time and your own money to help other people? That's real compassion and liberals just don't measure up to conservatives in that area,

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of 'Who Really Cares,"'says that 'when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more.' He adds, 'And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money.'

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood."

"The truth is that adult stem cells are far more promising than embryonic stem cells as a potential cure for disease. While adult stem cells have already been used to cure a significant number of diseases, embryonic stem cells haven't even made it to their first human trial yet. That's why there is such a push to acquire taxpayer funds -- because private companies don't think embryonic stem cells are worth the investment.

But, because the left can dupe desperate people like Michael J. Fox into accusing conservatives of withholding a cure from them for religious reasons, they're willing to keep pushing embryonic stem cells for the sake of politics, even though taxpayer money would be much better spent on adult stem cell research.

Sure, there are conservatives who have objections to embryonic stem cells on religious grounds, but isn't the fact that embryonic stem cells don't merit taxpayer funding in the first place a much bigger issue?"

Fred Singer zings the GW True Believers

...in this PBS interview.

Noteworthy:

"...I'm not a great believer in buying insurance if the risks are small and the premiums are high. Nobody in his right mind would do that. But this is the case here. We're being asked to buy an insurance policy against a risk that is very small, if at all, and pay a very heavy premium. We're being asked to reduce energy use, not just by a few percent but, according to the Kyoto Protocol, by about 35 percent within ten years. That means giving up one-third of all energy use, using one-third less electricity, throwing out one-third of all cars perhaps. It would be a huge dislocation of our economy, and it would hit people very hard, particularly people who can least afford it.

For what? All the Kyoto Protocol would do is to slightly reduce the current rate of increase of carbon dioxide. And in fact, the UN Science Advisory Group has published their results. And they clearly show that the Kyoto Protocol would reduce, if it went into effect and were punctiliously observed by all of the countries that have to observe it--by the year 2050, --about 50 years from now--it would reduce the calculated temperature increase by .05 degrees Centigrade. That amount is not even measurable. So this is what you are being asked to buy."



"...And certainly China and India, particularly China, will continue to increase its carbon dioxide emissions, no matter what we do. And this will soon dominate the world emissions, probably by the year 2010, at least by the year 2020. And beyond this, it really doesn't matter what we do. It will be determined by how many people are living in China and India, how much energy they consume, and whether or not they use coal or other fossil fuels. I think that's a given. "


"Supposing carbon dioxide does increase by a factor of four, five--mention any number you wish. What has happened in the past? We have geologic evidence that carbon dioxide levels were twenty times as large during the fossil record as in the last 600 million years, and have been decreasing steadily. So carbon dioxide levels have been decreasing. The earth has experienced much, much higher levels than we have today, without any apparent ill effects, because life developed quite well. In fact, it blossomed forth at the beginning of the Cambrian period.

And the only thing we are concerned about is carbon dioxide levels becoming too low, because if carbon dioxide levels were to fall below, let's say, one-half of the present level, as they almost did during the last ice age...if they were to fall below one-half of the present level, then plants would be in real trouble. After all, carbon dioxide is plant food. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plants would disappear. And so would animals. And so would human beings. In other words, we do have a stake, a vested interest in making sure that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not fall to low levels. High levels of carbon dioxide should not concern us. They will make plants grow faster. They will make agriculture become more productive. They will encourage more diversity of animals, and they'll make for a better life for human beings. Obviously, lower costs for food, more food, is a better situation than higher costs and less food."




"Well, when you start talking about the question of scientific consensus, I think one should be very careful to say, first of all, that science is not decided by vote. I don't take a poll and then determine what is the correct answer. Science is decided by observations that either confirm or deny a theory, a hypothesis. And if they confirm the theory, you go on to the next set of observations and see whether it still holds. And if it works against the hypothesis, you try to develop a new hypothesis.

That's how science makes progress.

And, in fact, historically, every bit of scientific progress has come about because the observations or the experimental facts did not support the current theory. And, usually, these new experiments were done by a small group, or the new theory was proposed by a single individual, even. Take Albert Einstein, as an example, against the great opposition of the large scientific community. But science is a wonderful subject. It works itself out. The truth eventually emerges. So, this is my preface.


In the climate business, the situation is more complicated because there are also political factors involved, and frankly, there's also money involved. This is an unusual situation. There's no politics attached to the theory of relativity, for example. But there is to climate science. There are no large sums of money attached to relativity, but there are to climate science.

The federal government pumps about $2 billion a year into climate research. Now, this money has to be spent by someone. It supports a lot of jobs. It supports a lot of people. And inevitably, many of these people begin to feel that what they're doing is tremendously important and vital. Otherwise, they couldn't really live with themselves. They've talked themselves into the fact that the work they're doing is somehow helping humanity deal with some kind of a problem."

"I think climate science is on its way to becoming pathological, to becoming abnormal in the sense that it is being guided by the money that's being made available to people. I don't blame people for accepting money. And the people who take the money and do research, by and large, are doing very competent research. [But] you'll find them very careful not to speak out against the global warming "threat"--(I'm putting "threat" in quotes, of course. And you'll find also that when they do speak out, as many of them do, they suffer consequences. They lose support. And I can give you examples of that. Or they have other consequences that are equally disagreeable. And if you're a young professor at a university and want to get tenure, or if you want to get a permanent academic position, you must do published research. And to do published research, you must write proposals to get money to do the research. So you're locked into a vicious spiral here. You have to go along with the current wisdom that global warming is a threat. Otherwise, you're not going to get the job that you want."



"Let me say something about this idea of scientific consensus. Well, you really shouldn't go by numbers. I think it's significant to straighten out misconceptions. One misconception is that 2,500 IPCC scientists agree that global warming is coming, and it's going to be two degrees Centigrade by the year 2100. That's just not so. In the first place, if you count the names in the IPCC report, it's less than 2,000. If you count the number of climate scientists, it's about 100. If you then ask how many of them agree, the answer is: You can't tell because there was never a poll taken. These scientists actually worked on the report. They agree with the report, obviously, in particular with the chapter that they wrote. They do not necessarily agree with the summary, because the summary was written by a different group, a handful of government scientists who had a particular point of view, and they extracted from the report those facts that tended to support their point of view."


Is it really any wonder why those who are so heavily vested in the "scientific consensus" about "anthropogenic global warming" belief system hate this man so much?

Regarding the nonsense fomented by the Libby verdict

It's obvious the verdict is a travesty of justice, but that won't stop the Usual Suspects and their Usual Blather.

Notable:

"The defense might have been better off taking on Mr. Fitzgerald for criminalizing political differences.

For that, in essence, is what this case is really all about. We learned long ago--and Mr. Fitzgerald knew from the start of his probe in 2003--that Mr. Libby was not the source of the leak to columnist Robert Novak that started all this. Mr. Libby thus had no real motive to cover up this non-crime. What he did have strong cause to do was rebut the lies that Mr. Wilson was telling about the Administration and Mr. Cheney--lies confirmed as lies by a bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004."

"None of this has stopped critics of the war from trying to blow this entire case into something far larger. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hailed the conviction as proof that the White House tried to 'manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics.' But the charges against Mr. Libby had nothing to do with intelligence, and Mr. Wilson was himself so discredited by summer 2004 that the John Kerry campaign dropped him as a spokesman once the Senate exposed his deceit."

"

Nine Facts about Global Warming

....from the Lavoisier Group.

(hat tip: Fred Gregory)

These facts are particularly important when considering the usual nonsense from the True Believers on some blogs' golbal warming threads.


1. Climate change is a constant. The Vostok Ice Cores show five brief interglacial periods from 415,000 years ago to the present. The Greenland Ice Cores reveal a Minoan Warm Period 1450–1300 BC, a Roman Warm Period 250–0 BC, the Mediaeval Warm Period 800–1100AD, the Little Ice Age and the late 20th Century Warm Period 1900–2010 AD.


2. Carbon dioxide is necessary for all life on earth and increasing atmospheric concentrations are beneficial to plant growth, particularly in arid conditions. Because the radiation properties of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are already saturated, increasing atmospheric concentrations beyond current levels will have no discernible effect on global temperatures.


3. The twentieth century was almost as warm as the centuries of the Mediaeval Warm Period, an era of great achievement in European civilisation. The recent warm period, 1976–2000, appears to have come to an end and astro-physicists who study sunspot behaviour predict that the next 25–50 years could be a cool period similar to the Dalton Minimum of the 1790s-1820s.


4. The evidence linking anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide emissions and current warming is limited to a correlation which holds only for the period 1976 to 2000. Attempts to construct an holistic theory in which atmospheric carbon dioxide controls the radiation balance of the earth, and thus determines average global temperatures, have failed.


5. The anthropogenists claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists are agreed on the anthropogenic carbon dioxide theory of climate control; that the science is settled and the debate is over; and that scientific sceptics are in the pay of the fossil fuel industries and their arguments are thus fatally compromised.

These claims are an expression of hope, not of reality.


6. Anthropogenists such as former US Vice President Al Gore blame anthropogenic emissions of CO2 for high temperatures, droughts, melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels and retreating glaciers, and a decline in the polar bear population. They also blame anthropogenic CO2 for blizzards, unseasonable snow, freezing
weather generally and for hurricanes, cyclones and other extreme weatherevents. There is no evidence at all to justify these assertions.


7. Increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will have negligible impact on the earth’s radiation balance and will promote plant growth everywhere.
There is no need to sequester CO2 in the ground or to subsidise nuclear or other non-carbon based methods of energy production.


8. ‘Tropical’ diseases such as malaria and dengue fever are not related to temperature but to poverty, lack of sanitation and the absence of mosquito control practices.


9. The decarbonisation of the world’s economy would, if attempted, cause huge economic dislocation. Any democratic government which seriously sought to fulfil decarbonisation commitments would lose office. Shutting down coal-fired power stations and replacing them with renewable energy sources such as windmills or solar panels will cause unemployment and economic deprivation.

"Seven Steps To Hell"

These comparisons should disturb you.

http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/p_hollrah/03032007.htm

(hat tip: jaycee)

Yvonne Johnson and Goldie Wells have no comment

... on the Bellamy-Small/Gatten embarrassment.

That's a good thing.

Ever since the nonsense started over what David Wray didn't do, our city government, its elected officials, and the city's upper management employees have done nothing but drag us down into the cesspool of partisan/racial politics and high level corruption.

I'm glad to see that Johnson and Wells resisted making an abominable situation worse.

If only the Pulpit Forum and their supporters had done the same thing......

Mike Barber's analysis is right.

Ready for your big tax increase?

It's coming.....hide and watch.

Conclusion:

"While many in Congress have publicly espoused the laudable goal of restraining spending, which would slow the growing financial burden on current and future generations, they should not pay for new spending by raising taxes. Instead, Congress should focus on limiting federal spending and restraining the growth in entitlement costs. The three tax increases would harm the economy and subject too many taxpayers to significantly higher marginal tax rates, with millions suffering the triple whammy."

Edwards sticks his foot in his mouth....again!

I almost missed this little nugget in NRO .

Excerpt:

"Edwards: 'Perhaps the Greatest Short-Term Threat to World Peace Is the Possibility That Israel Would Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities.'"



As time goes by, it's apparent that Edwards is not the shapest blade in the progressive knife collection. This is just the latest example of that truth.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats

Even though you may think you know the difference, here's a real world example.

(hat tip: Mr. Produce)


A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the streetwhen they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept $15 for administrative fees and gave the homeless person five.