Obama, A Lie Repeated A Thousand Times is Still a Lie

Obama is starting early on his Climate Crusade. At yesterday's "Climate Summit" he stated (via video) the following:

The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We've seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season. Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.

The problem is, NONE of these are true.

Take rising sea levels, for instance. The truth is we're at the low ebb from 240 million years ago, and the rate of change is modest at best, and completely independent of any activity of mankind.

There is ample evidence that all the other items cited are equally bogus.

Once again I call for a modern-day Scopes Trial where the case for and against man-made climate change is made before a jury of laymen.

I have found every time rational human beings are provided with ALL the facts, both pro and con, inevitably they come away more skeptical of the global warming hype than when they went in.

Which is why there is so much effort being applied to stifling the debate ("The debate is over." Al Gore)

Now the global warming alarmists have a cheerleader in the highest office in the land. But regardless of who says it, or how many times it is said, a lie will always be a lie.

Civics 101 in the 3rd Grade

From a grade-school teacher:

We are worried about "the cow" when it is all about the "Ice Cream"

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president.

We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.

To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.

The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother.

The day arrived when they were to make their speeches Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium.

Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down. The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."

She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn't know. The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream.

Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide.

Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream, and fifty percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other fifty percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess.

Where Are They Now?

Here is a quick look into three former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street.

Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregulaties in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years." Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.

Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits.

The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ . The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner." These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.

Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,"

On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.

Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!


Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae.

Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.


WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

FRANKLIN RAINES?
Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor

TIM HOWARD?
Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama

JIM JOHNSON?
Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee

(Our thanks to whoever put this together! For more information about the results of the actions of these individuals, plus shedding some light about who in Congress let them get by with it, see this article.)

Terrestrial Energy

I just finished reading a recently-released book entitled "Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Energy Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey" by William Tucker.

The title tips you off to the premise of the book, but if you're anti-nuke, don't let that deter you from at least learning about the alternatives to nuclear. This book has the most comprehensive coverage of ALL our energy options, both historically and today, than any I've run across.

Those options include oil, shale oil, natural gas, coal, coal gasification, hydro, wind, solar and all are treated in a very even-handed, pro vs. con manner.

I was initially somewhat skeptical of the premise when it appeared he was buying into the man-made global warm hype. But I must say his discussion of BOTH sides of the global warming debate was the most comprehensive and unbiased I've read. Kudos to the author for being willing to wade into that quagmire and do so without overly tilting the scale towards his bias.

Equally important is the fact he doesn't try to shy away from or sweep under the rug the two events that have done the most damage to nuclear power's image: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

He tackles both head-on and honestly reveals the shortcomings, both technologically as well as the human factors, that resulted in those accidents. He also addresses what's been done to make sure those types of accidents cannot happen again, at least in the responsible free world.

If you have an interest in our current energy predicament, you need to read this book. It will poke holes in alot of the myths perpetrated by the greenies (both for alternatives and against nuclear) and will leave you with an honest assessment of all our options.

Highly recommended.

Al Gore's New Movie: Supernova

Colin Powell Continues Break with Republicans

Colin Powells recent endorsement of Obama continues his long-time break with the Republican party.

As a career military man, it's hard to understand his alignment with the party committed to dismantling our military, both in material assets and in morale.

He cites Obama as a "transformational figure" as a basis for his endorsement. If by that he means someone who might transform America the Republic into America the Socialist state, I would have to agree. Beyond that Obama is just your traditional Chicago-mob politician brought to a national scale.

As the former Secretary of State, Obama's stated positions on critical foreign policy matters (i.e. no pre-conditions to meeting with Iran, Iran as a "tiny" state that poses no threat to the U.S., etc.) should be enough to recognize any "transformation" will not be for the better.

At one point Powell was looked upon as a potential presidential candidate. That may still be (he's far more qualified for the position than Obama will likely ever be), but at this point it would pretty difficult to win support from any Republican. But I suspect Republican support is the last thing on Powell's mind these days.

Palin on SNL: Lending some Class to the Classless

Twenty years ago, I was a huge Saturday Night Live fan. Back in the day of Belushi and Akroyd, it was hilarious. It exuded creativity and talent.

Watching it tonight for the first time in years, I was struck by how far it has fallen from its former greatness.

The majority of it isn't even funny. Much of it smacks of Jr. High study hall humor.

I mean, really....an entire skit built around calling each other "fart face." Wow. Creative.

That said, I must say Palin came off as extremely polished. She was funny, gracious, pretty and so dang likable.

I'm sure her appearance drew massive crowds of Lefties hoping to see her make a fool of herself. Instead, they saw a very cool, very poised woman who exuded class while still coming off as very down-to-earth.

It's gotta be driving them nuts about now.

Go, Sarah, go!

(P.S. This episode of SNL had the highest ratings in 14 years! Do you think there's some interest in Palin?)

McCain's Missed Opportunities

It's so frustrating.

You see a beautiful hanging curvball drifting right toward McCain's bat and he just stands there readjusting his bat as the ump calls another strike.

The most recent missed opportunites were last night on David Letterman.

First, Dave made a quip about his show not being important. That one was ripe for a good swat out of the park. (Letterman's show is NOT that important!) But instead, McCain just smiled and apologized.

Oh, well.

But then he missed the the best opportunity.

Letterman jumped on the leftist rant about Sarah Palin's qualifications and whether if, God forbid, something should happen to McCain would she be ready to step into the Presidency?

McCain launched in the same old, true but boring rhetoric he's used before, describing her history as a reformer who stood up to her own party's governor.

What he SHOULD have done was simply point out that she had more executive experience that he, Obama and Biden have combined. If people think Obama's qualified, Palin should be considered triple-qualified.

What a shame. Time and time again he's offered up these great opportunities to point out the true weaknesses on the other side while highlighting the strengths of his side, and he squanders them.

Is this some misguided attempt to be Mr. Nice Guy?

Someone needs to remind him that Nice Guys often do finish last.

Obama: Blame Bush for Obscene Profits

I just heard a clip of Obama decrying the record profits of the oil companies under Bush.

As if Bush had one iota of influence over the world's oil markets!

Only a socialist liberal can find fault with publicly held companies realizing record profits for the benefit of their shareholders.

Here's a couple of quick facts to consider: From 1980 to 2005 the oil companies paid $2.2 Trillion dollars in taxes.

Those taxes amounted to three times the profits for the same period of time.

So, when you hear Obama complaining about the oil companies' profits remember that the government has taken $3 from them for every $1 they distributed to their shareholders.

So who is it that's really raking in the "obscene" profits?

Lesson Learned From Campaign Signs

Consistent with every previous political season, our landscape today is littered with campaign signs for politicians of every flavor. You get a sense of a particular neighborhood by the distribution of opposing signs.

But I've been noting a troubling trend over the last few weeks.

I'm noticing an amazing number of McCain/Palin posters that are either defaced or physically damaged. I keep looking for similar signs of vandalism on Obama signs but have yet to see one that has been defaced.

I've also been reading and hearing of McCain/Palin signs being stolen from yards. Three first-hand accounts have been shared with me, and I've heard similar tales told by callers on both local and national talk radio programs.

I think therein lies a lesson.

In spite of all their talk about being the party of tolerance and diversity, the reality is that Democrats as a whole are a whole lot less tolerant of different view points than the Republicans.

It also points to a moral deficit in many (not all, but many) of those who adhere to the Democrat point of view.

I guess you could argue that it's consistent with their overall attitude that what's theirs is theirs and what's yours is theirs, too. If they can take your money from you at the point of a gun, why not your campaign signs?

It bodes ill for a Democrat controlled government. Hold onto your wallet.

Understanding Community Organizers

So what exactly is a "Community Organizer?" That question has been asked time and time again since Barack Obama arrived on the national political scene using that experience as the basis for his qualificaitons to be President of the United States.

Lately we're learning more about "community organizers" through a community organizer association with ties to Obama. The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) has been making headlines again recently, enlightening America to what a "community organizer" really does.

It seems the job of a community organizer is to round up homeless people and drug addicts and drag them to the polls to vote for their favorite liberal candidate. ACORN is now being investigated in a dozen states for blatant voter fraud. The number of irregularities is mounting up.

In Nevada, they were registering the entire Dallas Cowboys football team to vote in Nevada....despite none of them actually living, or even being, in Nevada!

Now, that's some very creative community organizing!

Seems to me Barack is bringing good old Chicago-style politics to the national level.

Chicago for years has been notorious for entire graveyards voting a straight Democratic ticket year after year after year.

When I was on the faculty of a Chicago law school back in the late 80's a colleague said that out of random curiousity she did a check of her precinct voting records. She was surprised to find her ex-husband had continued to vote a straight Democratic ticket each of the previous dozen or so years since their divorce, despite the fact he had relocated to another state shortly after their divorce.

You have to appreciate people who truly value the democratic principles upon which our republic was founded. Little things like the sanctity of the vote, etc.

Once again, Obama is showing us he represents "change", but not the kind of change anyone who loves this country actually wants or needs.

The Truth About the Current Financial Crisis

Here, in their own words, is the truth about who in Congress actually caused the current financial crisis:

Change you can believe in? Hardly.

Obama is trying to convince us that he would affect real change in our financial markets and that McCain would just be "more of the same."

The problem is, we actually have a record here to look back upon and see how each actually acts when they're not on the campaign trail.

I listened to a recording of John McCain in 2005 speaking on the floor of the Senate. He was decrying the lack of oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and introducing a bill to reign in their free-wheeling (and questionable) activities.

So, did Obama cross the proverbial aisle and stand with McCain in calling for reform?

Uh, no.

Instead, he voted with Biden and the rest of his forward-thinking Democrats to maintain the status quo and protect the F&F thieves from any further oversight.

Obama then continued to take money from Freddie and Fannie....over $120,000, an amount second only to fellow Democrat senator Chris Dodd. That's not bad, considering Dodd has been in the Senate six times longer than Obama, yet Big O has pulled in almost as much money!

Hillary had it right in the primaries: "This isn't change you can believe in. This is change you can Xerox!"

Jill Greenberg, A disgrace to her profession

Professional photographer Jill Greenberg has crossed a line I never imagined of a true professional. She has used images captured under contract by a client to portray that subject in a horribly disparaging way.

Not only is this a gross betrayal of the client-photographer trust, it is an egregious betrayal of a photographer-subject trust.

When a person entrusts me with something as personal as their visage, I view that as a sacred trust they've placed in me to show them in the most favorable light. Even if I've been contracted by a third-party for those images, I believe there is a professional obligation to the person portrayed to, at a minimum, not depict them in a negative light.

Yet Greenberg has chosen to take images of John McCain and Photoshop them into some grotesque political statement that is apparently rattling around in her small, feeble brain.

I guess to some this isn't a surprise. She's been known to abuse children in an effort to capture their tearful response as some reflection of her political angst. This is an apparent symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome as pointed out by Michelle Malkin.

But the fact that it may not surprise does not in any way justify this wanton breach of professional ethics.

Unfortunately, this is all too consistent with the deranged ethics of many on the left. There simply are no taboos, much less professional ethics. It's a sad commentary on the left and the times in which we live.

I hope McCain sues the lenses off her camera. I also hope this gives future clients serious pause before considering hiring Greenberg. It should also give future prospective subjects pause in considering sitting in front of her camera. They may be the next victim of her misguided angst.

Palin comes out swinging

After taking a pummeling by the press, tonight Sarah Palin came out swinging. While I'm sure her remarks will be trashed by the liberal left, I think she's going to connect with a significant segment of middle America.

Face it, presidential elections aren't decided by the radical left or the ultra-conservatives. They are decided by a small segment that sits in the middle, and I think Sarah is going to resonate with many of them.

She's bright, articulate and feisty....all the things the left usually likes, unless that feistiness is directed towards their liberal agenda. She's a small-town girl who's accomplished big things in a state crucial to America's future energy needs.

I think she's a perfect compliment to John McCain and has rallyed the conservative base that heretofore was at risk of sitting out this election. That would have surely handed the election to the Democrats' Community Organizer In Chief.

The fear with which the left views Sarah is evident by their aggressive attacks on her and her family since she was introduced to America at large. Tonight she proved she's an able combatant and isn't going to shy away from the fight. Good for her.

Go, Sarah, go!

McCain Comes Through

It's no secret that I have not been a big fan of John McCain. The only one lower on my list during the primaries was Ron Paul. It wasn't because I necessarily disagreed with all of Paul's ideas, but more because the guy comes off as a nut case. It's hard to take him seriously.

McCain, to me, represented everything that's gone wrong with the Republican party...a complete loss of conservative principles. For me, the label "maverick" could just as easily be exchanged for "disloyal."

Consequently, I haven't been too engaged in the current political process other than as a casual observer, while cautiously awaiting McCain's VP choice. For me, everything hinged on that selection.

The hubbub that swirled around his decision-making process didn't leave much hope.

Choosing Joe Lieberman would have only confirmed that McCain is really just a Democrat in an old elephant suit.

Talk of Tim Pawlenty wasn't much improvement. We Minnesota conservatives haven't been impressed with his performance, and his misguided views on energy policy and global warming have all but written him off in my book.

I hadn't heard of Sarah Palin until Newt Gingrich mentioned her name and gave a brief bio on a political talk show a few months ago. She sounded interesting, but her name never surfaced in recent discussions of McCain's vetting process.

So when he announced her selection yesterday, then gave us a chance to see and hear her first-hand, I was blown away.

Here's a woman who's bright, articulate, beautiful and has an impressive track record. She's run and won at the local level, then the state level. She's stood up to the "old boy" networks and special interests and stared them down. She's lived out her faith and values in an impressive manner. And all this was accomplished while being a devoted wife and mother.

Now the democrats are trying to shift the focus from Obama's inexperience (I mean, seriously, talk about a completely empty suit) to Palin's experience.

I don't think it will work.

Her track record of accomplishments if far more impressive than his. She had been serving in elected office five years before Obama stumbled into the Illinois legislature. She was taking stands and making decisions while Obama was voting "present" on difficult issues (130 times) rather taking a stand he could be held accountable for later on.

As a Governor, the buck stopped at her desk. Gov. Mike Huckabee said recently that as a governor one has to make more command decisions in a day than a typical year in Congress where things languish through endless committee hearings before any decisions are ever made.

McCain's selection of Palin has energized the Republican base like no other candidate I can imagine. I'm energized....even willing to contribute once again to the RNC! Just knowing someone with her values and judgement will have the ear of John McCain gives me hope, and I will work for her election.

Maybe there's hope afterall.

Imagine There's No Global Warming

This is from our fellow deniers at "Minnesotans for Global Warming"! Check out their website for some more hilarious music videos.

The Dangers of Politicizing Science

I just finished Michael Crichton's "State Fear", a highly recommended action/thriller that will keep you turning pages as quickly as you can.

But as good as the books is, I found his first appendix essay very thought-provoking. It's entitled Why Politicized Science is Dangerous and I was happy to see he has posted it as an essay on his website.

In it Michael traces several instances where science has been politicized with massively tragic results for mankind. The parallels to today's global warming issue are frightening.

I encourage you to take a few moments to check it out.

Climatology vs. Climatism: A Must Read!

I've just read one of the most insightful articles on the reality of global warming that I've ever run across, entitled "Climatology Versus Climatism" by Vinod K. Dar.

A couple of quotes:

Climatology is a science. Climatism is an ideology. Climatologists are scientists. Climatists are social or political organizers who abuse climatology in the service of ideologues. Climatology was and still is an investigation of nature. Climatism is the exploitation of the fear of nature to gain power, wealth and social esteem.

...

As the prospects for successfully implementing the program diminish, vast temper tantrums, fantastic accusations and staggering lies will be deployed to intimidate voters and politicians into submission. Screaming often works.

If that doesn't hit the Jim Hansen nail right on the head!! I'd highly recommend this article to all my readers.

The headlines are scary...could the alarmists be right?

"The outlook abroad is more than usually gloomy. Storms, floods and hurricanes seem to be completing the devastation which unseasonable weather began. In the United States and Canada the heat is unusually severe, and numerous deaths are already reported by sunstroke, this early in the season."

"In Europe, this year so far has been unusually disastrous, and there has been large losses of life and property by flood and fire. We have had the most distressing accounts of the floods in Hungary and elsewhere, the eruption of Mount Etna, the ravages of life by plague subsequent to the war, the famine pestilence in India; and now comes the prospect of cholera in Russia."

OMG! Catastrophe is looming! What shall we do??

Oops....wait a minute. I'm sorry. My mistake. Those paragraphs were taken from the North Star and St. John's Newfoundland News....dated July 19th, 1879. Bill Westcott ran across the articles and wrote a good piece covering this and comparing it to the hype of today.

When will people step back, take a collective breath and look at history? If they do they'll quickly realize that Yogi had it right: "This is like Déjà vu all over again!"

Curious Anomolies in Climate Science

I ran acros an interesting site that tells the tortuous journey of an AGW alarmist to a more enlightened postion of skeptic! It is entitled "Curious Anomolies in Climate Science" and is a nice, relatively succinct discourse of the history and science behind the AGW debate with lots of links to other sources.

Since my neighbor recently expressed an interest in knowing more about the subject (after reading a Letter to the Editor I wrote in our local newspaper), I'm going to pass along this as a great starting point for learning about the issue. Check it out.

Another Perspective on Big Oil Profits

This blurb came from the Vancouver Sun:

Exxon earned more than $128 million a day, or nearly $1,500 every second during the quarter. The company said that was after it paid $4,100 a second in taxes and $14,700 a second in expenses to run the business.

So the government get's almost $3 for every $1 Exxon's stockholders get! And that's BEFORE the government collects all the additional taxes from consumers at the pump.

So, with none of the risk the investors have endured, the gov't takes almost 75% of the profit!

But that isn't enough for Obama. He now wants to take a big chunk of the 25% the stockholders had left and distribute it to Americans via another stimulus check!

Democratic greed knows no bounds.

Big Oil's "Excessive" Profits

Glenn Beck makes an enlightening observation in his show today:

Big oil is getting hammered right now by Congress over their profits. But guess who profits more from the oil industry than even the oil industry? Yes, your government. According to the Tax Foundation, from 1977-2004, big oil made $643 billion in profits. Nice. During that same span, Federal and State governments made $1.343 TRILLION in tax revenues from big oil. Nicer. I think your liberal friends might be mad at the wrong people here.

Last time I looked those obscene profits were going to retired teachers, firefighters and a lot of average Joe Citizens like you and I who happen to have IRAs and 401Ks. Seems like the gov't has managed to grab $2 of our money for every dollar we got! What's wrong with THAT picture?

Then the Democratic Messiah, Barack Obama, has the gall to suggest adding MORE "windfall profits" taxes to their already high taxes. I'm convinced most Democrats won't be happy until all money earned by everyone goes to the government, letting them decide how we live.

Al Franken: Another Bad Joke from Minnesota

Having been born in Minnesota, and spending much of my adult life here, I continue to be embarrassed by some of the candidates we manage to scrape up to run for public office.

Granted, most of the buffoons come from the ranks of Democrats and Independents (who can forget Jesse "The Body" Ventura), but the Republicans have not been completely immune (Sen. Coleman comes to mind, but keep in mind he's really just a Democrat in remission.)

The most recent Bad Joke brought to us by the DFL is comedian Al Franken.

He was never all that funny as a comedian, and he's even less impressive as a politican.

His most recent stroke of brillance is his idea for addressing the high cost of gas by selling 50 million barrels of oil from the strategic oil reserves.

Hmmm....let's see. We use 20 million barrels a day here in the U.S.A., so this is about 2.5 days worth of gas.

Of course, like all good Democrats, he's against actually getting more oil through drilling off-shore or in ANWR, claiming it will take 20 years to see the benefits.

For some reason, the pay-off time on oil exploration continues to grow among Democrats. Ten years ago Clinton opposed drilling for more oil because it would take ten years to see any oil.

Gee...seems like we'd be realizing those benefits right about now! Way to go, Clinton! (That's alright, Bill. We know you had your mind on other things back then. How's Monica doing, by the way?)

What don't these idiots understand about "speculation"? It's not based on what the oil supplies are today! It's based on what they "speculate" they'll be in the future! If we're aggressively going after MORE oil for the future, the speculators will bid down the price TODAY!!

None of them were bright enough notice the immediate drop in oil prices as soon as Bush rescinded the executive order banning off-shore drilling. That drop occurred without ONE new well being drilled!

If a largely symbolic gesture by the President gets that kind of immediate result, just imagine what actual congressional action to open up more oil exploration would do?

Unfortunately, the inmates are running the asylum these days, and are effectively blocking any and all rational attempts to work our way out of this energy crisis.

Al Franken wants to join them to bring us more of the same. I'm not laughing, Al.

True American Immigrants

The following is an excellent Letter-to-the-Editor that was refused publication for being politically-incorrect. I think it's worth sharing and preserving. Thank you, Rosemary, for saying it so eloquently:

Dear Editor:

So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1892 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented . Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan . They were defending the United States of America as one people.

When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are in 2008 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges, only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in 1892 -1924 deserve better than that for all the toil , hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the UNITED STATES just yet.

(Signed) Rosemary LaBonte

Green Movement Causing Global Warming

No, I am not referring to all the hot air they produce.

I'm referring to a new article appearing in NewScientist.com which says that three decades of cleaning up the air in Europe has allowed more sunshine in, leading to higher than expected warming:

Christian Ruckstuhl of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Switzerland and colleagues took aerosol concentrations from six locations in northern Europe, measured between 1986 and 2005, and compared them with solar-radiation measurements over the same period. Aerosol concentrations dropped by up to 60 per cent over the 29-year period, while solar radiation rose by around 1 watt per square metre.

I for one am highly supportive of all efforts towards cleaner air. But why can't the global warming alarmists honest enough to admit ALL the causes for the small amount of warming we've seen?

"Green" Quote of the Week

An an excellent article by J.R. Dunne entitled "How the Greens Captured Energy Policy" he concludes with this:

Environmentalism is a luxury, and like all such, is best taken in moderation. The environment requires protection, but that's all. Primitive panthiesm has no place in this millennium. Nature is not an utterly benign continuum, and human beings are not a disease. Pseudo-religious environmentalism has long outlived its welcome. It's time to bring down the curtain.

The True Standard for a Scientist

There's a good article on American Thinker exposing how NASA's James Hansen has lined his pockets with "Big Green" payola while holding himself out as a mere scientist in public service.

In the comments to that article, Pat Heyman contrasts Jim Hansen's public posturing with the standard of conduct espoused by the late nobel laureate Richard Feynman who said:

"It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty -- a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid -- not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked -- to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can -- if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong -- to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another...

I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well", I said, "there aren't any". He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind". I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing -- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish at all. That's not giving scientific advice."

When compared to this standard, James Hansen falls a million miles short of the mark.

The Religion of Global Warming

Many believe all humans have a physical, a mental and a spiritual component to their lives. The left has not historically been much inclined towards religion or anything related to it. But it would seem global waming is filling this possible void in their lives.

An excellent piece on this idea appears in the Wall Street Journal today, penned by Bret Stephens. It's worth a read to put into perspective the religion of global warming.

James Hanson: An Ego that Knows No Bounds

In a recent article on the Hugginton Post celebrating his 20th anniversary appearance before congress, James Hanson carries on his unending rant about man-made global warming. As always, it's an imminent "global catclysm", a "perfect storm".

But what is most amazing is he asserts that "Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent."

Exceeding 99 percent.

In other words, a virtual certainty. Beyond question.

Yet, there are NO empirical tests that can prove any of his hypotheses!

And there are tens of thousands of scientists who disagree. But James Hanson is 99.something percent certain that his theory is true.

However, when you look at his projections in 1998, the results are considerably less than 99-something accurate.

He's a first and foremost a mathmetician attempting to create a computer model of something we haven't begun to fully understand, yet he has the moxy to proclaim his theories as being more than 99 percent.

I don't think I've ever witnessed the level of hubris displayed by James Hanson. He's an embarrassement to the the U.S. and to the scientific community.

Quote of the Week regarding drilling in ANWR

Quote of the Week:

When the Alaska Pipeline was proposed, the Greens howled in protest, claiming the 12,000 Reindeer population would be adversely affected. We built the pipeline anyway, and today the reindeer population is approaching 100,000 animals.

- Jim Peden, Scientist

The Truth About RealClimate.org

From the same comments section of the blog cited in my previous post, I found this gem that's worth repeating:

By Jim Peden — posted Jun 24 2008 07:52 PM

Quoting RealClimate.org as a reliable source of information on climate science is like quoting Disneyland.com for reliable information on mouse behavior.

"Real Climate" is a staged and contracted production, which wasn't created by "scientists", it was actually created by Environmental Media Services, a company which specializes in spreading environmental junk science on behalf of numerous clients who stand to financially benefit from scare tactics through environmental fear mongering. There you will find the word "model" used a million times, for the entire basis of the Global Warming Hoax is based on computer modeling ( not climate science ) which has thus far failed to predict anything accurately since day one. (emphasis mine: LDJ)

For example, one of their past clients, Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, hired them to create the illusion that Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) was somehow dangerous, despite the fact that it had been fully tested and approved by the FDA. After a lengthy national fearmongering campaign by Environmental Media Services, Ben & Jerry's proudly announced that their ice cream was "BGH-free"... as if it made any difference.

Real Climate has become the Alamo for folks like the highly discredited Michael Mann, whose original analytical blunder led to the famous "hockey stick" curve, which helped kick off the Great Global Warming Hoax after it was picked up by science illiterate Al Gore and proudly paraded around the globe. The hockey stick was proven to be an absurd blunder, but by then you couldn't put the genie back into the bottle, and today we are wasting billions of dollars on a cure for a nonexistent disease.

Perhaps the best summary of "Real Climate" was given by a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Richard Lindzen, who said, "This website appears to constitute a support center for global warming believers, wherein any criticism of global warming is given an answer that, however implausible, is then repeated by the reassured believers."

The Real Truth About AGW

The following comment appeared on another blog in response to some green drivel. It bears repeating:

Richard S. Courtney — Jun 23 2008 05:59 PM

Sirs:

You say:

“And perhaps some scientists are coming out against the idea that humankind has warmed the planet and continues to spew increasing pollutants into our atmosphere. If so, they are awful quiet about their challenge. Perhaps they should post their arguments here and let NRDC's real climate experts take them on."

Well, I am an Expert Peer Reviewer for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); i.e. I am one of the often touted “thousands of UN Climate Scientists”. I and thousands of others speak, publish and sign petitions in attempt to get the media to tell the truth of man made global climate change. And in response to your invitation I post that truth below.

The AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) – notably carbon dioxide – in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW), and that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).

I think a clear distinction needs to be made between (a) the science of AGW, and (b) the perception of AGW - and the use of AGW - by non-scientists.

The science

The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e.

1. There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature.

2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales.

3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940.

4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940, and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.

5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions.

The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules of science.: i.e.Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data, and the opposite of the hypothesis' predictions is observed in the empirical data.

But politicians and advocates adhere to the hypothesis. They have a variety of motives (i.e. personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, etc..). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis.

Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates (e.g. Hansen). And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are.

-Richard S. Courtney

Jim Hanson: Whether Hot or Cold, it is Always a Crisis!

Remember the Coming Ice Age of the early 1970's? It was the basis for the first Earth Day. The ever-dastardly fossil fuels were the purported culprit, spewing particulate into the air causing the cooling.

At least that's what was espoused by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool back in 1971 as reported by the Washington Post. According to their dire predictions, continued use of fossil fuels was going to lead to a dramatic 6 degree decline in global temperatures, ushering in the next Ice Age.

Dr. Rasool's projections were supported by a computer program model created by a young research associate at Columbia by the name of Dr. James Hanson.

Go figure.

A couple of obersvations: First, isn't it interesting that the evil culprit for every environmental calamity is always the same thing, fossil fuels? It's even more amazing when the pending catastrophes are complete and total opposites!

Second, in the course of a couple of decades Hanson swung from cataclysmic global cooling to cataclysmic global warming!

And we're supposed to believe anything this man spews?

For a good analysis of the accuracy (or lack thereof) of his dire predictions on warming, read Anthony Watts' review of his 1988 projections compared to temperature reality.

He's a complete and total embarrassment to NASA and the entire scientific community. Only a U.S. Congress with a 18% approval rating would even consider hosting him for a hearing on climate change.

We Need a Modern Scopes Monkey Trial for CO2 Global Warming

Jim Hanson, NASA's leading Global Warming Alarmist, is calling for leading skeptics to be tried for "high crimes against humanity."

I welcome this call for a trial. I view it as a golden opportunity for the equivalent of a modern-day Scopes Monkey Trial to try the case for man-made global warming before a jury of average American citizens.

The trial should be aired by all the news channels non-stop until its conclusion...it's certainly a more newsworthy topic than O.J. Simpson!

If the case for the "consensus" is so strong, it should certainly stand the scrutiny of a trial. Let it stand or fail on all the scientific merit, both pro and con.

Let the alarmists expound on how global climate is driven by positive feedbacks, contrary to most stable natural systems.

Let them explain why a .6 degree C increase in average global temps over 150 years is a major concern when we've just witnessed a .7 degree C drop over the last sixteen months.

Let them explain how CO2 can be the culprit when historically CO2 levels have FOLLOWED temperature increases rather than leading them.

Let Jim Hanson explain how his is the only organization currently finding temperature increases when all three of the other major meterological organizations around the globe are finding cooling.

The list of key issues is long, so I expect this to be an extended trial, possibly several weeks or more.

So, bring it on Jim. Let the trial begin!

The Truth about Kyoto....

Every American who cares about our country and our economy MUST read this article to better understand Kyoto and what is truly at stake. A Canadian, LORRIE GOLDSTEIN of the Edmonton Sun, wrote these words in commenting on the local politics of "Man Made Climate Change":

Over the past 18 months I've written scores of columns on global warming.

I've read nine books on the subject so far (six by authors supporting the theory of man-made global warming and the Kyoto accord, three by skeptics).

I've watched three documentaries, including Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and two by skeptics.

I've read hundreds of articles and now spend at least two to four hours each week researching this issue alone.

The best journalism, pro and con, is coming out of the United Kingdom and Europe, where carbon taxes and cap-and-trade are already adversely affecting millions of people because of skyrocketing energy prices.

When Stephane Dion or the David Suzuki Foundation or the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy put out a paper advocating carbon pricing, I don't read their press releases. I read their papers. I would recommend this technique to more journalists.

I'm not an expert. But I am an engaged lay person who now knows enough that I can tell when someone is bullsh****** us.

Here's what I've figured out so far.

First, Canadians care about this issue, passionately. I've never had as strong a response from readers as I've had to these columns in more than 20 years of column-writing.

Second, most politicians, regardless of party, don't know what they're talking about.

They don't understand the theory of anthropogenic global warming, or what is known with confidence and what isn't.

They don't know the difference between the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

They don't realize the economic dislocation involved in moving from a carbon-based to a carbon-free economy.

Most care about the issue only in so far as it can help them get elected, which, given the implications and what's at stake for ordinary citizens, is recklessly irresponsible.

Most politicians don't know what the Kyoto accord says.

ECONOMIC TREATY

They think it's an environmental treaty. It's not. It's an economic treaty.

Its purpose is not to reduce GHG emissions -- under it GHG emissions are guaranteed to rise.

Kyoto is a United Nations treaty designed to transfer wealth from the developed world to the developing world by charging the developed world for the right to emit carbon.

That's hardly surprising given that wealth redistribution from rich nations to poor ones is the goal of most countries belonging to the UN.

The main drivers of Kyoto were, ironically, the U.K. and Europe, along with the developing world, led by China, now the world's largest GHG emitter.

Last year, China alone, exempt from reducing its own GHG emissions, was responsible for two-thirds of the total global increase in these emissions, although its per capita emissions remain well below that of the United States, the second-largest emitter.

In any event, the developing world, the U.K. and Europe each saw in Kyoto (although it's now backfiring on the U.K. and Europe) not a way to save the planet, but to hobble the U.S. economy to their advantage.

For the developing world, Kyoto, if ratified by the U.S., would place severe restrictions on American industrial activity from which developing nations are exempt.

Europe and the U.K. crafted Kyoto to give them an undeserved economic advantage over the U.S.

The key was the retroactive selection of 1990 as the base year to reduce carbon emissions for 37 developed countries, including us, as opposed to 143 nations required to do nothing.

BASE YEAR

By using 1990, a year before the Soviet Union disintegrated and its carbon emissions dramatically dropped because its economy collapsed, Europe was able to claim much of this emissions drop for itself, as major parts of the former Soviet empire were absorbed by it. It was an accounting trick. Nothing more.

The selection of 1990 also gave an undeserved bonus to the U.K., which was moving, for reasons unrelated to Kyoto, from coal to natural gas as an energy source, which emits less GHG than coal.

The Americans, wisely, refused to ratify Kyoto, even when Gore was their VP and lobbying for it.

Unfortunately, we did, either because the previous Liberal government didn't understand that the economic penalties Kyoto aimed at the U.S. would also apply to us, or because Jean Chretien, in his rush to craft himself an environmental legacy, didn't care.

The original article is here: "It's about votes, not Mother Earth"

Political Lunacy and Self-fulfilling Prophecy

I wonder if anyone else finds it interesting that the government's approach to any problem is to create a new bureacracy to explore that problem. This new bureacracy then finds that it is indeed a major problem and requires ever more resources to address the problem. Surprise, surprise.

Such is the case with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. With each report they release their predictions become more dire, and their hollering more shrill. And the "solution" to the problem is more money for those within the IPCC clique to do more research, as well as sweeping more taxation opportunities for the politicians they serve.

Had they come back and said, "Yep, it's getting warmer, but that's probably the normal cycle of things and we'll probably start cooling again soon", how much more funding do you think they would have gotten? How much longer would the bureacracy continue to exist?

Now you know why we get the alarmism from them.

Quote of the week

"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

Dennis Jensen: A voice of reason from Down Under

The following speech was given on the floor of the Australian Parliament by Liberal MP Dennis Jensen. It is so good, I want to share it in its entirety. Keep in mind this guy isn't your typical political hack. He has a doctorate in physics.

This speech should be repeated on the floor of the U.S. Senate and the House before each and every future debate on climate change:

Dennis Jensen:

But let us take the time to examine some of the pseudoscience on which this whole anthropogenic global warming belief is based. Let us also examine how these disciples act and how they are reported. First, I find some of the commentary coming from some of the anthropogenic global warming zealots extremely perplexing.

We hear that the rate of increase of global temperature is faster than the science predicted. But what is actually happening?

I have three graphs: one from the third IPCC assessment report and two from the fourth assessment report. All of the projections show an increase from the year 2000, even if the graph for carbon dioxide is held constant at year 2000 levels. I repeat: all the projections show an increase over the last decade. But what do actual measurements show? I have many charts showing the global temperature as measured by four groups, including the Hadley centre, whose data is officially used by the IPCC. This data shows that the temperature has flatlined over the last 10 years. Observation does not fit theory and yet the theory is deemed correct.

A classic example of rejecting facts which do not fit the theory is the temperature graph over the last 1,000 years and the use of tree ring and tree density data as a proxy for temperature. There is a well-known problem when comparing tree ring and density data with temperature data over the last 140 years. Between 1860 and 1960, the data agreed reasonably well. After 1960, there is a divergence. The tree ring and density data indicate that temperatures have decreased, where measurements have actually indicated an increase. If you look at the IPCC graphs, the tree proxy data ends abruptly at—you guessed it—1960.

Keith Briffa, a lead author of the IPCC, in the chapter relating to tree proxy data had this to say of the divergence problem: In the absence of a substantiated explanation for the decline, we make the assumption that it is likely to be a response to some kind of recent anthropogenic forcing. On the basis of this assumption, the pre-twentieth century part of the reconstructions can be considered to be free from similar events and thus accurately represent past temperature variability.

In other words, we do not know how the hell to explain the post-1960 data, so we will just blame humans and accept that all the earlier data is correct because that fits neatly with our paradigm. This is what a friend of mine refers to as ‘situating the appreciation rather than appreciating the situation’. You make the facts fit the theory when you should make the theory fit the facts.

If global temperature is not heating as predicted, maybe this elusive heat is going into the oceans. Not so. Three thousand oceanic robots that dive up to 1,000 metres have been measuring ocean temperatures since 2003 and show, if anything, a slight decrease and certainly not an increase. So where has the heat gone? IPCC coordinating lead author Kevin Trenberth has stated: ... none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.

According to Kevin Trenberth, the lost heat is probably going back out to space. He says the earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can trap heat, turn up the temperature or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet. So why is none of this reflected in the modelling? It is situating the appreciation again.

This whole issue of anthropogenic global warming has all the classic hallmarks of religion. There are the high priests—the Gores, the Flannerys et cetera of the world, who talk the talk but are utterly hypocritical when it comes to walking their talk. There is the concept of original sin, being industry and carbon dioxide, and the whole issue of penance or paying the price for your actions. This is the way we have to pay for the use of industry which is emitting carbon dioxide. The high priests, however, can get away with their profligate lifestyle by buying indulgences, also known as carbon credits, and so continue to sin. Hence, we have Flannery jetting here, there and everywhere and Gore, similarly, with just one of his residences—one of three, I might add—consuming 20 times as much energy as the average American household. That is how concerned he is about global warming in reality.

The media indulge the high priests, castigating the many heretics who dare to differ. Yet they let the high priests off, not scrutinising their statements as the media should. Take Flannery’s suggestion, for example, of putting sulphur into the atmosphere, using terribly polluting aircraft to disperse it. What a delicious irony! For those who know a bit of chemistry, what happens when you mix sulphur, water and oxygen? You get sulphuric acid, also known as acid rain. I guess that is the price that we need to pay for our sin. But why has the media not lampooned Flannery, who is supposed to be a global warming expert scientist of the highest order, for such a ridiculous proposal? It is political correctness of the highest and most unconscionable order.

So what we have is a more and more desperate anthropogenic global warming theory supporters club who, when the data indicates that the planet has not been heating for the last 10 years and the oceans have not heated for at least the last five, tell us that global warming is happening even more quickly than the theory predicts. After all, the models must be right, just like the bookies must always be right with predictions on match or racing results.

The problem is that this religion based around the false god of a controllable and naturally benign climate is going to hurt every man, woman and child in Australia as a result of significantly higher fuel and energy prices and consequent increases in the cost of living, particularly food, so groceries and fuel and so on are going to go up significantly—estimates say approximately 10c to 30c per litre for petrol alone. This government is clearly quite happy with that, and that is a tragedy for many Australians.

Where is the media "watchdog"?

I was always led to believe the media was the skeptical watchdog that always sifted through the biases and personal agendas behind the news stories to get at "the truth" of what was being reported.

Yet with global warming, they seem to give the High Priest of Environmentalism, Al Gore, a complete pass!

Here's a hypothetical for you: Assume I had Gore's high-profile status and access to the media. Now supposed I traveled around the world telling people that aliens were in the process of quietly and surreptitiously stealing our atmosphere and that if we didn't do something about it NOW our planet would be uninhabitable in 50-100 years.

Now suppose that the "solution" to this problem was for everyone to purchase (on a daily, weekly or monthly basis) a new device called a "wonklet " that you could hang outside your home or off your car antenna that would fend off these aliens. Also suppose I had hundreds of scientists confirm that "the science was settled" that our atmosphere was being stolen by these aliens.

I appear before congress urging urgent legislation that requires everyone to purchase and use these wonklets. Companies are required to buy them (or trade their wonklets with others), then make them available to their customers...or at least bake the cost of the company's wonklets into the prices they charge all their customers.

I then spend $300M on print and television ads telling the country how bad the atmosphere-stealing-alien problem is and how wonklets are the key to saving the planet. I even have ultra-left-wingers appearing with ultra-right-wingers in the TV ads to highlight how important it is for all of us to work together on this hyper-critical problem.

Now, also suppose I had a financial interest in the company that designed the wonklet, and I had invested heavily in the manufacturer of them. If the legislation I'm advocating passes, I stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars. (I've already made over $100M just talking about the atmosphere-stealing alien problem. I even made a movie about it with really big charts and graphs!)

How long do you think I'd be allowed to promote the wonklet solution without some journalist actually pointing out my enormous financial interest in the solution I was promoting?

I suspect it wouldn't be long.

So why does Saint Al get a pass on his investments in cap-and-trade brokering companies and "green energy"?

Sanity wins....for now. No cap-and-trade this year!

After three days of debate, the Climate Tax Bill has been killed for now. From Sen. Inhofe's press release:

"This bill was doomed from the start," Senator Inhofe said. "When the Majority Leader filled the amendment tree and filed cloture on the Climate Tax Bill, it was obvious that the Democrats were not serious about supporting this bill. This was one of the largest bills ever considered by this Congress and probably the largest non-appropriations bill the Senate has ever considered. This bill deserved a full and honest debate, with amendments offered and voted upon. The American people did not deserve a political exercise geared toward election year politics. Republicans were prepared to debate this bill with over 150 amendments ready to be offered. The Democrats did not want to debate and vote on our amendments that were aimed at protecting American families and workers from the devastating economic impacts of this bill. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments were considered on the Senate floor for five weeks, and this comprehensive climate bill demands at least equal debate.

I'm sure it will be back in the future, but for now we've dodged this bullet.

Free Healthcare, by Glenn Beck!

"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less"

There's a petition drive to send a message that we need to start leveraging our own resources to assure our continued independence. It is the "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less" drive and I encourage you to visit the site and add your name to the petition. As of this date they've exceeded 100,000 signatures and are driving towards 200,000. If we get the word out, I suspect we'll far exceed that!

In my opinion, we're fighting a two pronged War on Terror: We have Radical Islam on one side, occupying our attention in Iraq, and we have Radical Environmentalism on the other side which has been attacking us here at home for the last thirty years. They've managed to hobble our oil explorations, our nuclear power generation and they're trying desperately to kill our economy with "Climate Change" legislation which could prove to be the last nail in the American Dream's coffin....all based on bogus science, no less.

So let your voice be heard. The ONLY thing that will impact the current oil crisis is for us to start leveraging our own resources.

Congressman Maxine Waters...or perhaps Marxine Waters?

In a priceless Kodak-moment, Maxine Waters, congresswoman from Los Angeles, ripped into the oil executives being grilled by a house committee. If you haven't seen the video, it's priceless!

But it's a scary commentary on the liberal agenda when you hear one say, "This liberal will be all about socializing....uh, err, uh...ummm.....basically, taking over your business!" I guess it's a good sign that the word "socializing" when applied to government commandeering American business sticks in her throat...at least while the cameras are rolling.

Memo to Marxine: Those "obscene profits" you're proposing taking are MINE, Ms. Dipstick! It's what I hope will someday fund my retirement....along with tens of thousands of other Americans just like me, including teachers, laborers, and anyone else who has a mutual fund retirement account!! I know I can't depend on you or your colleagues on Capitol Hill to provide for me in my twilight years, despite you constantly raiding my checkbook purportedly for that purpose (read Social Security.)

So keep your ignorant mitts off the companies that offer us some hope of meeting those future needs!

Global Warming Bringing Us More Benefits: Longer Days!

I wonder when man first uttered the words, "There aren't enough hours in the day"?

Well, our wish for more time in our days may finally be coming true, thanks to global warming.

In a New Scientist article a scientist in Belgium has determined that "The overall effect will be to give the planet a nudge from east to west, marginally slowing its rotation from west to east." In the end, we'll pick up about 1 microsecond.

Don't blink or you'll miss it several times over.

But a microsecond here and a microsecond there, over a billion years or so you might have a free vacation!

Teddy Roosevelt's Wisdom on Immigration

Back in 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt said:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Someone needs to remind the Washingtonians of this little piece of wisdom.

Al Gore Continues to Embarrass Himself

As can be expected, Al Gore's "No Tragedy Left Unexploited" policy continues. No sooner had the devastation in Myanmar hit the world press before Big Al was blaming it on global warming.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case, the facts seldom support his assertions. A review of the deadliest cyclones in history compiled at The Weather Underground show this one isn't even in the top ten. More importantly two of the Top Ten occured back in the 1970s, in the throes of the last eco-nut induced scare over global cooling.

Earth to Al: Instead of spending $300M on televised scaremongering, allocate some of it to doing some research so you don't have to continually suck on those size 12 loafers.

The Not-So-Scientific Science of Climate Change

A great article on how ridiculously inaccurate the current state of climate modeling is presented by Patrick Frank, a Ph.D. chemist with more than 50 peer-reviewed articles, on http://www.skeptic.com/.

Quoting from the article:

"So the bottom line is this: When it comes to future climate, no one knows what they’re talking about. No one. Not the IPCC nor its scientists, not the US National Academy of Sciences, not the NRDC or National Geographic, not the US Congressional House leadership, not me, not you, and certainly not Mr. Albert Gore. Earth’s climate is warming and no one knows exactly why. But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all. "

Further he says:

"If our knowledge of future climates is zero then for all we know either suppressing CO2 emissions or increasing them may make climate better, or worse, or just have a neutral effect. The alternatives are incommensurate but in our state of ignorance either choice equally has two chances in three of causing the least harm.35 Complete ignorance makes the Precautionary Principle completely useless. There are good reasons to reduce burning fossil fuels, but climate warming isn’t one of them.
Some may decide to believe anyway. “We can’t prove it,” they might say, “but the correlation of CO2 with temperature is there (they’re both rising, after all),36 and so the causality is there, too, even if we can’t prove it yet.” But correlation is not causation,37 and cause can’t be assigned by an insistent ignorance. The proper response to adamant certainty in the face of complete ignorance38 is rational skepticism. And aren’t we much better off accumulating resources to meet urgent needs than expending resources to service ignorant fears?" (Emphasis is mine)

It's a worthwhile read.

Suggested Reading

Here are links to some interesting articles:

Chickenfeedhawks by Mark Steyn

The Socialist Green alarmists have co-opted - and are destroying - the American Conservation Movement with Pixie Dust by Bird Dog

Climate Change - The Anti-Capitalism Agenda

As if we didn't need more proof of the true, anti-capitalism agend of the Left's man-made climate change, check out this article which ran a couple of days ago.

Opening a UN forum on the global impact of climate change on indigenous peoples, Mr Morales said that capitalism should be scrapped if the planet is to be saved from the effects of climate change.

"If we want to save our planet earth, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system," he said.

That pretty much sums it up! Buy into man-made global warming, bye-bye capitalism.

Karl Marx would be so proud of Al Gore, James Hanson & Co.

Expelled, The Movie

I just watched Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It's a thought-provoking exposé that I am sure will be resoundingly deplored by the left, the Politically Correct crowd.

It essentially is an in depth look at the complete lack of freedom of thought and speech within the academic and science communities when it comes to Darwinism. Anyone who even questions the accepted dogma is promptly drummed out of their job. Even exploring possible alternative views is considered heresy worthy of denying tenure and/or termination of employment.

He further lays out how Darwinian thought laid the groundwork for Hitler and his Nazi regime. Ben does NOT argue that Darwinian thought equals Nazism, but its hard to see how you could have Nazism without Darwin's theories.

The same principles laid the foundations of eugenics, which thankfully most thinking people have long since abandoned. But its connection to the founder of Planned Parenthood is also drawing fire from the left.

The parallels with the current scientific dogma surrounding anthropogenic global warming (er, "climate change" to stay current with the evolving dogma) are astounding. Scientists who even dare depart from the "consensus" (amazingly, the same word is used consistently throughout Darwinian discussions) is deemed a heretic not worthy of research funding or publication.

The good news is that nature WILL provide us objective proof of the silliness of the CO2-based theories on global warming as we watch CO2 continue to rise as global temperatures fall. Eventually, even the hardcore alarmists will have to admit the error of their ways.

Unfortunately, the Richard Dawkins' of the world will find out whether they're right or wrong when they are well beyond the point of being able to do anything about it.

A Call for Sanity

For all those who've been told "the science is settled" read the following letter which was sent to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations concerning the UN Climate conference in Bali (note the signers and their qualifications):

Dec. 13, 2007

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government ­representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

• Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
  
• The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
  
• Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
  

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see IPCC Working Group Schedule) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.


The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy