Lest We Forget

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Fred Thompson on The Charlie Rose Show
dec. 2007



::::

CNN: Corrupt News Network
A self-serving agenda was set for the Republican presidential debates

[latimes] : THE United States is at war in the Middle East and Central Asia, the economy is writhing like a snake with a broken back, oil prices are relentlessly climbing toward $100 a barrel and an increasing number of Americans just can't afford to be sick with anything that won't be treated with aspirin and bed rest.

So, when CNN brought the Republican presidential candidates together this week for what is loosely termed a "debate," what did the country get but a discussion of immigration, Biblical inerrancy and the propriety of flying the Confederate flag?

In fact, this most recent debacle masquerading as a presidential debate raises serious questions about whether CNN is ethically or professionally suitable to play the political role the Democratic and Republican parties recently have conceded it.

Selecting a president is, more than ever, a life and death business, and a news organization that consciously injects itself into the process, as CNN did by hosting Wednesday's debate, incurs a special responsibility to conduct itself in a dispassionate and, most of all, disinterested fashion. When one considers CNN's performance, however, the adjectives that leap to mind are corrupt and incompetent.

::::

[wsj] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a friend in Joe Biden, the Delaware senator who fancies himself a candidate for president made clear at a campaign appearance in Portsmouth, N.H., reports the Portsmouth Herald:

Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.

Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a candidate forum held Thursday at Seacoast Media Group. The forum focused on the Iraq war and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of a war with Iran, Biden said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the Oval Office.

"The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach," said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience.

Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president.


Biden--who as chairman of the Judiciary Committee presided over the travesties that were the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings--apparently is either ignorant or contemptuous of the Constitution. Presumably one of those legal experts will inform him that as a senator, he has no authority to "move to impeach" anyone. That power rests solely with the House.

::::

Stem Cell Vindication
By Charles Krauthammer
November 30, 2007

[wapo] : A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan's Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.

Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush's stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president -- so vilified for a moral stance -- been so thoroughly vindicated.

::::

CNN : Utter and Complete Rubbish
: I'll offer absolutely nothing new with this comment as compared to my years of commenting on The Cable News Network and their sad incompetence - be it willful or otherwise - but allow me to reiterate yet again:

CNN is simply and totally utter rubbish regurging and hyperbolic dreck. I don't even think I need to elaborate on this statement any longer.

That said, I enjoy "debates" - all and any debates and political exchanges - even transparent agenda driven drivel festivals. I just do.

That so many ridiculous aspects of the Youtube charade debate were uncovered in a matter of literal moments post, speaks volumes about either the intent or mind numbing incompetence of CNN.

Suprising, probably less so, but fool me for harbouring a speck of hope, quickly dashed away in farcical comedy fare. It didn't take long. A foolish musical introduction video after bloviate explanation and self trumpeting, only served well to denigrate what should be sincere discussion in serious times, not the least of which involves the selection of the next leader of the free world.

This is well aside of the sour fact that I can accept the thing for what it is - an advertisment vehicle and apparent "entertainment" object.

It's also impossible for me to agree with some that posit the idea that Cooper or Blitzer are "ok." Sorry. I've given light support for Blitzer now and again, but the span between moments worthy of this has grown much too vast. Spare the phony tone and expressions. Cooper is even worse. His overwrought, feigned expressions are about as authentic as a novice soap opera actor.

::::

One Guy Asked a Question At Both Parties' YouTube Debates?

[nro] My hat is off to Michelle Malkin and all of the conservative bloggers who have uncovered all kinds of fascinating information about last night's YouTube questioners, using that remarkable, mysterious investigative technique called "Googling."

To refresh:

1. The retired brigadier general is on Hillary Clinton's gay and lesbian steering committee.

2. The young woman who asked about jailing women who get abortions has stated on her YouTube profile page that she backs John Edwards.

3. The "Log Cabin Republican" has written on the web about "why I'm supporting Barack Obama."

4. The guy who asked Ron Paul if he would run as an independent also asked a question at the Democratic debate and has told reporters that he "likes Bill Richardson."

Is America such a small country that Mark Strauss of Davenport, Iowa gets to ask two questions of candidates?

Those are the worst; here are the gray areas.

5. The mom who asked about toys with lead paint from China is an assistant to the American Steel Workers union, which has endorsed Edwards. This doesn't necessarily mean that this woman has endorsed Edwards or even likes him, but it would have been better if CNN had identified her with that affiliation than portraying her as just another concerned undecided voter.

6. The young man who asked about corn subsidies interned for Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman back in 2004. I'm not going to go bonkers about that; maybe he just wanted experience working on the Hill. But amongst all the others, it's just one more log on the fire.

7. The Powerline guys note that the guy who asked about Social Security reform "is working with a member of [Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick] Durbin's staff, helping him develop his proposal to submit to the Congressional Budget Office." However, the same article also noted that he "met with aides of Speaker Dennis Hastert." Maybe Durbin's just more helpful to the guy, but again, in light of everybody else, CNN not being able to find this out, much less mention it, doesn't reflect well on them.


::::

On Iraq, a State of Denial

[wapo] : It does not have the drama of the Inchon landing or the sweep of the Union comeback in the summer of 1864. But the turnabout of American fortunes in Iraq over the past several months is of equal moment -- a war seemingly lost, now winnable. The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening.

And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: "This is not working. . . . We must reverse it." A euphemism for "abandon the field," which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat.

How do they avoid acknowledging the realities on the ground? By asserting that we have not achieved political benchmarks -- mostly legislative actions by the Baghdad government -- that were set months ago. And that these benchmarks are paramount. And that all the current progress is ultimately vitiated by the absence of centrally legislated national reconciliation.

::::



::::

Wall St. Journal to Make Web Site Free

[nyt] : Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of the News Corporation, said today that he intended to make access to The Wall Street Journal’s Web site free, trading subscription fees for anticipated ad revenue.

“We are studying it and we expect to make that free, and instead of having one million, having at least 10 million-15 million in every corner of the earth,” Mr. Murdoch said, referring to The Journal’s online readership.

The News Corporation has signed an agreement to acquire Dow Jones & Company, and the deal is expected to close in the fourth quarter. A special shareholders meeting is scheduled for Dec. 13 in New York.

Mr. Murdoch said he believed that a free model, with increased readership for wsj.com, will attract “large numbers” of big-spending advertisers.

The Web site, one of the few news sites globally to successfully introduce a subscription model, currently has around one million subscribers, which generates about $50 million in user fees.

::::

Anti-Chavez Protest Erupts In Gunfire

[ap] : Masked gunmen opened fire on students returning from a march in which tens of thousands of Venezuelans denounced President Hugo Chavez's attempts to expand his power through constitutional changes.

Officials said at least eight people were injured Wednesday, including one by gunfire, at the Central University of Venezuela, or UCV — the country's largest university.

Students protested in at least six other cities, and several turned violent with rock-throwing youths clashing with police shooting plastic bullets at demonstrators.

Photographers for The Associated Press saw at least four gunmen — their faces covered by ski masks or T-shirts — firing handguns at the anti-Chavez crowd at the UCV. Terrified students ran through the campus as ambulances arrived.

Antonio Rivero, director of Venezuela's Civil Defense agency, told Union Radio that at least eight people were injured, including one by gunfire, and that no one had been killed. Earlier, Rivero said he had been informed that one person had died in the violence.

The violence broke out after an estimated 80,000 anti-Chavez demonstrators — led by university students — marched peacefully to the Supreme Court to protest constitutional changes that would greatly expand Chavez's power if voters agree to the changes in December. Unrest, if it continues, could mar a Dec. 2 referendum on the controversial reforms.

Dozens of angry students surrounded a building where the gunmen were hiding, set fire to benches outside and knocked out windows with rocks. Later, armed men riding motorcycles arrived, scaring off students and standing at the doorway — one of them firing a handgun in the air — as people fled the building.

Justice Minister Pedro Carreno blamed students, university authorities, opposition parties and the media for the violence. [...]

University students also staged demonstrations in the cities of Merida, Maracaibo, Puerto La Cruz, San Cristobal, Barquisimeto and Valencia on Wednesday.

The amendments being protested would abolish presidential term limits, give the president control over the Central Bank and let him create new provinces governed by handpicked officials. The protesters demand the referendum be suspended, saying the amendments would weaken civil liberties and give Chavez unprecedented power to declare states of emergency.

"Don't allow Venezuela to go down a path that nobody wants to cross," student leader Freddy Guevara told Globovision during the march to the Supreme Court.

Chavez, who was first elected in 1998, denies the reforms threaten freedom. He says they would instead move Venezuela toward what he calls "21st century socialism."

The Supreme Court is unlikely to act on the students' demands, given that pro-Chavez lawmakers appointed all 32 of its justices.

::::

Report : File Sharers Buy More Music

[cbc] Contrary to what the music industry has been suggesting, people who download music through file sharing are also more likely to buy CDs, according to a government study.

The report found that for every track downloaded using peer-to-peer (P2P) software, file sharers purchased 0.44 more CDs a year than those who did not use the software.

"There is a strong positive relationship between P2P file-sharing and CD purchasing," the report said. "That is, among Canadians actually engaged in it, P2P file-sharing increases CD purchasing."

The report, prepared by University of London researchers Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz for Industry Canada, stands in stark contrast to positions from recording industry associations, which blame downloading of music — a legal grey area in Canada — for declining CD sales.

The Canadian Recording Industry Association said that in 2007 to the end of July, wholesale sales of CDs, music DVDs and other "physical" music formats fell 20 per cent to $183 million, from $230 million a year earlier. That decline followed on a 48 per cent drop in retail sales of physical formats since the advent of widespread file-swapping in 1999. The association blamed piracy and counterfeiting for the lost sales.

The Industry Canada report, which used data from a Decima Research survey conducted between April and June 2006, also found that when the entire general Canadian population was examined, there was no evidence to suggest that downloads were harming CD sales.

"The analysis of the entire Canadian population does not uncover either a positive or negative relationship between the number of files downloaded from P2P networks and CDs purchased," the report said.

::::

Amongst the inescapable bell ringers of Global Warming, if one lends minimal attention, there's also what appears to be, a growing amount of vocal dissent.

Recently we've offered a selection of these and sometimes reprint in entirety - with note - for the sole reason to thwart off the possibility that they might dither off down the memory hole as some things tend to do these days.

::::

The Deceit Behind Global Warming
By Christopher Booker and Richard North
[telegraph] ; No one can deny that in recent years the need to "save the planet" from global warming has become one of the most pervasive issues of our time. As Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, claimed in 2004, it poses "a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism", warning that by the end of this century the only habitable continent left will be Antarctica.

Inevitably, many people have been bemused by this somewhat one-sided debate, imagining that if so many experts are agreed, then there must be something in it. But if we set the story of how this fear was promoted in the context of other scares before it, the parallels which emerge might leave any honest believer in global warming feeling uncomfortable.

The story of how the panic over climate change was pushed to the top of the international agenda falls into five main stages. Stage one came in the 1970s when many scientists expressed alarm over what they saw as a disastrous change in the earth's climate. Their fear was not of warming but global cooling, of "a new Ice Age".

For three decades, after a sharp rise in the interwar years up to 1940, global temperatures had been falling. The one thing certain about climate is that it is always changing. Since we began to emerge from the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago, temperatures have been through significant swings several times. The hottest period occurred around 8,000 years ago and was followed by a long cooling. Then came what is known as the "Roman Warming", coinciding with the Roman empire. Three centuries of cooling in the Dark Ages were followed by the "Mediaeval Warming", when the evidence agrees the world was hotter than today.

Around 1300 began "the Little Ice Age", that did not end until 200 years ago, when we entered what is known as the "Modern Warming". But even this has been chequered by colder periods, such as the "Little Cooling" between 1940 and 1975. Then, in the late 1970s, the world began warming again.

A scare is often set off - as we show in our book with other examples - when two things are observed together and scientists suggest one must have been caused by the other. In this case, thanks to readings commissioned by Dr Roger Revelle, a distinguished American oceanographer, it was observed that since the late 1950s levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere had been rising. Perhaps it was this increase that was causing the new warming in the 1980s?

Stage two of the story began in 1988 when, with remarkable speed, the global warming story was elevated into a ruling orthodoxy, partly due to hearings in Washington chaired by a youngish senator, Al Gore, who had studied under Dr Revelle in the 1960s.

But more importantly global warming hit centre stage because in 1988 the UN set up its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). Through a series of reports, the IPCC was to advance its cause in a rather unusual fashion. First it would commission as many as 1,500 experts to produce a huge scientific report, which might include all sorts of doubts and reservations. But this was to be prefaced by a Summary for Policymakers, drafted in consultation with governments and officials - essentially a political document - in which most of the caveats contained in the experts' report would not appear.

This contradiction was obvious in the first report in 1991, which led to the Rio conference on climate change in 1992. The second report in 1996 gave particular prominence to a study by an obscure US government scientist claiming that the evidence for a connection between global warming and rising CO2 levels was now firmly established. This study came under heavy fire from various leading climate experts for the way it manipulated the evidence. But this was not allowed to stand in the way of the claim that there was now complete scientific consensus behind the CO2 thesis, and the Summary for Policy-makers, heavily influenced from behind the scenes by Al Gore, by this time US Vice-President, paved the way in 1997 for the famous Kyoto Protocol.

Kyoto initiated stage three of the story, by formally committing governments to drastic reductions in their CO2 emissions. But the treaty still had to be ratified and this seemed a good way off, not least thanks to its rejection in 1997 by the US Senate, despite the best attempts of Mr Gore.

Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn't want it to be known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be viewed with more caution.

One of the greatest problems Gore and his allies faced at this time was the mass of evidence showing that in the past, global temperatures had been higher than in the late 20th century.

In 1998 came the answer they were looking for: a new temperature chart, devised by a young American physicist, Michael Mann. This became known as the "hockey stick" because it showed historic temperatures running in an almost flat line over the past 1,000 years, then suddenly flicking up at the end to record levels.

Mann's hockey stick was just what the IPCC wanted. When its 2001 report came out it was given pride of place at the top of page 1. The Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 20th century Little Cooling, when CO2 had already been rising, all had been wiped away.

But then a growing number of academics began to raise doubts about Mann and his graph. This culminated in 2003 with a devastating study by two Canadians showing how Mann had not only ignored most of the evidence before him but had used an algorithm that would produce a hockey stick graph whatever evidence was fed into the computer. When this was removed, the graph re-emerged just as it had looked before, showing the Middle Ages as hotter than today.

It is hard to recall any scientific thesis ever being so comprehensively discredited as the "hockey stick". Yet the global warming juggernaut rolled on regardless, now led by the European Union. In 2004, thanks to a highly dubious deal between the EU and Putin's Russia, stage four of the story began when the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified.

In the past three years, we have seen the EU announcing every kind of measure geared to fighting climate change, from building ever more highly-subsidised wind turbines, to a commitment that by 2050 it will have reduced carbon emissions by 60 per cent. This is a pledge that could only be met by such a massive reduction in living standards that it is impossible to see the peoples of Europe accepting it.

All this frenzy has rested on the assumption that global temperatures will continue to rise in tandem with CO2 and that, unless mankind takes drastic action, our planet is faced with the apocalypse so vividly described by Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth.

Yet recently, stage five of the story has seen all sorts of question marks being raised over Gore's alleged consensus. For instance, he claimed that by the end of this century world sea levels will have risen by 20 ft when even the IPCC in its latest report, only predicts a rise of between four and 17 inches.There is also of course the harsh reality that, wholly unaffected by Kyoto, the economies of China and India are now expanding at nearly 10 per cent a year, with China likely to be emitting more CO2 than the US within two years.

More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.

It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore's closest scientific ally, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the 1930s.

Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun's effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures.

If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting.

• Scared to Death: From BSE To Global Warming - How Scares Are Costing Us The Earth by Christopher Booker and Richard North

::::

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
[icecap] : Intro by Joe D’Aleo, Icecap, CCM
I was privileged to work with John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel in the year before it became a reality and then for the first of the 6 years I was fortunate to be the Director of Meteorology. No one worked harder than John to make The Weather Channel a reality and to make sure the staffing, the information and technology was the very best possible at that time. John currently works with KUSI in San Diego. He posts regularly. I am very pleased to present his latest insightful post.

By John Coleman

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

::::

Gore and “Green” Goonies
By PETER W. TILTON

[harvardcrimson] The only thing trendier in Hollywood than three-week stints in rehab and adopting children from developing nations is advocating for the environment. Celebrities ranging from recent Nobel Prize winner and former Vice President Al Gore ’69 to Leonardo DiCaprio have jumped on the bandwagon, all promoting their own spin on the necessity of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While the elevated publicity these famous faces bring to this serious issue is beneficial, a great majority of these stars do not live by the standards they promote. Hypocrisy is rampant in today’s environmental movement, and Hollywood has provided us with enough stars who are talking the talk—now we need one who will walk the walk.

The leading spokesperson of today’s enviro-chic celebrities is Al Gore, whose face is everywhere from his award winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth to Norway where he recently received the Nobel Peace Prize. Many Americans would naturally assume Gore follows the green lifestyle he widely promotes, and they would be wrong. Gore and his wife Tipper, whose children all live elsewhere, reside in a behemoth 20-room mansion outside of Nashville that used nearly 23,000 kilowatt-hours last August, more than twice the annual—yes, annual—energy usage of a typical American home. Gore’s preferred mode of transportation between stops on his international publicity tour is his private jet, which spews out CO2 emissions at the rate of a small army of SUVs.

Hypocritical enviro-advocates abound these days, constantly reminding us to make sacrifices in the interest of the earth while forgoing few comforts themselves. Green activist and actor John Travolta likes to spend his free time toying around in one of his five private planes, including a commercial Boeing 707, racking up 800 tons of carbon emissions in the last year. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has managed to promote his idea of an environmentally friendly lifestyle by creating a hydrogen-fueled Hummer—a car that gets a whopping 10-15 miles per gallon—while crisscrossing the country in his private jet. Last year, former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (D-Il.) gave a speech in Washington D.C. emphasizing the need to drive more fuel-efficient cars before hopping into his own hybrid car. Several blocks away, he was caught switching from his environmentally friendly ride into a gas-guzzling SUV.

These celebrities and politicians justify their unnecessary consumption by purchasing carbon credits, which many of the nouveau-conscious acquire in order to offset their excessive energy usage. Carbon credits were established by the Kyoto Protocol, which established limits on carbon emissions for most countries (incidentally the United States has still not signed this agreement even though it is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases). Countries and companies who fall below their established limits are free to trade their credits in the global emissions market to other parties—including individuals—who have exceeded their emissions limits. When celebrities today buy these credits, they are allowing themselves to continue their disproportionate consumption while somewhere else in the world carbon emissions are reduced by other societies to make up for American excess.

While these superficial efforts by stars to offset their consumption are admirable, they are not a lasting solution. The average American household would have to buy $276,000 a year in carbon credits to counteract their carbon emissions, a price tag few Americans would be able to afford. Moreover, even if every American household could afford carbon credits, the result would be that Third World countries would bear the burden of our excessive lifestyles. While carbon credits are a viable short-term option for industry and an important step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the corporate sector, they are not practical for American families.

Hollywood stars have long used their fame to advocate changes in our society. Today’s stars are falling short in their environmental efforts, holding a double standard that allows them to continue to fly private jets while imploring other Americans to drive hybrids and turn down their thermostats. In today’s celebrity obsessed society, where pictures of celebs are splashed across dozens of magazines, websites, and newspapers, this failure to practice what they preach detracts from their message. Americans want to emulate the stars, not just obey them.

The American lifestyle is built upon overindulgence; from McMansions to SUVs we love our conspicuous consumption. That way of life is no longer sustainable. Our planet is disintegrating, and unless we begin to change our ways—and not just talk about changing them—those $10 million dollar Malibu homes will no longer exist for Hollywood’s celebrities to frolic in. America has plenty of these phony Hollywood enviro-celebswhat it needs now is someone who actually practices what he preaches.

::::

[dailymail] : Bushonomics

From the White House:

October saw a net gain of 166,000 jobs.
That’s a net gain of 8.31 million jobs since August 2003 — a 50-month span.
Unemployment remains at 4.7%.
The economy grew 3.9% in the third quarter.
After-tax per capita personal income has risen by 12.7% since Bush became president. That’s an average of $3,800 per person.
The deficit today is at 1.2% of GDP, well below the 40-year average.

Now tell me how the Bush tax cuts just helped the rich. Was it the doubling of the child tax credit or the removal of all federal income taxes for 15 million middle-class taxpayers, er, ex-taxpayers?

You don’t get job growth by taking money from investors and handing it to the government.

AP reported:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Employers boosted payrolls by a surprisingly strong 166,000 in October, the most in five months, an encouraging sign that the nation’s employment climate is holding up relatively well against the strains of a housing collapse and credit crunch.

The Labor Department’s report, released Friday, also showed that the unemployment rate held steady at 4.7 percent for the second month in a row. It’s a figure that is considered low by historical standards.

Job gains were logged for professional and business services, education and health care, leisure and hospitality, and for the government. Those employment increases more than offset jobs losses in manufacturing, construction and retail — casualties of the problems plaguing the housing market.

The latest report on employment conditions around the country was better than economists were anticipating. Economists were forecasting payrolls to grow in October by about half the pace seen — around 80,000. They did correctly predict the unemployment rate would be unchanged.

“Businesses have not clammed up on the hiring scene as some feared,” said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. “The wheels aren’t coming off the economy.”

On Wall Street, stocks traded mixed in the early going as investors found something to like in the surprisingly strong jobs report but remained jittery about the overall health of the economy. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 65.85, or 0.49 percent, to 13,502.02 in morning trading, pulling back after rising in the opening minutes.

In other economic news, orders placed to U.S. factories edged up 0.2 percent in September, an improvement compared with the 3.5 percent drop registered in August, the Commerce Department said in a second report. The manufacturing news was better than the 0.4 percent decline analysts were expecting.

On the employment front, even with October’s solid gain in payrolls, the trend this year has been toward softer job growth. And, that is beginning to show up in wages.

Average hourly earnings rose to $17.58 in October, a modest 0.2 percent increase from September. Economists were forecasting a slightly larger, 0.3 percent increase. Over the past 12 months, wages were up 3.8 percent.

Still, economists said the wage gains should be sufficient to support consumer spending and keep the economic expansion — which began in late 2001 — intact. A faltering job market could crimp wage growth. That could lessen people’s appetite to spend, spelling trouble for the economy.

The state of the nation’s employment climate is a crucial factor determining whether the economy will, in fact, weather the financial storm. So far, decent job creation and wage growth have helped to offset some of the negative forces hitting some individuals from the housing slump, weaker home values and harder-to-get credit.

To be sure, problems challenging the economy are hitting some industries and workers hard. The construction industry cut 5,000 jobs, factories slashed 21,000 positions and retailers eliminated nearly 22,000 in October.

But strength in hiring elsewhere blunted those losses. Professional and business services added 65,000 jobs, education and health care industries expanded employment by 43,000. Leisure and hospitality added 56,000 positions and the government boosted payrolls by 36,000.

The economy, which grew at a brisk 3.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter, is expected to slow to about half that pace or less in the current October-to-December quarter. The toll of the housing collapse and credit crunch are expected to catch up to consumers and chill their spending.

“The pace of economic expansion will likely slow in the near term, partly reflecting the intensification of the housing correction,” Federal Reserve policymakers said Wednesday as they decided to lower their key interest rate again.

The Fed sliced its key rate by one-quarter percentage point to 4.50 percent to protect the economy from undue economic weakness in the months ahead. It was the second rate reduction in six weeks. At the same time, the Fed hinted that it may not need to cut rates again for a while.

As economic growth slows, the unemployment rate probably will creep up to around 5 percent by the end of this year or early next year, economists say.

Many analysts believe the country will be able to avoid a recession but they warn that the odds of one occurring have grown since the beginning of this year.

Complicating the outlook and the Fed’s job: surging energy prices. Oil prices have hit record highs in recent days and are hovering past $95 a barrel.

If high oil prices boost the costs of many other goods and services, inflation can spread through the economy. High energy prices also can cause people and businesses to cut back on other types of spending, putting another damper on economic growth.

::::

Proliferation of Climate Scepticism in Europe
Hans H.J. Labohm

[tcs] Climate scepticism has now gained a firm foothold in various European countries.

In Denmark Bjørn Lomborg stands out as the single most important sceptical environmental­ist, defying the political correctness which is such a characteristic feature of his home country, as well as other Nordic countries. But wait! Bjørn Lomborg is not a genuine climate sceptic. Real climate sceptics admire his courage, his scientific rigour and debating skills, but beg to disagree with him on the fundamentals of climate science. Lomborg acknowledges that there is such a thing as man-made global warming, which is quite in line with the mantra of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). He 'only' challenges the cost benefit relationships of the policy meas­ures, which have been proposed to do something about it. Massive expenditures (often euphemistically called 'investments') in exchange for undetectable returns. Real climate sceptics do not accept the man-made global warming hypothesis. They are of the opinion that the human contribution to global warming over the last century or so is at most insignificant. But, of course, they are happy with the arguments advanced by Bjørn Lomborg to bolster their case against climate hysteria.

In Germany EIKE (Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie, Jena: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/) has been established - still in its infancy, but nevertheless. Moreover, a group of German climate sceptics has written something which could be called a consensus among many climate sceptics: Climate Manifest of Heiligenroth (See: http://www.klimamanifest-von-heiligenroth.de/klimaman-e.html). Furthermore there are many climate sceptical websites in Germany. For those who like visual thrills and possess a basic command of the German language, Konrad Fischer's website might be fun: 'Videos and films concerning the greenhouse swindle and climate terror' (http://www.konrad-fischer-info.de/7video.htm)

But the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) belief is still overwhelming in Germany. In newspapers and on TV, Stefan Rahmstorf, the German climate Torquemada, -- comparable to Al Gore in the US, George Monbiot in the UK and David Suzuki in Canada -- are constantly attacking critics of the AGW hypothesis. Contrary to good scientific practice, he lavishly lards his interventions with ad hominem attacks and insinuations that his opponents lack qualifications and/or are being paid by industry. Although decades of pro AGW indoctrination has left its mark on the German psyche, even true believers are becoming fed up with him.

In Sweden, despite its high standards of political correctness, there is a very vocal group of climate sceptics, which regularly publish in 'Elbranchen'. In September 2006 they organised a seminar: 'Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability'. This meeting was hosted by the Royal Technical High School in Stockholm and chaired by its rector, Peter Stilbs (See: http://gamma.physchem.kth.se/~climate/). Even Swedish TV has aired a debate on the issue. For those who have some command of the Scandinavian languages, see: http://webbtv.axess.se/index.aspx?id=229: Veckans Debatt: Global uppvärming: Vad säger vetenskapen?

In Italy the Bruno Leoni Institute has espoused climate scepticism (http://www.brunoleoni.it/). In Spain, the foundation Rafael del Pino has paid attention to climate scepticism in the past, but because of social and political pressure it has felt forced to keep a low profile on this issue over the last few years. (http://www.libertaddigital.com/index.php?action=desaopi&cpn=25151) In the French-speaking part of Europe, individual scientists such as as Marcel Leroux could be mentioned. Moreover, the Molinari Institute has joined the cause of climate scepticism (http://www.institutmolinari.org/index.htm). In the Czech Republic, President Vaclav Havel is single-handedly attempting to instil some common sense into public opinion. In Austria the Hayek Institute carries the torch (http://www.hayek-institut.at/english/1183/termine/article/hayek/2035/), while Estonia is represented by Olavi Kärner (http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/).

In my own country, the Netherlands, the situation has markedly improved. In line with the tradition of consensus-seeking, it has been possible to establish something close to a real dialogue between AGW adherents and the climate sceptics. Personally, I have even been invited by the Nether­lands Royal Meteorological Institute (KNMI) to become expert reviewer of the IPCC. As such, I have submitted many fundamental criticisms on the draft texts of the Fourth Assessment Re­port of the Panel (AR4). What happened to my comments? To be honest, I have not the faintest idea. Most probably, nothing at all.

Nevertheless, in my capacity as expert reviewer of the IPCC, I have also received (a tiny) part of the Nobel price, which has been awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC (yes, thanks for your congratulations). Should I be grateful? I don't think so. Both 'An Inconvenient Truth' and the latest IPCC report labour under cherry-picking, spindoctoring and scare-mongering (Al Gore's movie more than the IPCC reports). Awarding the Nobel price for such flawed science is a disgrace. But it should be recalled that the Nobel Prize for Peace is being awarded by a group of (five) Norwegian politicians and not by the Swedish Academy of Science, which is always scrupulously investigating the merits of the candidates. The Norwegians are piggybacking on the reputation of the Nobel prizes for science and literature. The method of electing the winner of the Peace prize ensures a political outcome reflecting the current strength of Norwegian political parties. Four out of five members of the parliamentary committee that selected Gore are former cabinet members. The fifth, Mjoes, was president of the University of Tromso. So the Democrat Gore owes his prize to a constellation of Progressives, Social and Christian Democrats and Green socialists. Little wonder Francis Sejersted, past chairman of the committee, admits: 'Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act.'

Russian scientists are criticising very openly the AGW hypothesis. They do it with a frankness which - in this particular field - is still rare in the 'free world'. Usually scientists shroud their statements in clouds of caveats. Even the IPCC follows this tradition to a certain extent. But Russian climatologists do not. They simply state that a new little ice age is imminent. Not so long ago it was astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, who declared that the Earth will experience a 'mini Ice Age' in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity. Now it is the climatologist Olech Sorochtin, member of the Russian Academy of Physical Science, who joins him. His message was prominently disseminated by the Russian press agency Novosti, which in the period of the Cold War was generally considered to be a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. (http://de.rian.ru/analysis/20071009/83073114.html). Therefore, it is perhaps not too far-fetched to speculate that this might be a warning signal that the Russians will drop out of Kyoto when its first phase expires in 2012.

But Britannia rules the waves. Stewart Dimmock, a Kent lorry driver and school governor, took the government to court for sending copies of Gore's film to schools. He was backed by a group of campaigners, including Viscount Monckton, a former adviser to Mrs Thatcher. They won a legal victory against 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Mr Justice Burton ruled that the movie contained at least nine scientific errors and said ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was screened. 'That ruling was a fantastic victory,' said Monckton. 'What we want to do now is send schools material reflecting an alternative point of view so that pupils can make their own minds up.' Monckton has also won support from the maker of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. Martin Durkin, managing director of WAG TV, which produced the documentary, said he would be delighted for his film to go to schools. I have become a proselytiser against the so-called consensus on climate change ... people can decide for themselves,' he said.

And what about our kids? Well, they have survived the story of Santa Claus without any visible scars. Wouldn't they survive the nonsense of man-made global warming as well?

::::

Kremlin Seeks To Extend Its Reach in Cyberspace
Pro-Government Sites Gain Influence

[wapo] : After ignoring the Internet for years to focus on controlling traditional media such as television and newspapers, the Kremlin and its allies are turning their attention to cyberspace, which remains a haven for critical reporting and vibrant discussion in Russia's dwindling public sphere.

Allies of President Vladimir Putin are creating pro-government news and pop culture Web sites while purchasing some established online outlets known for independent journalism. They are nurturing a network of friendly bloggers ready to disseminate propaganda on command. And there is talk of creating a new Russian computer network -- one that would be separate from the Internet at large and, potentially, much easier for the authorities to control.

::::

My Nobel Moment
By JOHN R. CHRISTY
November 1, 2007

[Mr. Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a participant in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize]

[wsj] : I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.

The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat. But that's another story.

Both halves of the award honor promoting the message that Earth's temperature is rising due to human-based emissions of greenhouse gases. The Nobel committee praises Mr. Gore and the IPCC for alerting us to a potential catastrophe and for spurring us to a carbonless economy.

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming -- around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.)

It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.

Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"

I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.

Others of us scratch our heads and try to understand the real causes behind what we see. We discount the possibility that everything is caused by human actions, because everything we've seen the climate do has happened before. Sea levels rise and fall continually. The Arctic ice cap has shrunk before. One millennium there are hippos swimming in the Thames, and a geological blink later there is an ice bridge linking Asia and North America.

One of the challenges in studying global climate is keeping a global perspective, especially when much of the research focuses on data gathered from spots around the globe. Often observations from one region get more attention than equally valid data from another.

The recent CNN report "Planet in Peril," for instance, spent considerable time discussing shrinking Arctic sea ice cover. CNN did not note that winter sea ice around Antarctica last month set a record maximum (yes, maximum) for coverage since aerial measurements started.

Then there is the challenge of translating global trends to local climate. For instance, hasn't global warming led to the five-year drought and fires in the U.S. Southwest?

Not necessarily.

There has been a drought, but it would be a stretch to link this drought to carbon dioxide. If you look at the 1,000-year climate record for the western U.S. you will see not five-year but 50-year-long droughts. The 12th and 13th centuries were particularly dry. The inconvenient truth is that the last century has been fairly benign in the American West. A return to the region's long-term "normal" climate would present huge challenges for urban planners.

Without a doubt, atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing due primarily to carbon-based energy production (with its undisputed benefits to humanity) and many people ardently believe we must "do something" about its alleged consequence, global warming. This might seem like a legitimate concern given the potential disasters that are announced almost daily, so I've looked at a couple of ways in which humans might reduce CO2 emissions and their impact on temperatures.

California and some Northeastern states have decided to force their residents to buy cars that average 43 miles-per-gallon within the next decade. Even if you applied this law to the entire world, the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable. Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day.

Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10% of the world's energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 -- roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 ?176 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It's a dent.

But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty?

My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit "global warming."

Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.

**Ed - Do read the entire writing at WSJ.

::::

transmission at 4:15 PM | Permalink