February 2-3, 2007
Feb 02 03:31 Global Warming: Political Movement, Not Science Feb 02 03:56 Disclosure Legislation Advancing Feb 02 11:40 A Resolution Worthy Of Support Feb 02 19:32 Rush, Al Gore Together At Last Feb 03 10:08 Gore to Testify On Global Warming Feb 03 16:36 They're Taking My Advice Feb 03 21:02 Giuliani on Judges
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006
Global Warming: Political Movement, Not Science
Don't bet on the IPCC report having any science involved with it. Here's what the AP is reporting:
The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is "very likely" caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, according to a report obtained Friday by The Associated Press.People shouldn't mistake global warming with science. Global warming is a political movement, not science. It shouldn't be treated as science. It's interesting to note that they said "global warming...will be unstoppable for centuries..." If it's unstoppable, then it's logical that we aren't having an impact. the only logical conclusion is that we're in another cycle, just like we had a cooling cycle in the 15th century before it warmed back up again.
The scientists, using their strongest language yet on the issue, said now that world has begun to warm, hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution. The report also linked the warming to the recent increase in stronger hurricanes.
"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone," said the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments.
What that means in simple language is "we have this nailed," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who originated the percentage system.Dr. Mahlman is full of it. They haven't nailed anything. Take a look at another conclusions from the 20 page report:
On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9-7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues. But there is some cold comfort. Some, but not all, of the projected temperature and sea level rises are slightly lower than projected in a previous report in 2001. That is mostly due to use of more likely scenarios and would still result in dramatic effects across the globe, scientists said. Many scientists had warned that this estimate was too cautious and said sea level rise could be closer to 3-5 feet because of ice sheet melt.Anyone thinking that the ocean can rise almost 2' is absurd. That would wipe out most coastline cities. These other 'scientists' claiming that sea level might rise 3-5' are idiots or liars. Frankly, they don't deserve to be called scientists. They're a disgrace to the field of science.
UPDATE: You could see it coming. When people started criticizing the IPCC report, the Agenda Media jumped into the fray with this article about Big Oil offered scientists money to refute the IPCC report. To be fair, I'm not saying that the information is inaccurate. I am saying that Big Media has alot to lose if people don't buy into global warming.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).That paragraph sounds ominous, doesn't it? The message is clearly that Big Oil and Evil George Bush are out to sabotage the findings of this report and they're willing to pay whatever it takes to ridicule it. I decided to check AEI's website to see what anti-global warming articles had been posted. What I found was this Norm Ornstein article. To suggest that Ornstein is in Big Oil's back pocket is laughable. Here's part of his opening to the article:
New federal legislation on climate change is certain to be enacted in the next few years. If President Bush leaves office without convincing Americans that there is a genuinely credible alternative to the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 international treaty to reduce the developed world's greenhouse gas emissions, his successor is all but certain to put American climate policy back on the Kyoto path in one form or another. The result will be potentially disastrous for both our economy and, in its own way, the environment. Sacrificing the former for the latter is at least a debatable proposition; committing vast resources in pursuit of politically popular but environmentally meaningless goals would be pure folly.Norm Ornstein is a 'good government liberal', not a shill for Big Oil. If he's writing something negative about Kyoto, it's because he thinks it's rubbish. I'd also add that this isn't an emotional response; it's the result of hours of research. Let's return to the Guardian article:
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.As I wrote earlier in the article, these idiots don't deserve the title of scientists because they're in the business of selling a political movement as science. Here's what Michael Crichton testified to before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:
To summarize it briefly: in 1998-99 the American climate researcher Michael Mann and his co-workers published an estimate of global temperatures from the year 1000 to 1980. Mann's results appeared to show a spike in recent temperatures that was unprecedented in the last thousand years. His alarming report formed the centerpiece of the U.N.'s Third Assessment Report, in 2001.Why did the UN accept Mann's report so uncritically? Why didn't they catch the errors? Because the IPCC doesn't do independent verification. And perhaps because Mann himself was in charge of the section of the report that included his work.
Mann's work was immediately criticized because it didn't show the well-known Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were warmer than they are today, or the Little Ice Age that began around 1500, when the climate was colder than today. But real fireworks began when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, attempted to replicate Mann's study. They found grave errors in the work, which they detailed in 2003: calculation errors, data used twice, data filled in, and a computer program that generated a hockeystick out of any data fed to it-even random data. Mann's work has since been dismissed by scientists around the world who subscribe to global warning.
In other words, the UN didn't review the validity of the IPCC's report. They simply publish it and accept it as fact. When they didn't review it's findings, some real scientists did. When these scientists reviewed it, they found it full of errors, errors that made the report useless except as political cover.
In other words, the media and the scientists can talk all they want about "nailing" the results of this study or how sea levels might rise as much as 5 feet or whatever as though it were etched in stone by God's own finger. The truth is that global warming is quickly getting discredited as junk 'science'.
Posted Friday, February 2, 2007 11:13 AM
Comment 1 by katrina taylor at 23-Feb-07 12:26 AM
This is absolute rubbish! I'm not even going to waste my time pointing out all of the poorly constructed and inconsistent arguments in this blog. Quoting Michael Crichton, an author of FICTION, only proves that you have absolutely no science to back up your inferior arguments.
Disclosure Legislation Advancing
According to this AP article, legislation requiring speedier disclosure of big contributions is making its way through the state legislature:
On the heels of reports that showed a flood of late and substantial campaign spending in Minnesota politics last year, a bill requiring timelier disclosure of big donations is marching through the Legislature. The House committee that oversees elections approved a measure on Thursday that would require candidates, political parties and interest groups to tell regulators within 24 hours when they get large checks close to an election.I'm glad that they're tightening up the rules but I'm wonder why this legislation doesn't mandate the immediate disclosure of all contributions. As usual, this legislation is nice but it isn't what would get crafted if Joe Public were given the responsibility of writing it. Joe Public would require all contributions be immediately reported.
Currently, only candidates are required to give notice when they get donations after the final detailed reports are filed. For gubernatorial candidates, checks of $2,000 must be reported within 48 hours; for legislative candidates it's anything above $400.These legislators might feel proud of this legislation but it leaves substantial loopholes that politicians can exploit. I'd lower the threshold for interest groups to $500 and I'd mandate that these contributions to be reported immediately. I'd also mandate that the contributor and recipient report it immediately.
The bills would lower the threshold that triggers reporting for statewide candidates to $800. It would also rope in political parties, caucuses and interest groups and require reports of donations of $1,000 or more.
Posted Friday, February 2, 2007 3:56 AM
No comments.
A Resolution Worthy Of Support
Hugh Hewitt has the text of the McCain-Lieberman-Cornyn resolution that's gaining in support. I would've posted it sooner but this blog was down for about 7 hours last night. Here's the text of their resolution:
110th CONGRESSIn other words, this resolution isn't defeatist. It deserves to be the only resolution that garners any Republican support.
1st Session
S. RES. __________________________
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq and all United States personnel under his command should receive from Congress the full support necessary to carry out the United States mission in Iraq
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mc. McCain (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Graham, Mr. Cornyn, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Thune, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Roberts) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on __________________.
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq and all United States personnel under his command should receive from Congress the full support necessary to carry out the United States mission in Iraq.
Whereas more than 137,000 members of the Armed Forces of the United States are currently serving in Iraq, like thousands of others since March 2003, with the bravery and professionalism consistent with the finest traditions of the Armed Forces of the United States, and deserve the support of all Americans.
Whereas past mistakes in United States strategy, aggression by various groups that reject peace, and other difficulties have contributed to a dire security situation in Iraq characterized by insurgent activity and sectarian violence;
Whereas a failed state in Iraq would present a threat to regional and world peace, and the long-term security interests of the United States are best served by an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself;
Whereas no amount of additional United States forces in Iraq can effect this outcome in Iraq unless the people and Government of Iraq take difficult political steps toward reconciliation;
Whereas the establishment of a basic level of security in Baghdad and throughout Iraq is an essential pre-condition for reconciliation and political and economic progress in Iraq;
Whereas these steps must include the fulfillment of military, political, and economic commitments that the Government of Iraq has made to the United States and to the people of Iraq;
Whereas Iraqi political leaders must show visible progress toward meeting specific benchmarks, including ;
(1) deploying a significant number of new Iraqi security forces to partner with United States units in securing Baghdad;
(2) assuming responsibility for security in all provinces in Iraq in a timely manner;
(3) disarming individual militias as circumstances warrant and ensuring that security forces are accountable to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq;
(4) ensuring equitable distribution of the resources of the Government of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients;
(5) enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the oil resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner;
(6) building an effective, independent judiciary that will uphold the rule of law and ensure equal protection under the law for all citizens of Iraq;
(7) pursuing all those who engage in violence or threaten the security of the Iraqi population regardless of sect or political affiliation;
(8) enacting and implementing legislation that reforms the de-Ba'athification process in Iraq;
(9) conducting provincial elections in Iraq;
(10) ensuring a fair process for amending the constitution of Iraq; and
(11) expending promised funds to provide basic services and employment opportunities for all Iraqis, including a $10,000,000,000 fund for reconstruction, and ensuring that these funds reach both Sunni and Shia areas, including Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad and largely Sunni Anbar Province;
Whereas the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq should report each month to the Senate on the progress being made by Iraqis toward achieving the benchmarks specified in the preceding clause and on their own progress in achieving their missions in Iraq;
Whereas leaders in the Administration of President George W. Bush and Congress have made it clear to the Iraqi leadership that the commitment of the United States in Iraq is not open-ended and that, if the Government of Iraq does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of its own people and the people of the United States;
Whereas the moderate countries of the Middle East, and other countries around the world, have an interest in a successful conclusion to the war in Iraq and should increase their constructive assistance toward the achievement of this end;
Whereas over the past year, leaders in the Administration of President George W. Bush and Congress, as well as recognized experts outside government, acknowledged that the situation in Iraq was deteriorating and required a change in strategy; and
Whereas Lieutenant General David Petraeus has been unanimously confirmed by the Senate as the new Coalition commander in Iraq and given the mission of implementing a new strategy for Iraq designed to bring security to Iraq and pave the way for political and economic progress in Iraq: Now, therefore be it
1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that ;
2 (1) Congress should ensure that General David
3 Petraeus, the Commander of Multinational Forces-
4 Iraq, and all United States personnel under his com-
5 mand, have the resources they consider necessary to
6 carry out their mission on behalf of the United
7 States in Iraq, and
8 (2) the Government of Iraq must make visible,
9 concrete progress toward meeting the political, eco-
10 nomic, and military benchmarks enumerated in the
11 preamble to this Resolution.
Posted Friday, February 2, 2007 11:40 AM
Comment 1 by Drew Emmer at 02-Feb-07 10:36 PM
The DFL doesn't want campaign finance reform. ANy suggestion that they do is window dressing covering up the massive cash infusion they get each cycle from the tribal casino interests.
Entenza and Hottinger offered to help us get HF 2116 up and running. They stuck it in their drawers after making a freshman representative feel like he was in for some bipartisan support.
Weasels!
Comment 2 by Leo Pusateri at 02-Feb-07 10:49 PM
This is a refreshing change from the cut-n-run crap that's been coming out of Congress lately.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 04-Feb-07 12:08 AM
Drew, Welcome to the Right Blogosphere. I highly recommend my readers to visit Wright County Republican blog. You won't regret making Drew part of your daily reading habit.
Rush, Al Gore Together At Last
I didn't think that Rush Limbaugh and would ever have anything significant in common. Yesterday, I was proved wrong when Rush and Gore were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Rush was nominated for spreading democracy, Gore for spreading....something else. Here's what the Landmark Legal Foundation said in nominating Rush:
Limbaugh, whose daily radio show is heard by more than 20 million people on more than 600 radio stations in the United States and around the world, was nominated for the prestigious award for his "nearly two decades of tireless efforts to promote liberty, equality and opportunity for all humankind, regardless of race, creed, economic stratum or national origin. These are the only real cornerstones of just and lasting peace throughout the world," said Landmark President Mark R. Levin.Here's what Norwegian lawmaker Boerge Brende said in nominating Gore:
"Rush Limbaugh is the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today," explained Levin. "Everyday he gives voice to the values of democratic governance, individual opportunity and the just, equal application of the rule of law, and it is fitting that the Nobel Committee recognize the power of these ideals to build a truly peaceful world for future generations."
"A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference," Conservative Member of Parliament Boerge Brende, a former minister of environment and then of trade, told the AP. Brende said he joined political opponent Heidi Soerensen of the Socialist Left Party to nominate Gore as well as Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier before the nomination deadline expired Thursday. "Al Gore, like no other, has put climate change on the agenda. Gore uses his position to get politicians to understand, while Sheila works from the ground up," Brende said.Let's compare Rush's accomplishments to Gore's accomplishments:
Rush has helped spread democracy by being an eloquent and persuasive advocate for the institutions of freedom.
Al Gore has helped spread propaganda about global warming, whose goal is to regulate away liberties. Global warming is a political movement masquerading as science.
Rush has spoken from the heart about the transformative power of freedom in the Middle East.
Al Gore has produced "An Inconvenient Truth", a movie that warns of a climatological catastrophe if we don't do exactly as repressive Big Government says.
Rush has spoken about the power of rugged individualism, the cornerstone of peace and liberty.
Al Gore has spoken of the 'goodness' of governments when speaking about the need for more regulation. Those regulations frustrate people, which leads to turmoil.
Rush doesn't have a chance of winning this prize just as President Bush didn't after liberating 50 million people. If there was truth in advertising they'd have to rename the Nobel Peace Prize to the Liberal Appeasers Lifetime Achievement Award. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with people spreading liberty and enduring peace.
Posted Friday, February 2, 2007 7:35 PM
No comments.
Gore to Testify On Global Warming
Seeing Al Gore testifying at two hearings should be quite the sight. According to this article in the Politico, that's what will happen Wednesday, March 21.
Former Vice President Al Gore has accepted an invitation to testify next month in a congressional hearing on the highly controversial issue of climate change. Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," which focused on global warming, received two Oscar nominations this week, one for best documentary feature. For people who make a parlor game of guessing Gore's intentions for 2008, the appearance will surely stoke speculation that he may yet be a late entrant into the Democratic presidential derby.I'd love to see him on a panel with Michael Crichton just so I could watch Crichton challenge him every time he talked. Apparently, that won't happen:
Gore will appear at a joint hearing on Wednesday, March 21. He will be the only witness to appear before the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality and the Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.Let's hope that real scientists will criticize him for his comments after he's finished testifying.
Posted Saturday, February 3, 2007 4:46 PM
No comments.
They're Taking My Advice
According to this Politico article that Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay are advocates for the advice I gave after November's humiliating defeat. Here's what the Politico is reporting:
Gingrich told fellow Republicans they have a choice: They can either fight to upend the current majority, or be members of a permanent minority. And he encouraged lawmakers to use parliamentary procedures to slow action on the House floor.Here's what I said:
2. It's vital that we regain a sense of teamwork based on a coherent, appealing vision of where America needs to go next. An important part of that means a House and Senate leadership team that are unabashed conservatives who will fight for the things that made our movement the dominant force in American politics. Another important part to the leadership puzzle must be installing people who can clearly communicate why we believe what we believe. It isn't good enough to say "I'm for this" or "I'm against that." If someone vying for a Senate or House leadership position can't clearly answer the why questions that the media will throw at them, then they aren't leadership material.Simply put, we need activist leadership. John Boehner is traditional Washington. We've seen that he isn't a leader. He's an ambitious man but that shouldn't be mistaken for being a leader. He's a slippery man, rarely answering questions directly or on point. Worst of all, he doesn't speak to the party's activists. Instead, he speaks to the party's Washington operatives.
3. We need to pick some fights on the most important issues of the day.
Mel Blunt is a decent man but he isn't bold enough for leadership. He's typical insider Washington, too K Street. He seems to be afraid of his own shadow in supporting new conservative legislation. He isn't an agenda-setter.
By comparison, Minnesota House Republicans are connecting with Minnesota's GOP activists by fighting for cutting taxes, holding the line on spending and challenging the DFL House leadership on core conservative principles.
I think that there's several key differences between the Minnesota GOP leadership and Washington's leadership. The biggest difference is that Minnesota's leadership haven't forgotten their core principles. They're bold in standing up for the activists' wishes for lower taxes and spending restraint. As Represent Brod told me, they aren't perfect but they will fight for us. I told her that the activists don't expect perfection but they do expect them to fight for the right principles.
There are few signs coming from the Beltway that they're fighting for the activists. There are no signs that they haven't accepted the status quo. That's the fastest way of assuring the GOP of permanent minority status. There isn't an intellectual curiosity to doing things that challenge conventional wisdom. There isn't enough gravitas or confidence.
There's a reason for that lack of gravitas or confidence. The Beltway GOP doesn't have enough people reading the blogs. They get most of their information from liberal bureaucrats and the Agenda Media. No wonder they've stopped thinking outside the box. It's small wonder why they get beaten down. The Minnesota GOP leadership seems to be reading the blogs. They've certainly been interacting with bloggers throughout the state. A number of the House leadership have appeared on NARN's Final Word, too, including Minority Leader Seifert, Assistant Minority Leader Brod and Rep. Severson. Senate Assistant Minority Leader David Hann has also appeared on the show.
To be fair, some U.S. House members have been fighting Speaker Pelosi's Democrats, chief among them Patrick McHenry. I just wish Rep. McHenry was part of the House leadership.
Posted Saturday, February 3, 2007 4:38 PM
No comments.
Giuliani on Judges
Many social conservatives are rightly concerned about Rudy Giuliani's social positions, specifically on what type of judges he'd nominate. Today, we got that answer from Giuliani's e-campaign. They sent out a transcript of Mayor Giuliani's statements at South Carolina's GOP executive committee meeting. Here's what Mayor Giuliani said:
On the Federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am. I'm a lawyer. I've argued cases in the Supreme Court. I've argued cases in the Court of Appeals in different parts of the country. I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret not invent the Constitution. Otherwise you end up, when judges invent the constitution, with your liberties being hurt. Because legislatures get to make those decisions and the legislature in South Carolina might make that decision one way and the legislature in California a different one. And that's part of our freedom and when that's taken away from you that's terrible. President Bush has the great model because I think as the President he appointed some really good ones and both of them are former colleagues of mine, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Justice Scalia is a former colleague of mine. Somebody that,I think Chief Justice Roberts is a great chief justice and he's young and he can have a long career and that's probably the reason the President and Vice President chose him. I think those are the kinds of justices I would appoint: Scalia, Alito and Roberts. If you can find anybody as good as that, you are very, very fortunate.I suspect that social conservatives will still be wary of Giuliani's position on social issues but I'm equally certain that many social conservatives will appreciate his willingness to nominate strict constructionists if he's nominated and elected. I'm happy that Mayor Giuliani favors strict constructionists. It's also news to me that Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito were former colleagues of his.
The more I learn about Mayor Giuliani, the more I like him. That's why I signed onto his exploratory committee.
Specifically, I like Rudy's stance on defeating the terrorists. I liked his willingness to crack down on supposedly minor crimes in his first year as New York's mayor. The dramatic decline in crime rates in NYC are directly attributable to his no nonsense approach to fighting crime. I like his being a former federal prosecutor and a very good one at that. He's undoubtedly a leader with a history of rising to the occasion.
Keep in mind that I'm not a squishy moderate. I'd describe myself as a Ronald Reagan Republican. I'm definitely a social conservative. Do I disagree with Mayor Giuliani on some issues? Definitely. Still, I find far more things that I like about Mayor Giuliani than I don't like.
Getting judges right is something that conservatives have cared about since Reagan's time in office. Rudy gets them right. That should count for alot with conservatives.
Posted Saturday, February 3, 2007 9:03 PM
Comment 1 by Judith at 03-Feb-07 11:59 PM
I am fiscally Conservative, anti-abortion, pro gun control, socially moderate but a damn strong Republican. I think Rudy will modify his socially moderate ideas as time goes on. As for judges--ooh rah Lets go Rudy!!!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 04-Feb-07 12:04 AM
Thanks Judith. I wholeheartedly agree.
