Let's get the crazy train rolling at high speed right off the bat with this first quote…

“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize.” – Democratic National Committee communications director Brad Woodhouse (link).

Let me get this straight. After years and years of Democrats attempting to undermine President Bush at every turn in the War On Terror, er, I mean the Overseas Contingency Operation, including attempts to lose the Iraq war, a DNC spokesman now has the nerve to say Republicans have thrown in with the terrorists because some Republicans opined that Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize (which he most assuredly didn't, as Obama himself even said). Wow-freakedy-wow-wow. Words fail me. I literally can't think of a negative adjective strong enough to convey how wrong this remark is. I can't even think of a way to equate an opinion on the Nobel Prize with throwing in with terrorists, but evidently Brad Woodhouse can.

And Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) seems to agree. I expect this stuff from dolts like Keith Olbermann or the other lib-nuts on MSNBC, who routinely compare Republicans to jihadis, but not from Democratic Senators or the DNC.

Also, somebody better hip Woodhouse to the fact that the Obama administration has decided the Taliban isn't our enemy any longer. Or Hamas either, for that matter. I bet that'll do wonders for the morale of our troops who've been fighting against the Taliban and dying in Afghanistan for the last seven years. Acceptance of the Taliban is also a major step backwards for human rights, especially from a President who just won the Nobel Peace Prize here on Planet Orwell. Sigh. Is the world turning on it's ear, or is it just me ?
===
Next up is this very conscientous Democratic Senator, who is fully committed to doing his job:

"I don't expect to actually read the legislative language [of the health care bill] because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life." –Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE)

Yes, being a Congressman is soooo hard, and now they expect Sen. Carper to read AND understand the legislation he's voting upon ? What's a poor Senator to do ? Study or something ? I presume Carper's state of confusion over the legislation won't prevent him from voting "Yea" on the health care bill. You just don't see integrity like Carper's anymore. On second thought, yes you do, all the time on Capitol Hill, and that's the problem.
===
Now we move on to another patriotic Senator, John Kerry (D-NVA). Here's what Kerry said about cap-and-trade legislation:

"Let me emphasize something very strongly as we begin this discussion. The United States has already this year alone achieved a 6 percent reduction in emissions simply because of the downturn in the economy, so we are effectively saying we need to go another 14 percent."

Yeah, baby ! We're fundamentally transforming America !!! If we can only make this recession a lot worse, and make it last forever, we can help the environment ! And golly gee, if we go into a full-fledged permanent Great Depression II, maybe we can even reach the Kyoto emission standards ! Victory is at hand ! Yes We Can ! Yes We Can ! Yes We Can, Destroy The Economy !!!! C'mon, everybody sing !

"Obama ! mmmm mmmm mmmm."

I can't stand it. Where did I put that hammer ?

Below is a graph of the Earth's temperature change estimates from the IPCC's Third Assessment report in 2001.

Take a look at the period from 2000-2010 on the above graph. Do you see the steady upward climb of the Earth's temperature predicted by the IPCC ? Okay, hold that thought.

Here are the actual measurements of the earth's temperature since 2003.

The Earth's temperature has not followed the IPCC model. In fact, the Earth's temperature hasn't increased at all. It has decreased (ever since the 1998 El Nino effect created a modern high temperature mark).

Bottom line – The IPCC was wrong from the minute it published it's temperature estimates. The SCIENCE says so. We might want to take this into consideration before we wreck our economy by passing cap-and-trade.

No wonder the EPA didn't want to consider Alan Carlin's information. The EPA wanted to issue a carbon dioxide endangerment finding (and it did), and Carlin's information was an inconvenient truth for that agenda, as is the SCIENCE I just pointed out.

This leads me to wonder, is global warming science really settled, as the Goreacle claims, or is it merely global warming politics that is settled ?

Even more important, why isn't the mainstream media talking about this stuff ? Who are they working for ?

“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.” – Thomas Jefferson

Allow me to construct a hypothetical set of circumstances. Let's say our country was in the midst of a severe recession, that unemployment was rising rapidly as millions of jobs were being lost, that average people were having an increasingly difficult time getting by, that our industries were having a difficult time competing, that the value of the dollar was dropping, that we were up to our ears in debt……

Okay, that isn't hypothetical at all. That's what is actually happening.

Now, in response to this not-so-hypothetical set of crisis circumstances, what would you think of our government if it passed legislation that would bring about massive tax increases, that would make it even more difficult for our industries to compete, that would cause more job losses, that would raise energy costs dramatically, that would increase the price of practically every product consumers purchase, that would put the average person much further in the hole, and that wouldn't even provide the desired benefit of said legislation ???? (link)

I'd call that government destructive to the ends of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'd want that government replaced for working against the interests of the American people. That's what I'm thinking today after the House of Representatives passed Cap-And-Trade legislation by a narrow vote of 219-212.

The Cap-and-Trade bill, also known as Waxman-Markey, also known as The American Clean Energy And Security Act, also known as the Let Them Eat Cake Act, is a 1,200 page monstrosity that nobody in the House had time to read, because the final version of the bill wasn't posted until the night before friday's vote, and a 300 page amendment was added at 3:00am on the day of the vote. I seem to remember President Obama saying something about having the most transparent administration EVAH !…….I guess Congress didn't get the memo on that, because they are operating like cat burglars in the dead of night.

Here's a quick rundown of the bad guys and the good guys in the House. The bad guys voting FOR the destruction of America included 211 Democrats and 8 Republicans. The good guys voting AGAINST destruction included 44 Democrats and 168 Republicans. You can find a complete vote tally here. I'd like to single out Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for praise for standing against this bill. I've maligned Mr. Kucinich in the past, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong about him. He seems to be one of the few in the House who actually stands on his principles. That's noteworthy to me, even if I often disagree with him. The fact that 44 Democrats voted against this bill shows us that the Dems know Cap-And-Trade is a really bad idea, but lots of Democrats caved to pressure from the White House. El Presidente badly wants more control over all aspects of America, and this bill puts him in the express lane toward acquiring that control (but he believe in free markets ! lol).

"We've seen the example in Spain, it's a colossal mistake there, a political and an economic error. This could be the most colossal mistake ever made in the history of the United State Congress." – Congressman Steve King (R-IOWA).

I picked the above quote not only because a guy named King must be right, but because he mentioned Spain. What happened in Spain ?

Spain already implemented cap-and-trade, and has the most far-reaching renewable energy agenda in the European Union. The result ? Unemployment is at 18% in Spain (double the EU average), and there have been 2.2 jobs lost for every green job created. In addition, tons of subsidies are required for green energy initiatives to be competitive. The wind industry jobs created in Spain have come at a cost of $1.4 million PER JOB. (link)

Gee, who wouldn't want to emulate such "success" ???

But my favorite comment on the cap-and-trade legislation came from Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who when asked why he spent an hour reading portions of the bill aloud on the House floor, said, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s–t." (link)

Even those who are in favor of restricting carbon emissions know that this cap-and-trade bill is, um, crap. Here's one such person, billionaire Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway:

"I think if you get into the way it was written, it's a huge tax and there's no sense calling it anything else. I mean, it is a tax. And it's a fairly regressive tax. If we buy permits, essentially, at our utilities, that goes right into the bills of the utility customers, and an awful lot of people in Iowa, in Oregon, and Utah, and places where we are, very poor people are going to pay a lot more money for electricity. So I think that can be improved." (link)

Speaking of restricting carbon emissions, which is the stated purpose of cap-and-trade (all it's negative and destructive effects are just icing on the cake), exactly how much of an effect on global warming will this cap-and-trade bill have ? (for the sake of brevity, I'm assuming here that man-made carbon emissions are a significant cause of global warming, an assumption that is itself a source of controversy).

Washington Post writer Martin Feldstein lays it out in an article called Cap-And-Trade: All Cost, No Benefit.

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

Waxman-Markey will have NO EFFECT on global warming, but it will have the "benefit" of further destroying our country.

In spite of all this, there are many American corporations ready to jump on the green bandwagon and profit from the carbon credit trading frenzy that El Presidente is trying to unleash on us. You're even familiar with some of these corporations – AIG, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, General Electric…you know, the GOOD corporations that we've all come to know and love so much during the recession. They are ready to jump on the manufactured energy bubble and rake in the big bucks. That these same companies are all recipients of government bailouts is just a big old coincidence, I'm sure. Too bad Enron isn't around any longer. Those guys knew how to run an energy bubble. I bet most of you didn't even know that General Electric got a bailout. Somehow, that hasn't been mentioned by the mainstream media very much. Not only did GE get a bailout, they got a $139 billion bailout, second in size to AIG's bailout. Yet somehow, the enormous GE bailout hasn't been mentioned or condemned by major television networks like……NBC, nor by NBC's retarded cable stepchildren over at MSNBC (aka, The Obama Channel). I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that General Electric OWNS NBC, or the fact that GE is deeply in bed with the Obama administration. I'm sure that can't be it. Everyone knows MSNBC is a group of highly dedicated professional journalists who would never compromise their integrity or ideals for…….LOL. Oh, man. I can't finish this sentence. Sometime I even crack myself up.

But make sure you contact GE for all your carbon credit trading needs. They are primed and ready for all their cap-and-trade lobbying to start paying dividends.

As for you, America, I hope you like cake, because if you don't rise up and stop this Cap-And-Trade disaster in the Senate, cake is all you'll have left. And maybe some government cheese to go with it, if you're lucky.

The House Energy And Commerce Committee has approved the American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009 (cap and trade). Although no members of the committee actually read the nearly 1,000 page bill, the House did employ a speed reader for a day to read part of the bill aloud (think Pittsburgh Pete), which didn't help inform Congress at all, but did provide some excellent material for all the late night talk show comedians.

The aim of the bill, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill, is to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from automobiles, coal plants, and factories by 83% over the next 40 years. Here's the bill's primary sponsor, Representative Henry "Clueless" Waxman (D-CA), explaining what is in the bill when he was asked the other day:

"You're asking me ? Well, I certainly don't claim to know everything that's in this bill….I don't know the details. We rely on the scientists."

Excellent leadership, Mr. Waxman.

Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post describes the cap and trade legislation:

There remains a robust argument over whether the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 represents a crucial step in preserving life as we know it. But there is no question that there are few pieces of legislation that are likely to have a more profound effect on the U.S. economy. It would bring about dramatic changes in the relative prices of energy and goods produced by energy-hungry industries. It would redistribute trillions of dollars in business sales and household income and generate hundreds of billions in government revenue. And it would represent the most dramatic extension of government's regulatory powers into the workings of the economy since the early days of the New Deal.

For all that, there are probably not more than a few hundred people who really understand what's in this legislation, how it would work and what its impact is likely to be.

The other thing to say about it is that it is a badly flawed piece of public policy. It is so broad in its reach and complex in its details that it would be difficult to implement even in Sweden, let alone in a diverse and contentious country like the United States. It would create dozens of new government agencies with broad powers to set standards, dole out rebates and tax subsidies, and pick winning and losing technologies, even as it relies on newly created markets with newly created regulators to set prices and allocate resources. Its elaborate allocation of pollution allowances and offsets reads like a parody of industrial policy authored by the editorial page writers of the Wall Street Journal. The opportunities for waste, fraud and regulatory screwup look enormous.

Sounds just peachy. Sure, cap and trade may cost a million jobs and drive up everybody's energy costs by several hundred to several thousand dollars each year, but we get an enormous new government bureaucracy to boot ! What could possibly go wrong ? Besides, we're in an economic boom period now, right ? Who cares if job losses, costs, and taxes go up ? It's not like we're in a recession or anything, where something like this cap and trade legislation would REALLY hurt.

As if all that isn't enough, here's a little about the 'trade' part of cap and trade from David Sokol of the Washington Post:

If you liked what credit default swaps did to our economy, you're going to love cap-and-trade. Just read Title VIII of the bill, which lets investment banks, hedge funds and other speculators participate in the cap-and-trade market. They don't have emissions to cut; they have commissions to make.

The Waxman-Markey bill imposes a market-based (read: unregulated) trading program on a highly regulated industry that must make enormous long-term and least-cost capital decisions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In an unprecedented and unwise fashion, it turns American industry over to the federal Environmental Protection Agency by giving the agency the authority to change the rules on allowances every five years. Is this sound public and economic policy? I think not.

Well, at least Wall Street will make money, even as American industries and American consumers take it up the tailpipe.

I think this cap and trade legislation could work, but it will require the "nuclear option" to succeed. By that, I mean it could work if we use nuclear weapons to destroy China and India, because that's where the rest of our industries and jobs will go if this legislation goes into effect.

Other than that, it sounds great. And after all this, what impact will cap and trade have on the environment ? Beats me. Maybe a little, maybe none whatsoever. Does that even matter anymore ?

Following are some news stories our esteemed mainstream media just can't manage to find time for, at least not when such pressing issues as whether or not Miss California, Carrie Prejean, has had a boob job are still under investigation. Prejean, the 21-year old liberal hate media target of the week, also had some racy Victoria's Secret modeling photos taken of her when she was 17, so it's perfectly understandable why the media missed the following stories. I imagine they are too busy working up a full-scale profile on the hypocrisy of the entire Christian movement after Miss California had the audacity to politely say she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman. Prejean is obviously worse than Hitler, and must be destroyed, along with that Sarah woman from Alaska. Those b's (or are they c's ?) better zip it, and go bake some cookies. This is the hope and change era, dammit. We can't have these dames going around offering their pretty little opinions, even when asked for them at a Miss USA pageant or a national Vice Presidential debate. It's not like they didn't know what they were SUPPOSED to say. If we don't put these gals in their place, before you know it, women will be running around giving all kinds of opinions about stuff, and not the always the RIGHT ones either. Who wants THAT kind of country ?

On to the news the media can't use.
—
The Obama administration has decided not to release the photos from the Scare Force One New York flyover that terrified the residents of lower Manhattan. This sets an interesting standard of what constitutes classified or privileged information to the Obamans. The Bush "torture" memos – NO. The Iraq prisoner abuse photos – NO. Photos that might embarass the President – YES. It appears "the most open administration in history" is only open about OTHER administrations, not it's own.
—
Multiple Chrysler creditors are saying the Obama administration engaged in political threats and intimidation to get the creditors to surrender their contractual rights as the Obama administration wants. From Business Insider:

Conversations with administration officials left them [Chrysler creditors] expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said.

Although the focus has so been on allegations that the White House threatened Perella Weinberg, sources familiar with the matter say that other firms felt they were threatened as well. None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions.

The audacity of hope. The politics of fear. This is why the government shouldn't run businesses, and why government should be limited, as the Constitution intended. It looks like Obama's Chicago political machine training is coming in handy. Make 'em an offer they can't refuse. One creditor, who voted for Obama, called him "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet – and I knew Kissinger."
—
Recent polling suggests Americans don't believe in man-made global warming, despite the finest scare tactics the left and the media could muster up. A recent Rasmussen poll found that only 34% of Americans believe man is causing global warming. A Pew Research poll found that out of twenty important issues facing the country, global warming ranked dead last, the least important. I'd say maybe Al Gore should make another movie to protect his green investments, but Democrats are pressing forward with climate change legislation anyway. House Democrats say they'll have a bill ready by Memorial Day, and intend to pass it by year end.
—
In the $3.5 trillion budget approved by Congress, President Obama's much hyped "tax cuts for 95% of Americans" end after NEXT YEAR. Y'all really didn't believe the hype, did you ? Notably, Bush's tax cuts for the lower and middle classes will be kept (I thought those were "tax cuts for the rich"). Also, the budget stops Republicans from blocking Obama's health care plans (but I'm sure they are blocking the GOP in a "bipartisan" and "inclusive" fashion).
—
But I want to be fair to our media. Here is a great story MSNBC broke about Obama and Biden going to a burger joint in Virginia. It seems our Telemprompter-In-Chief and his Gaffemaster VP walked right up to the counter, ordered their own burgers, and waited until the burgers were done. End of story. Do I smelll a Pulitzer in the air for MSNBC ?????

Because we're on the verge of riding the cap-and-trade road (to hell ?), paved with good intentions, of course, I thought I'd share some of the not-so-accurate predictions our environmental gurus made on the original Earth Day in 1970. Not that I'm saying Al Gore could EVER be mistaken now. Lord, no. He said "the science is settled," so…that's it. There will be no more science on global warming. Nada. It's over. The science stops here. We know all there is to know. That's the way all scientific achievement has been brought about, by stopping the science…..wait a minute. That doesn't sound quite right…..

Ah, no matter.

Anyway, as Reason Online states, when it comes to predictions, the environmental prophets of doom have not only been wrong, they've been spectacularly wrong.

I give you the 1970 Earth Day predictions from the leading Al Gore's of their day (except the following people REALLY WERE scientists, unlike the Goreacle, who is, in case nobody has noticed, a businessman, heavily invested in (guess what?) green technologies).

Check these out:

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind" – Harvard biologist George Wald

"By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s" – Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb. Ehrlich estimated that 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the 'Great Die-Off' in the 1980's.

"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation" – Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day 1970. The reality ? Since 1970, the amount of food per person globally has increased by 26 percent, as the International Food Policy Research Institute reported in October 1999.

"Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…." – Life magazine.

"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable" – ecologist Kenneth Watt

"Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out" – a 1973 Deparment of Health, Education, and Welfare study about the effects of DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons.

"By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, `I am very sorry, there isn't any" – ecologist Kenneth Watt.

"Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct" – Sen. Gaylord Nelson in Look magazine.

"The greenhouse theorists contend the world is threatened with a rise in average temperature, which if it reached 4 or 5 degrees, could melt the polar ice caps, raise sea level by as much as 300 feet and cause a worldwide flood" – Newsweek, 1970.

"Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born" – Newsweek, 1970.

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age" – ecologist Kenneth Watt.

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" – Barack Obama, 2008

Candidate Obama wasn't kidding when he made the above statement, and now President Obama and the Democrats are preparing to raise consumer energy prices through the roof. It isn't only their cap and trade proposals that will drive up energy costs either. Alternative energies will have the same effect. As the New York Times reports:

experts…estimate that wind power is currently more than 50 percent more expensive than power generated by a traditional coal plant… The cost of solar thermal electricity, made by using the sun’s heat to boil water and spin a turbine, would be nearly three times that of coal and more than twice that of natural gas. (It would be almost double the cost of wind energy, too.)

Carbon dioxide regulations will also drive up the costs associated with producing coal-based electricity, which will be passed along to the consumers as well. Jason Furman, deputy director of Obama’s National Economic Council, has said the annual costs of cap and trade could be $250 billion (other cost estimates are MUCH higher). Government mandates on green energy usage also increase the price. It's no coincidence that California, the state with the highest renewable energy mandates (20%), has the highest energy prices in the nation.

Naturally, those hardest hit by the skyrocketing energy prices will be those among us who can least afford it, the poor and the middle class (but, don't worry, Obama is only raising taxes on the rich ! LOL. Some people will believe anything).

So, what can we do about these skyrocketing future energy prices ?

Not much. You see, our fourth branch of government (and you thought there were only three branches, didn't you ?), the Environmental Protection Agency, has ruled that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health by causing global warming. This gives the EPA the power to control energy under the Clean Air Act. Our cars, homes, and businesses are all subject to EPA regulations and mandates now. Through either EPA mandate or Congressional legislation, the greenies have us boxed in. As Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) put it, "It is now no longer a choice between doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between legislation and regulation. The EPA will have to act if Congress does not act." Game, set, and match. Get out your wallets, America. It's a darned good thing our economy is humming along so nicely, isn't it ? I'm sure we'll hardly feel the pinch, right ?

As for those "millions of green jobs" President Obama promised, consider this, from Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK):

“It’s estimated by the Heritage Foundation that if they are successful in their [CO2] endangerment findings in the White House, it will cost us 800,000 jobs almost immediately. The jobs, where would they go? They would go China, India, Mexico. They’d go to places where they don’t have any emissions restrictions.

“Consequently we would have a net increase worldwide in CO2, so it just doesn’t make any sense. But when you’re dealing with the Hollywood elitists, the extremist environmentalists, you don’t have to make sense.”

A Spanish study indicated that there were 2.2 jobs lost for every job created by wind and solar power.

If we're not careful in what we are doing in the energy sector, we could jack up consumer energy costs, jack up taxes, lose jobs, and after all that…HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON GLOBAL WARMING.

Other than that, I guess there's no problem.

What if Bush or Palin said this ?: "It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of — I don't know what the term is in Austrian — wheeling and dealing — and, you know, people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics" – Barack Obama, who apparently doesn't know that Austrians speak German.

Yes, but freedom fries were before Sarkozy: "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." – Barack Obama, Apologist-In-Chief. Maybe you didn't notice Barry, but Europe was pretty dismissive of YOU during your overseas lovefest. The NATO countries are bailing on the Afghanistan War. Someone please remind me, why does NATO still exist ?

Um, weren't those JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ideals and values ?: "One of the great strengths of the United States is — although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." - Barack Obama in Turkey.

The times, they are a changin': "London hosted a Group of 20 meeting amid chaos. Chinese communists are now the capitalists, France's president is Hungarian, the Anglo-Saxons are being led by a socialist and a Kenyan, and Germany is refusing to send troops into other countries. Astronauts aboard the Space Station report the Earth is spinning backwards." – comedian Argus Hamilton.

This guy knows liberals: "The Huffington Post is organizing "citizen journalists" to attend the protests, allegedly to "report." Which means that they will try to find someone in a crowd who says something stupid, will post it on the internet, and build an argument around it trying to demonize the movement. And left-wing bloggers will react in unison like dogs responding to a whistle, about the "dangerous" and "violent" and "racist" tea parties. This tactic is as old as time; or at least as old as the internet." - William Jacobson, creator of the website Legal Insurrection, describing the pre-emptive faux-horror strategy of the left about the upcoming "treasonous and seditious" tea party rallies. Which reminds me, I'll see you at the Cleveland Tax Day Tea Party rally on April 15th at Mall C from 4-6pm.

And here's the reason why we are having Tea Party rallies: "Finally, what of the claim not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? Even ignoring his large energy taxes, Mr. Obama must reconcile his arithmetic. Every dollar of debt he runs up means that future taxes must be $1 higher in present-value terms. Mr. Obama is going to leave a discounted present-value legacy of $6.5 trillion of additional future taxes, unless he dramatically cuts spending. (With interest the future tax hikes would be much larger later on.) Call it a stealth tax increase or ticking tax time-bomb.
What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama’s plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In 10 years, interest would bring the total to well over a quarter million dollars, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding 10 years, the tax hike every year would average almost $34,000.) That’s in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama’s budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits." – Michael Boskin.

For science lover's only: "New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain. Dr Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s – particularly in the Arctic – may have resulted from changes in levels of solid “aerosol” particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level – of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.
Shindell’s research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates." – Lewis Page, The Register.

Snort. I knew those NASA guys were nothing but a bunch of evangelical religious nut holocaust denying flat-earther zealots in the pocket of big oil. Geez. Don't they know the "debate is over," as the pre-eminent [non]scientist Al Gore says ? Enough with this so-called "science." It only confuses people.

The following chart illustrates what percentage of CO2 greenhouse gases are attributable to man:

The rest of the greenhouse gases consist mostly of water vapor (95%). Read the Global Warming Primer for more information. Also keep in mind that the proposed cap-and-trade system of taxation being proposed by Obama, which would cost trillions of dollars, aims to decrease that tiny dot of man-made CO2 in the above chart by only 15%. Color me skeptical as to the positive effects of cap-and-trade.
—-
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) has introduced the Save The Liberal Media Act, er, I mean, the Newspaper Revitalization Act, which he says could help save the ailing newspaper industry. Cardin's press release stated, "The Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as non-profits, if they choose, under 501(c)(3) status for educational purposes, similar to public broadcasting. Under this arrangement, newspapers would not be allowed to make political endorsements, but they would be allowed to freely report on all issues, including political campaigns. Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt and contributions to support coverage or operations could be tax deductible."

As most of you already know, the vast majority of newspapers and other mainstream media outlets lean left. The Dems don't want to lose their propaganda advantage.
—-
From the Here's Why The GOP Is Braindead files: Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) may soon have both houses of Congress taking up an issue of vital national security – the NCAA football championship system (BCS). The legislation would prohibit the NCAA from naming a national champion unless it follows whatever playoff system Congress dictates. Unbelievable. I don't know where Congress gets the idea it has the authority to regulate this, and I have even less idea why Congress thinks this deserves their attention. Maybe Hatch is mad that undefeated Utah didn't make the championship game last year. Whatever. This is just one more small sign that Capitol Hill is WAY out of control.
—-
The Big Lie: "…in this budget, we have to make the tough choices necessary to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term, even under the most pessimistic estimates. At the end of the day, the best way to bring our deficit down in the long run is not with a budget that continues the very same policies that have led us to a narrow prosperity and massive debt. It's with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest." –President Barack Obama, who is moving America into the most massive crushing debt in history, faster than any presidential administration in history.

And, of course, when Obama says "invest," he means tax, borrow, and spend.
—-
Joke of the day: On a Saturday afternoon, in Washington, D.C., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's aide visited the Cardinal of the Catholic cathedral. He told the Cardinal that Nancy Pelosi would be attending the next day's sermon, and he asked if the Cardinal would kindly point out Pelosi to the congregation and say a few words that would include calling Pelosi a saint. The Cardinal replied, "No. I don't really like the woman, and there are issues of conflict with the Catholic Church over certain of Pelosi's views." Pelosi's aide then said, "Look. I'll write a check here and now for a donation of $100,000 to your church if you'll just tell the congregation you see Pelosi as a saint."
The Cardinal thought about it and said, "Well, the church can use the money, so I'll work your request into tomorrow's sermon."
As Pelosi's aide promised, House Speaker Pelosi appeared for the Sunday sermon and seated herself prominently at the edge of the main aisle. And, during the sermon, as promised, the Cardinal pointed out that House Speaker Pelosi was present. Then the Cardinal went on to explain to the congregation — "While Speaker Pelosi's presence is probably an honor to some, she is not my favorite person. Some of her views are contrary to those of the church, and she tends to flip-flop on many other views. Nancy Pelosi is a petty, self-absorbed hypocrite, a thumb sucker, and a nit-wit. Nancy Pelosi is also a serial liar, a cheat, and a thief. Nancy Pelosi is the worst example of a Catholic I have ever personally witnessed. She married for money and is using it to lie to the American people. She also has a reputation for shirking her Representative obligations both in Washington, and in California. She simply is not to be trusted."
The Cardinal completed his view of Pelosi with, "But, when compared to Senators Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and John Kerry, House Speaker Pelosi is a saint."

The Goracle

Seeing as how cap-and-trade legislation is about to be implemented by our President and Congress, and 2,300 lobbyists (a 300% increase in the last 5 years) are vying for influence over the newer, greener, more expensive energy sector, I thought another perspective on global warming climate change might be in order.

Last week, the Heartland Institute sponsored the 2008 International Conference On Climate Change in New York City. Unfortunately, the Conference, which consisted of 200 climate change scientists who are largely NOT man-made global warming alarmists, was completely ignored by the mainstream media. Undoubtedly, this was due to the fact that there is virtually no media presence in a little, out-of-the-way burg like New York City. NYC only has a few local mom-and-pop media outlets, such as NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, the Associated Press, the New York Times, etc. Nothing that could really reach a mass market. Plus, Octomom was putting in a bid on a house, so the media's attention was diverted to more important matters than whether or not climactic Armageddon was going to occur. Last week was also 'Get Limbaugh' week for the mainstream media, so they were very busy.

Al Gore and other well-known man-made global warming alarmists were invited to speak at the Conference, but they all refused. The alarmists did send in some professional hecklers to disrupt the proceedings however, all in the spirit of open scientific inquiry, I'm sure.

Wait until you hear what a bunch of lunatic fringe nutjobs these man-made global warming skeptics are, and since when has skepticism had any place in science, anyway ? Here's how Conference host Joseph L. Bast describes these loons:

We have with us, tonight and tomorrow, more than 200 scientists and other experts on climate change, from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States. They come from the University of Alabama, Arizona State, Carleton, Central Queensland, Delaware, Durham, and Florida State University. From George Mason, Harvard, The Institute Pasteur in Paris, James Cook, John Moores, Johns Hopkins, and the London School of Economics. From The University of Mississippi, Monash, Nottingham, Ohio State, Oregon State, Oslo, Ottawa, Rochester, Rockefeller, and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. And from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Suffolk University, the University of Virginia, Westminster School of Business (in London), and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. And I apologize if I left anyone out. These scientists and economists have been published thousands of times in the world’s leading scientific journals and have written hundreds of books.

Obviously, they all must be corporate toady, fundamentalist, dittohead freaks on the payroll of FoxNews and the oil companies, as the Algoreans would say. Real scientists like the Algoreans know you must demonize, marginalize, ignore, and libel any heretical, blaspheming skeptics who question the true and infallible scientific doctrine. The sky IS falling, dammit, and the Algoreans are not amused by any contradictory data. Facts only confuse people.

But if any of you out there still bitterly cling to that failed idea from the past known as the scientific method, I highly recommend giving the linked website a thorough read. The sky may not be falling, and even if it is, it may not be for the reasons you think. Enjoy (but don't tell anyone you read this. You don't want the global warming police on your case, man. Keep it on the downlow until the current PC virus (Political Correctness) passes and free speech comes back into style).

P.S. – This post will self-destruct in, oh, about 4-10 years, depending upon Algore's latest revised prediction of doom.

A famous American weather forecasting animal, the groundhog named Punxsutawney Phil, emerged at Gobbler's Knob this morning and allegedly saw his shadow. As we all know, that means we're in for six more weeks of winter. Sigh.

I say Punxsutawney Phil "allegedly" saw his shadow because, as it turns out, Groundhog Day isn't just a weather forecasting tool (and a funny Bill Murray movie), it's also a vast Gobbler's-wing conspiracy. It seems nobody really knows or cares if Phil sees his shadow or not every year. The result is determined in advance by 14 poobahs from the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club, collectively known as the Inner Circle (sorta like a groundhog Illuminati).

My friends, we've been scammed. The little groundhog can't predict the weather. Double sigh. Say it ain't so.

This brings to mind another famous weather forecasting tool, Al Gore, who recently emerged from his energy-sucking mansion in Tennessee to inform us the earth will only support human life for four more years due to global warming climate change. The Goreacle's Illuminati are referred to by the acronym IPCC, which I think stands for International Purveyors of Carbon Credits (or something like that). The IPCC consists of 2,500 scientists who are certain that global warming climate change isn't just a theory, it's a fact. Since 2,500 scientists could never be wrong (even though they were wrong about global cooling in the 1970's), who are we to question them ? We're just peons, and they are SCIENTISTS. Case closed. As the Goreacle says, "the debate is over." Let's kill all the cows (the number one source of "unnatural" carbon dioxide emissions) and run all our vehicles on solar or wind power (also referred to as "peddling").

Like Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.

Well, except for a few other inconvenient truths I'd like to share, such as…

- The planet has experienced no global warming since 1998. During that time, the Earth has cooled. (link)

- Over 31,000 American scientists say there is no convincing evidence of man-made global warming, or evidence that it will cause catastrophic weather changes on the Earth. (link) This brings up a mathematics question. Are 31,000+ American scientists more than 2,500 IPCC scientists ?

- IPCC scientists have been caught promoting fraudulent data to promote their global warming hypothesis (link)

- The proposition that Greenland's ice sheet is shrinking is suspect, and the Antarctic ice is growing (link)

Now, I'm the first one to admit I don't have the answers, but neither does Al Gore (who is NOT a scientist, btw). The debate is not over, so when you hear the Goreacle say something like this:

"[Global warming] would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fiber of life everywhere on the earth….If we stopped global greenhouse gas emissions today, according to some scientists … we would [still] see an increase in temperatures that many scientists believe would be extremely challenging for civilization…If we continue at today's levels, some scientists have said it can be an increase of up to 11 degrees Fahrenheit." – Al Gore testifying in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week.

There really should be an accompanying laugh track.

The bad news is, President Barack Obama buys into the Goreacle's future shock scenario, unproven though it is. Obama would implement the onerous cap and trade system to control carbon emissions, and his stimulus bill contains lots of money to combat global warming (how will that stimulate the economy again ? The point keeps eluding me).

But Obama doesn't believe in global warming when it comes to HIS lifestyle. He's been turning up the White House thermostat, because, darn it, it's COLD outside (cue the laugh track):

"He's from Hawaii, O.K.?" said Obama's senior adviser, David Axelrod. "He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there."

You see, Obama only believes in global warming when it comes to YOUR lifestyle:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times, and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." – Barack Obama, May 2008.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Same as it ever was. It's Groundhog Day all over again.

I'm happy to report that GOP Senators, along with 4 Democrats, voted down the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill, in a move that will kick the cap-and-trade carbon tax can down the road until next year, when support for the economy-killing bureaucratic monstrosity will presumably be stronger.

There is more to say about the alleged "consensus" on global warming, however. Al Gore famously declared the global warming debate to be over a while back, and many seem to agree with him. As proof of scientific consensus, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) is cited. In February 2007, the IPCC found a 90% or greater probability that human activity (the burning of fossil fuels) was the cause of global warming over the last hundred years. The IPCC claims the planet has warmed just short of a whopping 1 degree in the last century, which Democrats took as a clear sign that America should abandon this free market capitalism nonsense at once. Of course, Democrats also think the existence of one poor person anywhere in a country of 300 million is sufficient reason to abandon free market capitalism, so we may not want to listen to them. When I think of the Dems economic socialist intentions, the saying 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' always pops into my mind.

But I digress. The IPCC's declaration on man-made global warming was signed by 19,000 scientists, and these were REAL scientists, not the FAKE kind that private industry uses. These were GOVERNMENT scientists, you know, the good ones. We know they are good, because government NEVER lies, a lesson that poor Winston Smith was forced to learn the hard way in the George Orwell novel 1984. Not to worry though, Winston was only a fictional character. There are NO examples of government ever lying to it's own citizens in real life (this is doubly true on sundays, when Congress isn't in session).

Now, I admit that 19,000 agreeing scientists is a lot, and it does sound mostly consensual, sorta like Bill Clinton's sex life….

Except when almost 32,000 American scientists have signed the Oregon petition, which states:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

So, what's going on here ? Do we have a consensus or don't we ? It seems we don't. Could all 32,000 of these American scientists be the BAD kind ??? That seems pretty unlikely to me. Scientists aren't really good or bad anyway. I was just funnin' the Dems before, because they immediately demonize anyone who doesn't hold with their global warming alarmist theories. Scientists just follow the scientific data (in theory).

I don't pretend to know who is correct about global warming. I'm not an expert on the subject. I'm just pointing out that there DOES seem to be a debate still going on, no offense to the Algoreans.

There is no distinctly American criminal class, except Congress. – Mark Twain

As I was watching our distinguished Senators debate the Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill, which has been amended into the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill, I was wondering why it is that such a group of educated ladies and gentlemen can disagree so profoundly about such an issue. Even more curious is how the disagreement seems to follow so closely along party lines. The disagreement I'm speaking of is not about whether man-made global warming is real or not. Most of the Senators from both sides of the aisle speaking yesterday seemed to agree it is real, with the exception of a couple prehistoric bone-waving Republican heretics who dared question the SCIENCE OF THE CARBON GODS (amen). No, the disagreement I'm speaking of is the disagreement over the remedies for global warming (pardon me, the CARBON GODS inform me I am to use the term "Climate Change" from now on, not "Global Warming". The operative words are "Climate Change". That way, ANY inclement weather AT ALL can be attributed to global warming, er, climate change. My bad). Not only do our educated Senators disagree over the cap-and-trade program, they also disagree over whether the Climate Change bill is the biggest new government bureaucracy since the New Deal, which will raise everyone's energy prices drastically, destroy our economy, and accomplish very little in the way of curbing CO2 emissions (the Republican position) – or whether the Climate Bill will save us from extinction, cost nothing, and create jobs (the Democratic position). Talk about polar opposites (hey, is that a pun ?).

So, who is right ? The title of this post might provide a hint. You'll have to read the link to get all of the info, because there is too much for me to write out here.

Nobody quite knows how much the current Climate Change bill will cost (which is a reason to vote against it right there), but here are some estimates:

A study by Charles River Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household spending per year) of S. 2191 at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050.[2] Electricity prices could jump by 36 to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 to 125 percent by 2050.[3] No analysis has been done on the impact of S. 2191 on gasoline prices, but an Environmental Protection Agency study of a less stringent cap and trade bill estimates impacts of 26 cents per gallon by 2030 and 68 cents by 2050.[4]

Most independent studies have calculated the costs to be even higher than those estimates.

The Democrats solution to everything is to create a huge new government bureaucracy, impose onerous regulations and restrictions on business and/or society, increase taxes, and increase government spending. I have come to believe it is the liberal Democratic modus operandi to interfere with capitalism and free markets as much as possible in order to later complain that capitalism and free markets don't work (all evidence to the contrary). It's their self-fulfilling prophecy, and it is intentional. They've done it with health care. They've done it with business, jobs, poverty, education, retirement. They've used it to destroy the middle class. They use their philosophy to get as many Americans as possible dependent on the government, which in turn forces those Americans to vote for Democrats to maintain the free flow from the government teat. It's a clever and insidious strategy, and the bigger our government grows, the more irresistible that strategy becomes. You aren't supposed to notice that such a strategy ends with the death of liberty. I actually heard Barbara Boxer (D-CA) say on the Senate floor yesterday that if the Climate Change Bill she's co-sponsoring drives up the cost of energy, that's okay, because then we can just increase the HEAP entitlement program to help people pay their higher energy bills. That is dastardly, folks.

Nevertheless, the cause of diminishing CO2 emissions (if you believe they must be diminished) may be one case where some measure of government interference is unavoidable, but we must exercise extreme vigilance with the system we impose. The considerations of energy, environment, and economy must all be carefully balanced. The current Congressional majority wants to do SOMETHING about climate change just so they can say they did something, but what they are proposing IS a boondoggle. It's a huge tax and regulatory bureaucratic nightmare that will send the prices of gasoline and electricity soaring at a time we can least afford it. The current bill will probably be voted down, but the issue isn't going away. Regardless of which Democrat wins the presidency in november, Obama or McCain, expect the Climate Change bill to return with a vengeance next year, because both Obama and McCain favor cap-and-trade (Bob Dole, will you please send McCain a nasty e-mail ?). We the people had better keep a close eye on Congress and get involved, or we'll soon be looking back on today as the good old days of low energy prices. I don't think anyone wants that.

At the UN Climate conference in Bali, a global tax on carbon emissions was recommended by a panel of participants. Advocates said the tax would be “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.” (Translation: Bend over, United States Of America). Basically, the richer countries would be paying for the poorer countries to prepare for the catastrophic specter of global warming. It's CO2 socialism. Advocates of the tax say failure to adopt it will bring about the end of all life on earth as we know it, and some even worse stuff too. And that's their conservative estimate.

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told Inhofe EPW Press Blog following the panel discussion titled “A Global CO2 Tax.” Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm

Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.”

The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal."

The UN was presented with a new report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”

Sounds to me like somebody hasn't done their homework here. There's a big difference between $10 billion and $40 billion. Expect the actual cost to be much, much, much higher if the UN ever convinces the US to go along with this step toward the end of our national sovereignty (to prevent it, elect a Republican in 2008). I wonder what the UN would do if america didn't pay it's global taxes ? Maybe they could put blue helmets on our soldiers and have us attack ourselves, or perhaps they would foreclose on Washington, D.C. It's a brave new world.

Not everyone favors the global carbon tax. There is a group of scientists who are strongly against it. These are the people Al Gore would call "deniers" (like Holocaust deniers) and "anti-scientific" (even though they ARE scientists). The Goreacle is not real flexible on this issue. He says the science of man-made global warming is settled (even though it isn't). Speaking of science, is Gore a scientist ? I think not, even if he did invent the internet.

…a team of over 100 prominent international scientists who warned the UN that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."

The scientists wrote, “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." The scientists, many of whom are current or former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sent the December 13 letter to the UN Secretary-General.

Could there be more to all this than the stated reason of reducing carbon emissions and preparing for the post-apocalyptic globally warmed world ? It sounds to me like there is. Listen to the following quotes. These people sound more like socialists who want to run the world than folks concerned about climate change:

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

In 2000, then French President Jacques Chirac said the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance." Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed Kyoto as a “socialist scheme.”

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations earlier this year. "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Lindzen said in March 2007.

In addition, many critics have often charged that proposed tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science.

Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said in 1990, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

I will close with a prayer of thanks.

Thank you, Lord, (and Florida and the Supreme Court too), for not letting Al Gore become president of the United States. Amen.

Back in the days of ancient Rome, unusual weather was seen as a sign that the Gods were angry. Now, a couple thousand years later, after much scientific progress, unusual weather is attributed to a slight increase in a minor greenhouse gas that makes up 0.03% of the atmosphere. On the whole, I think the ancient Romans made a better case, at least so far.

The high priest of man-made global warming, Al Gore, has declared that the debate on global warming is over, and he has compared global warming 'deniers' (note the holocaust analogy) to people who still believe the earth is flat. There is one thing we can gather for certain from such an attitude: Big Al and the Algoreans are NOT interested in science, because pure science would NEVER slam the door on all opposing theories to the man-made global warming HYPOTHESIS. Science does precisely the opposite:

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Science doesn't declare the debate to be over, especially on something as complex as the weather of the entire planet, and the flat earth analogy is just put out there so Al's dense-minded acolytes can feel superior.

As further proof of the Algorean 'faith', a lot of people of a certain political stripe will call you names just for bringing up any contradictory information to global warming theology, as if you are some kind of heretic (and these same people have the arrogance to refer to themselves as the 'intellectual elite'. What a gas).

I assume you all are aware of the man-made global warming hypothesis, so I won't go into that. What I want to do is list some of the OTHER information, the stuff the Algoreans refuse to debate or even think about, because the Algoreans are too intellectual and elite to bother with anything as trivial as facts that fly in the face of their theologic certainty. I mean, golly, Gore is SO superior that he would have been president if Bush hadn't stolen Gore's election (and we aren't supposed to acknowledge the fact that Bush won ALL the Florida counts and recounts in 2004 either. Inconvenient truths are not allowed in the Algorean faith. Belief is all that's required).

This 10 question quiz on global warming will test your basic knowledge on the subject. Among some of the facts stated in the quiz are the following:

The earth has been getting steadily warmer for about 18,000 years (with some peaks and valleys). Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice.

Orbital eccentricities and variations in the sun's output is the main cause of our planet's warming and cooling.

The Greenhouse Effect helps to moderate temperatures — especially nighttime temperatures. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be -18 degrees C.

Over 95 percent of the Greenhouse Effect is the result of atmospheric water vapor in Earth's atmosphere.

Temperatures have gone through nearly two complete cycles of warming and cooling over the last 100 years. During the period 1900 to 1940 temperatures were increasing. Then from 1940 to 1975 temperatures were decreasing. Currently, temperatures are increasing back to about where they were in the 1930's.

Few scientists would say the attribution issue [the argument that global warming is caused by human industrial activity] was a done deal. Even the IPCC doesn't say that. Only the media hype and the Algoreans say that.

Orbiting satellites provide the most accurate global temperature readings — accurate to 0.1 degree C. Interestingly, in the 18 years that satellites have been recording temperature they have actually showed a slight decrease in average global temperatures.

Ground-based thermometers that were originally in rural areas have been reading increasingly hotter temperatures with time due to urban encroachment. The asphalt and concrete structures replacing green leafy plants makes for hotter local ground temperatures. This phenomenon is known as the "urban heat-island effect" and has been well-documented by climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia.

So, let's bag all that 'debate is over' nonsense, and before we repeal the Industrial Revolution to make the environmental nutjobs happy, let's proceed with the scientific method. The earth's climate is ALWAYS changing. It ALWAYS has, it ALWAYS will, and I doubt there's much any of us mere humans can do except adapt to it. The Gods are in charge.