The American Spectator

Mike| 12.16.09 @ 6:21AM

Lord Monckton has called them "criminal fraudsters" in public. You'd think that if they had any chance to win in court they'd be jumping at the chance of getting him in court and silencing this huge thorn in their sides. They aren't! Which proves that basically Lord Monckton is right!

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 10:52AM

MMGW is true. You haven't sued me, basically proving I'm right!!!

Excess CO2 is STILL bad no matter if it's significantly causing warming or not.

http://www.miamiherald.com/201.....ceans.html

Appleby| 12.16.09 @ 7:00AM

Daddy had a t-shirt in his collection that read SOMETIMES WRONG, BUT NEVER IN DOUBT. I think about this frequently when I hear the screaming greenies begging that we return to a world in which they would quickly discover they personally could not survive.

Of course, they assume that WE would return to the 13th century, and they would be permitted to forge onward to the 21st....

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.16.09 @ 7:04AM

Ladies and gentlemen,
There you have it. Splendid essay Mr. Ferrara.
Now,
Where do we Americans line up to get our pitchforks?
Who do we throw in jail first?

When do we crank up our oil drilling and gas drilling rigs?

Where do we begin siteing our new nuclear plants.

I've got an absolutely stunning idea! Who do we know that has the resources to manufacture a hundred million beanies with a wind spinnable propeller on top, just to remind everyone that windmills are stupid?

Wal-mart, where are you when we need you?

Ned| 12.16.09 @ 12:57PM

Ken, we can have them made in China, and then buy them through Wal-mart. We could also offer a union made USA version that cost twice as much, but instead of spinning the propeller it spins the wearer.
We could even get technical and have the beanie charge a little battery the wearer could then use to power a cell phone, which would be the equivalent of taking 2,938 SUVs off the road. Off course that would require a new law ordering folks to stand in the wind for some dreamed up mandatory time making sure every prop got enough wind time.

astonerii| 12.16.09 @ 8:49PM

Well, we know what side your on, so I will pose to you this question.

When America is forced to reduce its Carbon Emissions by 80%, and we cannot produce anything ourselves, because no matter how much hot air you spout, we cannot replace fossil fuels with-out going nuclear, wind and sunshine are not reliable enough. China and India will not be under any requirement to reduce their emissions, only the amount of emissions per economic unit, thus as long as they can raise the value of the items they create from fossil fuels, they can emit essentially unlimited CO2, thus will be the only place with any remaining manufacturing capability. Where will the United States of America get the wealth to survive?

Answer that, since you seem to have answers.

Anthony| 12.16.09 @ 5:08PM

Ken, you're way too kind. To hell with pitchforks, we need dozens of guillotines, with dull blades.

JB1000| 12.16.09 @ 10:51PM

Using Diesel engines to lift the blades for that one last "Globally Warm This!" before the blade descends

Jason| 12.19.09 @ 7:28AM

"Who do we throw in jail first?"

George Bush for lying us into a war.

Then all the Republicans who voted against health care while thousands of Americans die each year.

Then every single one of the global warming deniers who - despite failing high-school science - are now all armchair experts on climatology.

ed| 1.14.10 @ 5:28PM

1) Then throw Bill, Hillary, the UN, France, and all the others who said Iraq WMD

2) 70% of Americans are now against "health care" (you mean Socialized Medicine, right)

3) You did see the list of scientists, right? And if the Warmists were right they wouldn't need to fudge their numbers, delete their data, skew the peer review process, and ignore legal FOIA requests

Clearly you've failed grade school reading.

Mattled| 12.16.09 @ 7:20AM

Ken

On the beanies we can print "Obama's Energy Plan"

presented to you by Al Gore.

Deborah D| 12.16.09 @ 8:44AM

Oh, Ken!! Love the beanie idea, and Mattled -- perfect: "Obama's Energy Plan" -- that and a tire gauge, and we're in business! LOL!

Alphred| 12.16.09 @ 7:21AM

Kudos to Peter Ferrara for his masterful summary of the case against AGW.
The cooling evident since 1998 will reduce the rate of plant growth, i.e. global food production. I trust this will be offset by the further 'inevitable' increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

ggoblue| 12.16.09 @ 7:38AM

we must put these criminals on trial...and by proxy their enablers in the press too. millions of careers and families have been destroyed and billions of the peoples dollars stolen. there must be consequences. "what did you know, and when did you know it?" should be asked of every democrat pol in washington...

FTM| 12.16.09 @ 4:59PM

Rather than put these folks in jail, let's do something really, really mean to them. Just ignore them. Don't buy their newspapers, cancel your subscription. Turn off the TV and the radio. Avoid their websites.

That way we can listen to these folks drop their global warming con job and start whining to an ever shrinking number of leberal politicians about how the government needs to subsidize their obsolete media broadcasting companies.

astonerii| 12.16.09 @ 8:52PM

Pretty much everyone has done this. Most paper sales and magazine sales and so forth come from corporate buyers and small businesses to entertain guests/customers who are waiting to be served.

I stopped all my periodical purchases many years in the past.

FTM| 12.17.09 @ 2:37PM

If this is the case then all we have to do is to wait around for the beast to die. I have heard recently that some politicians in DC are actually proposing a subsidy in order to preserve the left wing main stream media. This of course has to be stopped.

Pecos Pete| 12.16.09 @ 7:43AM

Liberal Reader: We await your comments explaining why Mr. Ferrara's essay is sooooo totally wrong.

Jason| 12.19.09 @ 7:45AM

Easy. Nothing in the e-mails invalidates the science. If you could invalidate the science you would have already done so. Instead all you can do is slander the scientists.

The crazy thing is, you'd have to be crazy to truly believe the evidence was doctored. The CRU is one research unit amongst 100s. All of the other organisations - from dozens of countries, with tens of thousands of scientists - have reached the exact same conclusions.

So you might claim the reason everybody reaches the same conclusion is the CRU has been the sole source of "cooked" data? However the CRU isn't the sole source for data. There are literally dozens of sources for data, again from multiple countries. The USA has some of the best independent data collections in the world and they all confirm what the CRU has been saying.

So for your "theory" to be correct, we'd need a global conspiracy spanning multiple countries, multiple governments, 10s of 1000s of scientists, 1000s of data collecting stations, and dozens of data collecting organisations, plotting in perfect secrecy up until November 2009, when a single batch of e-mails from CRU managed to make the whole house of cards come tumbling down. The scientists must be very good at keeping secrets!

You'd have to be pretty crazy to believe that. The government is so incompetent it couldn't possibly keep secret a conspiracy of that magnitude. It's much more probable that you're just reading into the e-mails what you want to be there, because us "Liberals" read the same e-mails and we don't see evidence of foul play.

This smear campaign against the CRU is a last ditch attempt to discredit Climate Change, though it's failing because only the True Deniers are convinced. The rest of us are only convinced that the deniers are desperate.

eiseman| 1.23.10 @ 12:27AM

Jason

eiseman| 1.23.10 @ 12:28AM

Get a clue: http://www.nipccreport.org/

You hack.

Al| 2.6.10 @ 1:45PM

We who knew AGW is a fraud do not have to prove it wrong. How can you prove something doesn't exist?

You who believe that AGW exists have to prove AGW exists and you cannot do it. No warmers will debate the the evidence against them. They just say the evidence is irrelevent and they curse their opponents.

It is their religion and will never back down. Morons!

Robert Pinkerton| 12.16.09 @ 7:58AM

In the matter of "global warming" I have not been convinced in either direction, but I think it is unimportant. Notwithstanding my pessimism about the near future of the United States (If the U.S. Body Politic were an individual human being, that person's condition would be senile dementia.), I F "global warming" does happen, none the less Mankind will prevail.

UpChuck.Liberals| 12.17.09 @ 10:21PM

Please, 'Global Warming' is now called 'Climate Change', it gives us the opportunity to switch from hot to cold and back again.

Sincerely
Al Bore

phil hoey| 12.16.09 @ 7:58AM

I have a Masters in Information Management and when I heard that the so called 'settled science' was based on 'modeling' I started laughing. Having done some complicated computer modeling in private industry I know that it is very very easy to pre-determine the outcome with a little tweek here and there on a couple of lines of code. One consultant we brought to do the coding actually stated before we began the project: 'What answer to the Executives want to see?'
Any modeling project, to truly give the best available answer, must be subject to peer review by the Subject Matter Experts, an independent programmer, and a 'pit bull' auditor.

My 2 cents.

Deborah D| 12.16.09 @ 8:48AM

Great point, Mr. Hoey. I was a programmer in another life, and we were usually given a basic "want or need" list for results. The program is a tool, the programmer the carpenter, the person asking for the program is where the input data comes from (the client).

Tom in Michigan| 12.16.09 @ 3:00PM

Why has this not been at the very forefront of resistance to the AGW hoax? I myself have both Master of Engineering and MBA degrees. I've done modeling as well (I was a business simulation competition winner in Business School - a top 10 one at that and, one of my models has been adopted as a template by a major international firm for all their future product development activities. I also have a degree in Biology). I apologize for appearing to brag but, I want to establish my credentials for this point. Models are models only. They are inherently flawed and, as you say can be easily manipulated if the viewing audience is ignorant of how the model was developed. In lieu of having real data, indeed stunning in its absence from the "settled science" of AGW, only a fool or a charlatan would advocate the dramatic, expensive and futile changes championed by AGW frauds.

Barbara| 12.17.09 @ 10:35AM

So how do you talk to a husband who's an engineer (PE Structure) who sees worried Eskimos and polar bears and believes? He thinks that my conservative political views have made me a "denier". I'd say that the bad, agenda driven science has reinforced my conservative suspicion of any tenet of left-wing ideology. That, and watching the motorcade of a dozen huge SUV's roll through Boston on their way to Faneuil Hall in 2004 to see Kerry give his concession speech.
We know who "owns" the Academy and the MSM. Now we have clear and convincing proof of the damage they're doing to supposedly hard science.
Anyone read Scientific American lately? In the November issue two scientists wrote "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030". Read it and weep!

Tim| 12.16.09 @ 8:27AM

One very important thing in the global warming "debate" I have yet to hear an answer to. What should the average temperature of the earth be? If this warming is going on, and if it is bad for the planet, what is the goal that we should be striving for?

A different Tim| 12.16.09 @ 9:10AM

And also: If you wanted to take the Earth's temperature, where would you stick the thermometer?

jd| 12.16.09 @ 10:30AM

And why is it desirable to have a stable temperature? Doesn't the nature of a living planet indicate that there will be variations in temperature depending upon a helluva lot of naturally occurring phenomena?

Pete| 12.16.09 @ 12:22PM

You'd look for the place that would give the most accurate reading. I think right now, for the world, that place would be Copenhagen. Now, when all of the people currently making it the world's ahole leave, there would be some debate. DC would be a candidate, N. Korea, Iran...all strong contenders for the thermometer.

Ned| 12.16.09 @ 1:23PM

The placement of a thermometer for the earth’s anal temperature would probably be very appropriate somewhere in Venezuela in close proximity to the big fella Hugo.

Tom in Michigan| 12.16.09 @ 3:07PM

Well, the answer is easy: you'd stick in Washington (unless it was an oral thermometer).

the shrike| 12.23.09 @ 7:02PM

I have a suggestion for where Al Gore, Phil Jones, Michael Mann and every other fraud/cheat/liar can stick it...

Darin| 12.16.09 @ 8:30AM

phil hoey makes an excellent point. "Data" can be manipulated in a number of ways to produce any desired outcome. I can take 6 months of data and prove to you the sun will not come up tomorrow. What I won't say is those data points were taken at the North Pole during the 6-month "night."

Muawiyah| 12.16.09 @ 8:51AM

Lo and behold, that's not the only "trick" ~ Mann actually "cut off" the primary proxy data from tree rings at the 1850 mark ~ and did it with a set of tree rings from a site were trees didn't grow after that time.

That allowed him to insert yet a different proxy data set to cover the period of 1850 to 1961!

I think folks have missed that funny little quirk.

Without Jones and Mann telling us where they got that data, the whole doggone thing is just "made up" for that period where, koinkydinkally, the thermometer had been invented, manufactured, and was widely distributed around the world ~ including Siberia along the Lena River, in Yakutia!

There's no way for anyone to evaluate the characteristics of the same trees in the same site in terms of what the thermometers in the region said ~ and you'd best believe Russians have always had a close and abiding interest in using thermometers, particularly in Yakutia.

It would appear Mann "tricked" Jones, and both of them together "tricked" everybody else.

Mann did his "trick" with malice aforethought. He knew no one could challenge his totally made up numbers!

Deborah D| 12.16.09 @ 8:57AM

Mr. Ferrara -- the best I've read on this subject. Thank for your clear explanations of what can become a highly technical discussion.

It boils down to "garbage in, garbage out."

jd| 12.17.09 @ 7:47PM

No it is garbage in, gospel out. This is, after all, theology not science.

William Tucker| 12.16.09 @ 9:19AM

As readers of The Spectator know, I've written quite a bit about this subject. My basic premise is that, although the science is by no means settled, there is reason to be concerned over the possibilities of global warming and that and that the best - and only - way to deal with this is to step up the effort for nuclear power. This was the conclusion of my book, Terrestrial Energy (www.terrestrialenergy.org) and I don't think it differs all that much from the viewpoint Peter Ferrara offers here.

I wrote a response to Climate-gate but quite frankly I was tired of preaching to the choir so I tried to shop it around to some liberal publications. Slate, The New Republic and The Atlantic Monthly all gave me no response but I finally posted it as a "Diary" on Daily Kos. I titled it, "Advice from a Conservative on How to Deal with Climategate." It's fun to be taking shots from the other and the response so far has not been all bad. This is an issue on which there are many cross-perspectives. David Walters,who is a "Marxist for nuclear power," also blogs on Daily Kos.

All this convinces me that the real problem is narrow-minded book and magazine editors who can only see things one way. The Internet allows for a much moreo spirited discussion than you would ever find on the "Letters" page of The New York Times or the New York Post. If anyone wants to take a look at the "Diary" it's at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....imategate.

FTM| 12.16.09 @ 5:45PM

I've been beating this drum too.

We have a couple of power alternatives other than the nineteen-fifties water cooled reactor design. There's the air cooled run-away proof "Pebble Bed" design. The pilot pebble bed reactor is being built in South Africa. The problem is that it's a fission reactor and produces long halflife waste material.

In order to deal with the waste material from fission reactors we use breeder reactors like the French have been using for about forty or so years. We don't use breeders in the US because the tree-huggers and other assorted do-gooders start drooling when you start talking about breeder reactor technology.

Lastly there's the ITER/Z-Axis technology. ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is a thermonuclear (Fusion) reactor technology. The pilot ITER plant is being built in France. Thanks in large part to the international fraud, graft and corruption that we've all come to expect from governments everywhere after ten years they've managed to get their forty hectare site cleared.

The common denominator between the two technologies you'll notce is that the pilot plants are being built outside of the US where the technologies were developed. Why is that one may wonder. Publically propose building a power plant of any kind in the US but especially one that has "nuclear" or (God Almighty Help Us) "thermonuclear" in it's title and the Sierra Club and Greenpeace and the Enviromental Defense Fund immediate go nuts and get out their signs and start whining.

We have alternate power generation technologies available. There's a problem though, the same collection of do-gooders that are worried sick about AGW have also decided that there are too many people and their next plot will probably be to attempt to control/reduce the size of the human population. If you reduce the power available over time there will be fewer people. If you increase the power available over time there will be more people. That simple.

Windmills are inadequate to supply power to the grid and these people know it. The return on investment on a windmill is too long to be cost effective. Last but not least, in most but not all places where wind energy is available the frequency of storms like tornados and the like make windmills a very risky investment.

It's time that we marginalize these leftist do-gooders and get the show on the road. Get the US out of the UN and then get the UN out of the US. Stuff like that. Pay down the national debt.

Here's an idea, let's have free trade instead of "free trade." Instead of nations like China and the EU having unrestricted access to the American economy and American having limited or no access to foreign economies, let's have equal access to all economies. This really isn't all that hard.

astonerii| 12.16.09 @ 9:09PM

I agree.
I have not read your book, but I have been thinking about usage of nuclear power. There are lots of subjects on it through the internet.

I think we should build a large number of nuclear power plants, far more than are needed for electricity. We could build many in the areas of coal mining, and turn coal into long lasting fuel to make us petroleum independent.

We should also build many additional ones to be used for desalination and pumping of water to refill our ever lowering water tables and reservoirs.

Nuclear power could be used for extracting oil from shale in Utah and Colorado.

As these uses come to an end, the extra nuclear power plants would be converted into electrical power generation plants.

All this would be a drop in the bucket cost-wise compared to trying to go to bio-fuels, wind and solar power, and would be a net benefit to the environment on many many levels. Instead of millions of square miles of bio-fuel acreage, and environmentally damaging windmill platforms, solar cell farms and the needed electrical grid to connect them to the population centers, you would have humans restoring the hydrological cycle and building a world for a sustainable future replete with energy reserves that would allow any and all climate change mitigation requirements needed.

FTM| 12.17.09 @ 8:40AM

If you wanted to stay with the water cooled reactor design. We have better technology but lets say that you wanted to stay with the old school water cooled design. Instead of building giant plants why not build smaller plants, not ship sized but smaller sized plants. A really big problem with attempting to transmit electrical power over long distances is line loss. Only about three or so watts generated out of ten watts actually make it to the customer. Most power generated is lost as heat all along the way, wire but most specifically transformers.

That's an aspect of "smart grid" technology that doesn't make sense. There's not a lot that you can do about line loss. So, the do-gooders want to put a "smart" meter on your house so that they can turn your power off whenever they decide that there is a need, example a heat wave in the middle of the summer.

"Smart" grid "technology" is simply an excuse not to build additional coal, gas or nuclear power plants.

Gail C.| 12.17.09 @ 10:41PM

Mr. Ferrara, a great article.

I also agree that we should go nuclear. Here is a bit of history some may have missed.

It is interesting that Greenpeace, Sierra Club et al are funded by the Rockefeller foundations.

Maurice Strong started the whole Environmental/Global Warming thing back in 1972 when he organized what became the first Earth Summit -- the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. He also took a position as trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation which supplied a grant for the running of the Stockholm Conference office. Certain NGOs such as Greenpeace were invited to the 1972 Conference. They were given money to come, and then were told to raise hell at home.

Strong started his career in oil in the 1950's working for the Rockefeller's in Saudi Arabia and went on to take over and turned around small ailing energy companies in the 1960s and became president of a major holding company -- the Power Corporation of Canada.

The Rockefeller of course are Standard Oil and Exxon as well as Chase bank. Given the Rockefeller's and Strong's involvement in oil is it any wonder that I saw want ads in the Boston Globe for Nuclear Protesters at $10.00/hr in the 1980's? No way did Strong or the Rockefellers want cheap nuclear power as competition! I can remember heating with electric and paying $10.00 a month for electric when I lived in Rochester NY thanks to the nuclear power plant. It was a real shock to move to Boston and pay $300.00 a month!

When you dig you often find the central bankers behind the seeming crazyness of today's world.

NeilBJ| 12.16.09 @ 10:04AM

RE: "The next President, not President Obama, who is hopelessly uneducable on the subject,..."

You are much too kind. I would say that President Obama is frighteningly dogmatic on the subject (of anthropogenic global warming).

Robert Pinkerton| 12.16.09 @ 6:05PM

An identifying property of the fool is invincible persistence in error.

Dan Hirsch| 12.16.09 @ 10:08AM

When IPCC supporters say that Climategate has not changed the underlying science they are RIGHT. It still is junk!

Tom| 12.16.09 @ 10:10AM

Some thing are just too important for the truth.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.16.09 @ 10:17AM

Mr. Tucker
I'm sorry about your publishing woes, but you are exactly correct about the internet becoming the true forum for important ideas to be thrashed out.

You may have noted my comment a few days ago about building "modular" nuke plants. Lo and behold, this morning I read a piece about Babcock & Wilcox having engineered such a cool one.

"Nuclear waste problems" is the good ole' standby argument for the greenies, but it is a lie. Thirty years ago and more, Oakridge Labs published an article describing "Glass containers" similar to very large glass bricks with thick walls.

Bury those suckers under six feet of earth, no escaped radiation, and save that waste for a thousand years. (Our descendants might need it.)

You may also have noted my special thanks to the AM Spec owners for providing us this forum. I am a substantial contributer here, and would even be open to paying "dues" for the priviledge. (heh, it would certainly cut down on the basement babies)

Shawn| 12.16.09 @ 3:37PM

The nuke industry has already been doing this in WA state, vitrifying waste into glass, to be stored under ground, but now we cant ship it across state lines to NV to store at Yucca Mt. My father was a nuclear physicist and often spoke of how we spill chemicals and ship chemicals with less restrictions than what is allowed with nuke waste. It is contradicting. We have all the technology and major advancements over ANY nuke plant "accidents" in US history, and yet we have not biult a new plant in 30 years. Every body is scared by Hollywood, MSM, and Chernolbyl (sp?) which US has never used that type of reactor process. It would have cost maybe 4 billion 30 years ago, but now with all regulations and cost of labor, materials, etc. it would cost 20+ billion per plant.

astonerii| 12.16.09 @ 9:28PM

Actually, they are designing new nuclear plants that will theoretically completely consume all wastes completely, leaving nothing behind that is radioactive except the installation equipment. I cannot find any of the links, but I saw this on a page called nextbigfuture.com

ARealist| 12.16.09 @ 11:39AM

Nuclear waste can be re-processed and thus re-used.
This is what is done in France and other countries.
It is not done here because the jackass, worst president in american history, the idiotic, left wing wind bag Jimmy Carter prohibited this in the USA.
By the way, the notion that nuclear waste will be lethal for 10,000 years, requiring that it be stored in geologically inert underground caverns, assumes that science will have made zero progress over that time period in figuring out how to render it inert.
Never in the history of science has their been zero progress in any scientific topic over any 100 to 200 year span.
If provided sufficient motivation, scientists can figure out how to make nuclear waste inert probably within 50 years at most.
Last , but not least, the US Navy has been operating nuclear powered ships since about 1960; that's almost 50 years of safe use.
Think about this; in a salt-water environment, encased withing a steel hull, nuclear reactors have been plying the oceans for about 50 years.
And the critics say nuclear power is inherently unsafe.
What crap.
A nuclear powered ship has a steam plant remarkably similar to that of a terrestial electric generating plant. Also, at least twice, US nuclear powered submarines have sunk without any leakage of radiation.
There simply is no reason in the world nuclear powered plants should not replace ALL the coal fired plants in the USA.
Of course, the left wing, fascist-communist pigs in the "environmental" movement will sound the alarm and seek to prevent this; the same folks who are attempting to foist the biggest fraud in the history of science upon the citizenry - GLOBAL WARMING.
Give me a break.

lehrue stevens jr.m.d.| 12.16.09 @ 11:41AM

While they cool their feet in Copenhagen this article warms my heart!!

Paul from SA| 12.16.09 @ 11:43AM

Peter, great article, but this statement, "CO2 concentrations have begun slowly rising again, due to the industrial revolution and increased burning of fossil fuels." is not quite accurate. Concentration of CO2 change AFTER temperature changes. So a portion of the increase is due to normal biologic activity and ocean released from a warming planet -- following the Medievel cooling period, not all from man. It might be a small point, but as yet we don't know how much is natural and how much is man-made. Estimates say man contributes less than 4% of the total CO2 emitting and yes CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas.

The global warming mongers also 'tricked' ocean temp. data by splicing together 2 different collection/measuring systems to create a false temp increase. (Ocean temps are a superior measurment.)

Paul from SA| 12.16.09 @ 11:44AM

Excuse me, I meant not Medievil cooling period but the little ice age. My mistake.

JP| 12.16.09 @ 11:56AM

The heart of the Alarmist's point of view rests not on complex climate modeling, or studies of polar ice variance, coral bleaching, tropical glacier retreats, but on surface temperature reconstructions -both paleo and instrumental. Without these 2 parameters the Alarmist's point of view collapses in on itself. The reconstructions fall into 2 categories:

1)Dr Michael Mann's 1000 year proxy reconstruction -better known as the Hockey Stick

2)Instrumental reconstructions provided by CRU, NASA's GISS, and NOAA. One might think it is strange to refer to these temperature sets as reconstructions - they are derived from thermometers, aren' they? Well, yes and no. The final product these organizations produce in most cases bear no resemblence to the actual records themselves. Hence, they are for practical purposes reconstructions.

The ClimateGate scandal (or known as the CRUTape Letters in some circles) shines a very bright spotlight on the Climate Research Unit. Phil Jones comes out of this mess with a very damaged repupation. However, the processes he uses to derive a global temperature signal are shared by the folks at the Goddard Space Institute in NYC (ironically GISS is housed above the Upper Manhatten restaurant made famous by Seinfeld), and NOAA. Thier methods and homogenizing algorithims may differ on the edges, but they are essientially the same. Jones and Mann obviously have a pre-determined agenda. And as the CRU emails indicate, thier circle of "adjusters" are all over climate science.

There is a panic going on behind the scenes. Jones has been put on indefinite leave; CRU is conducting an internal investigation. As is Penn St. And Senator Inhofe has ordered the DOE to put a litigation hold on all correspondence (eletronic or otherwise) pertaining to CRUGate which can go back a decade or so.

The Hockey Stick is dead, as both an icon and a PR tool. It is now incumbent to apply enough pressure to CRU, GISS, and NOAA so that auditor FOI requests for data get processed. This is something the Alarmists will not due without a federal court order or Congressional supeona.

Look for the Alarmists to begin lowering the importance of the temperature reconstructions. Already, on many climate blogs, I have heard many AGW supporters refer to temperature data as "denialist data". I thought that was rich. It shows that the talking points have gone out, and a quick readustment of the narrative is underway.

FTM| 12.16.09 @ 6:06PM

These folks won't surrender their data even with a court order or a congressional subpoena. Their collective "mind" is made up, they're smarter than everybody else and whatever they have to do in order to accomplish their goals is justified.

Mattled| 12.16.09 @ 12:04PM

A Realist,

My brother and I just had this conversation a few minutes ago. Nuclear is the way to go, but we can thank the so-called envirowackos who are nothing but communists hell-bent on destroying capitalism.

Odoogie Howser is just one of them.

KyMouse| 12.16.09 @ 12:11PM

A friend just passed along to me the Dec. 21 edition of "Newsweek." On page 14, in the Conventional Wisdom column, it has the following comment under the heading "climate change", with the 'good' followed by the 'bad':

"World gets serious in Copenhagen / While a few wingnut deniers in U.S. obsess over 'scandal'."

No wonder Newsweek is hemorrhaging readers! I'm sooooo glad my family canceled their subscription; my friend cancelled hers a while back, but still receives it. Is that a sign of how desperate Newsweek is to show good 'readership' numbers?

Larry C. Roberts, MD, MA| 12.16.09 @ 12:20PM

Only a man with Obama's gargantuan ego could believe himself both the cause and the cure for global warming. Proverbs 8:13 says it well. ...Pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate. Very potent and portentous words from the only One who actually understands the climate.

Ed Blake| 12.16.09 @ 12:26PM

I say follow the money. The Copenhagen Carnival is simply an excuse for "developing" countries to shake down the more advanced, and wealthy Western governments for funds that will end up lining the pockets of every tin-pot dictator in every third-world mud-hole on the planet. AlGore has his hand out too and it is my hope this fraud will be compeletly exposed, it sounds like that may be happening. Bring it on.

Bob Barclay| 12.16.09 @ 12:55PM

The subject of corrupt scientists is not new. In fact the journals Science and Nature ran articles pointing this out back in 2005.

In the Journal Science a paper was published on June 6, 2005 entitled “Scientists Behaving Badly” by Brian Martinson et al. The paper talks about the results of a survey that was intended to compile empirical evidence of bad behavior in the science community. The survey revealed that 33% of the respondents admitted to a number of unethical behaviors. From “cooking” data to withholding information about methods used. The paper also stated that they believe that this is a very conservative figure as they state:

“But our approach certainly leaves room for potential non-response bias; misbehaving scientists may have been less likely than others to respond to our survey, perhaps for fear of discovery and potential sanction. This, combined with the fact that there is probably some under-reporting of misbehaviors [sic] among respondents, would suggest that our estimates of misbehavior [sic] are conservative.”

This survey was sent to 3,600 mid-career scientists and 4,160 early-career scientists. The authors stated their concerns in this quote:

“Nevertheless, our evidence suggests that mundane ‘regular’ misbehaviors [sic] present greater threats to the scientific enterprise than those caused by high-profile misconduct cases such as fraud.”

The Journal Nature also published a paper on the same survey on June 6, 2005 entitled “One in three scientists confesses to having sinned.”

So it is not just the climate scientist’s integrity that is waning all scientists are having trust issues with the public and they will have a hard time gaining back the trust.

The next question would be can I trust what a science journal reports? Science journals have published false studies. I am thinking of the stem cell scandal of Woo Suk Hwang and the journal Science. It was a young Korean researcher that reported the fraud not the scientists that reviewed the study before they printed it. An article by Jennifer Couzin entitled “And How the Problems Eluded Peer Reviewers and Editors” printed in Journal Science (1/6/2006). In her article she states that members of the Science Board do not inspect a paper’s data they look for novelty, originality, and trendiness. She quotes Martin Blume who is the editor-in-chief of the American Physical Society saying:

“Peer review doesn’t necessarily say that a paper is right, it says it’s worth publishing.”

She also reports that this is not an isolated case and that peer reviewed journals do not find the fraudulent data because they assume there is none. Even when scientists are told there are errors they can not find them. In 1997 the British Medical Journal inserted 8 errors in a short paper, told researchers they were there, and asked them to identify them. They reported that an average of 2 errors found with a total of five errors uncovered. The sad thing was that 16% of the researchers could not find even one of the errors.

This clearly shows that those in the world of science and research are prone to falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism. In fact science journals are prone to perpetrate false ideas rather than correct them. With this in mind how can anyone know if they can trust what any scientist reports?

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.16.09 @ 1:06PM

Ladies and gentlemen, hobos and tramps, bow-legged mosquitos, and hive challenged ants,

I have been wanting to write to each of you.

Hundreds of thousands of folks visit this site, many every day. Most of them never comment, and that is OK. Each of us must keep in mind that AM SPEC draws LOTS of readers.

It behooves us to give our best thoughts here.

Over and over again, I watch major authors taking our thoughts and integrating them into their essays.

I want to thank every one of you for contributing to the national conversation. I am personally honored to be here, and I hope you are as well.

There are of course the standard ratio of whack jobs here, but the gazillions of "lurkers" have already identified them.
God bless

Cpm| 12.16.09 @ 2:24PM

After these criminal charlatans have been dealt with, is it too much to hope for a public tar-and feathering of Al Gore and then running him out of the public consciousness on a rail?

Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 12.16.09 @ 2:32PM

I was unhappy. I’d heard that there were allegations that the greatest scientific minds since science was invented by All Bore along with the internet thousands of years ago, before his grandparents were even born, had been misrepresenting the truth. I did not understand why anybody would have to cheat in order to prove what was clearly obvious - the globe is indeed warming. I noted that there was no dispute that July 4, 2009, was much hotter than was January 4 of the same year. Not to mention that at one time, glaciers covered much of the northern United States. Those are all melted now except for those few slowly disappearing from the highest elevations.

Clearly this was part of the hotter-weather pattern that had destroyed the 97,436,891,110 polar bears living within the Arctic Circle only 1,000 years ago. Undoubtedly, every one of them is now dead, but there was certainly a mystery surrounding their suspicious life terminations. I didn’t know exactly how many polar bears are presently living in the lands of the daylong night, but even if that count is 25,000 animals, that is a mere 0.0000256576330743% of the numbers determined by counting all the individual skeletal fragments ever found to have once lived way up north. Since polar bears were the top of the polar food chain and would have consumed all the remains of all the lesser creatures, there could be no doubt that any such fragment, no matter how small the individual piece, had to represent a single big white bear. That only 500 such remains carbon dated to the year 1009 were ever found proves this argument since due to the passage of time, it must have taken about 195,000,000 individual bears to leave behind just one fossil thanks to soil and bone melting caused by the intense temperatures, even higher than the surface of the sun, the Boracle had recently discovered liquefying the global crust.

I noted that the temperature around my neck of the woods this morning (12/10/09) was a chilly 11º F. I was not sure exactly when was the last time the fluid in my outdoor thermometer had risen so slightly but thought it might have been January 11, 2007. I also noted that temperatures were always associated with a date. So I wondered if I could express the temperature/date relationship numerically. Through my work with spreadsheets, I knew of something called the Julian Date. I had no idea who Julia was, but thought she must have been a college sweetheart the Nashville Wizard had once taken to dinner and a show to celebrate his friend Airsick Seagull’s then recent and very emotional tearjerker.

The Julian Date is simple to determine. For example, the Julian Date for July 4, 2009 is 2009/185 since it was the 185th day of 2009. Similarly, July 4, 2008 was the 186th day of that leap year, so its Julian Date is 2008/186. I wanted a simple method of expressing these Julian Dates with only one unique number. I found that by simply replacing the forward slash with a + sign, and adding, 2009/185 becomes 2009 + 185 which is 2194. Similarly 2008/186 is 2008 + 186 or 2194.

Well this won’t do. So I thought some more and decided that the problem is like adding apples and oranges. One year contains 365 or 366 days. So I needed to convert years to days before adding. Reasoning that worrying about leap years was inconvenient, sort of like a born alive infant, I would simply not worry about them. I decided to use the following rule to convert years to days: multiply the year times 365.25 (since a year is approximately that many days long). Thus 2,009 years becomes 733,787.25 days. Now to calculate only one value for the date, using the Julian Date format, simply change 2009/185 to 733,787.25 + 185 which is 733,972.25. Likewise 2008/186 becomes 733,608.00. Since the 2009 value is greater than the 2008, I knew I was on the right track. All that’s now needed to achieve a perfect numeric value for temperatures is to take the converted Julian Date, which I named the Gillian Date, and add the temperature to it. Today is 12/10/2009 which is 2009/345 Julian or 734132.25 Gillian. Using 11º F, I determined that the useful temperature for this morning was 734132.25 + 11º F or 734143.25º G (Gillian). Likewise , the useful temperature for January 11, 2007, 2007/11, 733067.75 was 733078.75º G. Clearly the Gillian temperature this morning is much hoyyer than its counterpart from almost three years ago.

I was thrilled. I had settled the debate conclusively. Anyone who would deny this methodology is worse than those pro-slavery, anti-civil rights, flat earth, racist, sexist teabaggers Hairy Red warned us about the other day.

I typed up all my research and USPSd it to the Nobel Prize Committee. Not 10 minutes later, I received a call from Thorbjørn Jagland informing me that I had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Geothermal Economics to be presented a year from now. The only condition placed was that I agree to lunch with King Harald V while in Oslo. I said, “A free lunch! Why I’ll even bow to the king for that,” and I started packing my summer clothes.

Critical update: after an evening spent in rowdy celebration of my hard earned Nobel Prize, I learned that the temperature around my neck of the woods this morning was a less chilly 22º F. Since this is a Gillian temperature of 734155.25º, a whopping increase of 12º G since yesterday despite the fact that it’s not even winter yet, I observed that this only proves the pudding. Global warming is everything it’s cracked up to be. However, I am willing to concede that leaks in the Earth’s crust which allow that intense star-like heat bottled up mere furlongs below our feet to escape into the atmosphere, just might be a contributor to this rather scary heat increase. Why 12º G in just one day works out to 4,383º G hotter by this time next year. Wow! I decided to just take my swimming trunks and scuba gear with me to Oslo which will probably be underwater by then. I also decided to invest all the cash I will receive as part of this well deserved Nobel laureate in companies building cities capable of thriving beneath a one-world ocean. These aquapolises will be the only hope for humanity.

With humble apologies to those who have already read Fable 30, which this is a slightly modified version of. And God Bless you too, Ken.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Celebrate Galt Day 1/20/2010
Don’t Tread on Me!!

Philosopher| 12.16.09 @ 2:39PM

This article is a great compilation of several key points on the flawed nature of the 'Global Warming' issue, But I've beaten you to the punch, Mr. Ferrara (previously dated posts)!

Here's some more detail for interested readers on these topics:

ClimateGate Does Call the Global Warming Theory Into Question (example of Darwin, AU data manipulation)

http://pracphilosblog.wordpres.....-question/

NIPCC Report- Breaking the IPCC Monopoly

http://pracphilosblog.wordpres.....-monopoly/

Rmm| 12.16.09 @ 2:42PM

Environmentalism should never be confused with conservationism.
Some from the former camp try to muddy the waters between the two. There are no similarities. Environmentalists have always taken the legal path to gain power and control. Its the same with climatologist, who have abandoned professional ethics in the pursuit of power and control.
In my mind the person who hacked the computer at CPU and started Climategate should take a bow
and be nominated for a Nobel.

Neo| 12.16.09 @ 4:51PM

The "greenhouse effect" at lower altitudes was proven to be overwhelmed by the effects of water vapor about a century ago, but it was thought that the water vapor would be low enough in the troposphere, about 6 miles above the earth's surface, that CO2 "hot spots" could occur. Unfortunately, there have never been any data to show that this is actually happening.

DaveS| 12.16.09 @ 7:44PM

On what basis or hypothesis?

Neo| 12.16.09 @ 7:54PM

In 1909, physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping infrared radiation (IR). His experiment conclusively demonstrated that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR.
Wood, an expert on IR, invented both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography.

Neo| 12.16.09 @ 7:57PM

Wood's experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320.

Richard Baker| 12.16.09 @ 5:21PM

phil hoey & Deborah D:
When I had Accounting in college, my Professor was speaking of determining income for a business. When someone asked about that, the Professor said, "What do you want it to be?" With all the various accounts, one could change and make it whatever you wanted it to be. Sounds just like the fraud in manipulating data used by the enviro-hoaxsters. What do you want your result to be? Shameful.

FTM| 12.16.09 @ 6:46PM

2010 will be a golden opportunity. I might even vote if I hear politicians saying the right things. For example, reducing, paying off or eliminating the US national debt. First priority.

In order to pay down the debt we stop, as a nation, doing stupid things. For example, the last I heard the US pays seventy percent of the UN's annual operating budget. Why do we continue to finance a failed and obviously corrupt organization like the UN? Cut off the UNs money supply and the UN will go away. Take the money that we use to finance the UN toward paying down the debt. Let the UN set up shop in a strip mall in Brussels.

I'm sure that defunding the UN would cause some concern in the international community. I say "Big Deal." How many carrier battle groups does the international community have? What are they going to do, protest?

Along this general line we can defund the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Science Foundation and dozens of other federal programs that are designed to stuff money into the pockets of the congenitally corrupt. Why the hell do we give an organization like ACORN the time of day? How does funding ACORN benifit me?

Free Trade, I think that free trade is a grand idea. The current definition of free trade means that foreign countries like China have completely free, unrestricted access to the American economy and Americans have little to no access to foreign economies. For example, a car manufactured by GM in Warren, Michigan can be legally exported to Canada and to Canada only. We can't sell wine in France or rice in Japan. This folks is a huge problem. I think that the Japanese ought to be allowed to sell cars in America. I also think that American rice farmers should be allowed to sell rice in Japan.

Alternate power generation technology. Read the reply from above, we have the Pebble Bed and Z-Axis nuclear power technologies. These technologies were developed in the US. We the People tell the Sierra Club to go pound sand and build some power plants. We can put a man on the moon I think that we can swing a couple or a couple hundred power plants.

We're Americans. We have done great things in the past. We had an economy and a standard of living second to none other on this planet. It's time that we marginalize (read ignore) algore and the IPCC and this Mann clown and the Hansen clown and get the show on the road again. And I don't mean that other countries suffer to our benifit either. I mean that the technology and the economic groth potential is available for anyone and everyone to enjoy. All we have to do is do it. Identify and marginalize the thugs and get back in the game.

astonerii| 12.16.09 @ 9:32PM

The best way to get the federal government to pay off the debt is to force the federal government to turn over full responsibility to the states SS, medicare/medicaid and the department of education. Short of that, it will never happen, we are far to gone to do what the Republicans did in the 1990s. As it stands, if interest rates go up at any time, we will spend more money on servicing the debt than we do for our military.

Everything you listed on your to be eliminated list are less than pennies of the federal budget, and while I say defund them all, it will do nothing to reduce the debt.

FTM| 12.17.09 @ 1:35AM

astoneeriii,

You think so? The UN is huge, has an annual operating budget in the billions of dollars. A trillion dollars is one thousand billion, a billion is a thousand million and so on. The line items indicated may only be pennies but the sum still counts.

Two objectives are accomplished by eliminating these programs, first you reduce the debt (let's haggle over the amount) and the other thing that is accomplished is that the people living off of NEA grants for example and the like are going to have to get real jobs.

FTM| 12.16.09 @ 6:56PM

Now, history tells us that what will likely happen is that the "conservitive" politicians that replace the "liberal" politicians (notice that I didn't say Democrat or Republican) will claim a mandate and then promptly screw up that mandate. Just like the liberals have already screwed up the mandate that they recieved in 2008. Remember obama's "we won the election" comment?

Remember how the conservitives screwed up the mandate that they recieved in '92 (if I remember correctly) when they won control of congress when Komrad Klinton (the best president that the chicoms ever bought) failed to hijack the American healthcare system?

Do you remember these things?

Folks, ditch the Democrat/Republican labels. Adopt the American label. Beware strong drink, it will make you shoot at tax collectors. And miss. We're all in this together, Americans and Chinese and French. We can't be shooting at each other any more. We have here an opportunity, all we have to do is to decide to participate in a better future. We can start right here and right now.

DaveS| 12.16.09 @ 7:46PM

It was '94. The rest of your comment leaves me scratching my head. Sorry.

FTM| 12.17.09 @ 1:51AM

Let me try again then.

I'm not a liberal or a conservitive. I'm not a republican or a democrat or an independant. I don't care who or who all or even what you marry. I don't care where or if you go to church. I don't care what you decide to swallow or snort up your nose, smoke or inject into your veins. My attitude is that whatever you as a mature consenting adult decide to do in the privacy and comfort of your own home with or without another mature consenting adult is your problem.

What happens from my chair is this. You have folks from both sides of the political spectrum that decide that they need to make decisions for the people on the other side of the political spectrum. This is a problem. That's what this discussion is all about at present. One bunch of folks from one political ideology got caught pulling a fast one. It's not like folks from the opposite political spectrum haven't got caught doing the same thing.

Look at the political thing like this. Let the boys that want to marry boys marry boys. Let the girls that want to marry girls marry girls. Let the women that want to kill their unborn children kill their unborn children. In twenty or so years there won't be any more democrats. This is easy.

The liberals got caught manipulating climate data and attempting to hijack the economies of the developed world. This is a bad thing. Where are the thinkers, the scientists and political figures promoting exploiting alternate power generation technologies? This Sarah Palin is the "conservitive" front runner at present for the 2012 election. I want to hear Sarah Palin's plan to implement pebble bed and breeder reactor technology in America during her administration. As a matter of fact, I want to hear Barak Obama's plan to implement the same technology.

These AGW folks got caught lying about their science. OK, that's it. Show's over. Now that that AGW fog has begun to clear let's adopt a new issue, implementing alternate power production technology and get started. Or are we going to continue with the buisness as usual political gamesmanship that accomplishes nothing buy amusing a feeble minded electorate and consuming the wealth af a bankrupt nation.

eiseman| 1.23.10 @ 12:48AM

"Look at the political thing like this. Let the boys
won't be any more democrats. This is easy. "

LOL! I think I'm rather embarrassed to say...

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.16.09 @ 7:11PM

Welcome FTM

Some very good points. Thank you.

You ruined most of them, though with your very first sentence about :
""2010 will be a golden opportunity. I might even vote if I hear politicians saying the right things. ""

GET OFF YOUR DEAD ARSE, AND VOTE, DUMBUNNY...OR SHUT THE HELL UP!

When dumb-arses like you sit at home, you force Americans like us to be willing to take up arms in defense of America. Look, I don't know you, but you sound like a petulant child in that sentence.

Vote for the best candidates you are offered, then start faxing letters...short letters...and ask for their best.
Hey! maybe your vote can cancel someone's vote who is too lazy to get off their butt and vote.

Marc Jeric| 12.16.09 @ 7:23PM

This conspiracy by our eco-nazis has been going for about 40+ years, as shown below:
1) There was first in the 1970's the global cooling scam (see e.g. Newsweek April 28 1975 on the Internet); the government-paid scientists (90% of them are rejects of private enterprise) recommended to fight the new ice age by sending our war planes to cover the polar ice with soot in order to increase solar heat and so prevent crushing of New York skyscrapers by the new glaciers;
2) When that did not work we had the global warming hoax in the 1990's, proclaimed by mainly the same government-paid scientists (Dr. Hansen of the NOAA, for example); to prevent the massive heating, fires, flooding of coastal cities, disappearance of Florida, California, and Caribbean islands, massive hurricanes, global famine, and other catastrophic events we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies;
3) after 11 years of considerable cooling we are now faced with the climate change flimflam where whatever happens with our climate we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies; and why not our banks, car and insurance companies while we are at it. To prevent this catastrophe the best vehicle presumably is international agreements enforced by the United Nations world government.
As for the influence of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas: on a normal day the atmosphere contains 20,000 ppm (parts per million) of water vapor and about 300 ppm of carbon dioxide. The government-paid scientists say that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 over the next 50 years will result in a catastrophic warming. The thermal absorptivity of water vapor is 4 times larger than that of carbon dioxide; it follows that the CO2 increase will increase the overall thermal absorptivity of the mixture by about 1/8 of one percent. The production of methane from livestock flatulence and the rotting swamps (called "wetlands" by the environmentalists) vastly surpasses the influence of human-produced CO2.
There is the Global Warming Petition Project (see Internet) where 31,478 US independent scientists declared that there is no anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming; of these 9,029 are scientists with PhD degrees. Our environmentalists tried to sabotage this effort by submiiting phony names with phoney degrees - and then claimed the whole effort by the Petition scientists was a fraud. It took us 3 years and a lot of private money to verify the credentials of all the signatories and clean up the Petition of those saboteurs. See also Manhattan Declaration with more such signatories, plus a large number of scientific groups from other countries who state the same.
I am one of these signatories, MS and PhD degrees from UCLA, with majors in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer.
I think to fight this communist attempt to secure a permanent hold on power should not be fought on the narrow grounds of more taxes - that is the losing proposition; where about 50% of the population is on some kind of welfare we will always be outvoted. The battle should be fought and won on the firm scientific basis.
4) And now we have "cap™" power grab.
SCAM - HOAX - FLIMFLAM - POWER GRAB!!!

DaveS| 12.16.09 @ 7:38PM

How can a conservative even bring himself to debate the wacko and dishonest Left on any issue. As I have said before, truth to a liberal is like garlic to a vampire. Today they say they did not fake any data. That may well be true. But in science, leaving 'inconvenient ' data out leaves the rest of us with no alternative than to dismiss them and all their 'hard' work (the work of hiding data) in utter shambles. That any governing body forges ahead with ill-wrought conclusions means it's been house dice from the start. Gore, give it back; Obama, give yours back too - while the season of giving is upon us.

FTM| 12.16.09 @ 7:38PM

Hi Ken,

The attitude is a major part of the problem. Not to be a jerk or anything but stop thinking in terms of chiches.

I've heard the arguement that you should vote for the lesser of the two evils. Sorry, that doesn't work, whatever the outcome, evil advances.

Think about the concept in a critical manner, if all candidates are spouting drivel, then whoever the winner is drivel is what you get.

In regards to political involvement. I've been to town hall meetings. I've written letters to politicians. I've written letters to newspapers. I've been there and done that. Consider this issue in a critical fashion...

Brodcast media, print media and whatever other mass communication techniques available have to craft their message in a fashion that the message can be understood by the largest possible audience. My guess is that this message is crafted to appeal to an IQ of about 95.

Politicians have to craft their agenda along the same lines as popular media. Have you ever sat down and tried to have a serious conversation with a major state or federal politician? I have. After about the first five minutes, after you've radically exceeded their attention spans, their eyes glaze over and they're not listening or even comprehending any more.

The only information that a politician in intrested in is the latest poll. The only thing on a politician's mind after winning an election is how to get re-elected. The only thought on a politician's mind is what they have to do or say in order to get re-elected.

The typical politician doesn't know fission from fusion and would be challenged to locate their own butts with both hands. When election day comes around I have better things to do. The last politician that I heard tell the truth on TV in front of God and everybody, the last politician I heard speak that had sense to pound sand was H. Ross Perot.

The knuckle-head we have for president now was elected because he's black and not George Bush. I've listened to Sarah Palin, she's popular and the liberal media are scared to death of that woman. The problem is that she's not making any sense. What's her plan to improve America? I haven't heard squat from anybody.

I'm tired of trying to talk to these people, it's counter-productive. It's a waste of my time. When a politician starts making sense then I'll make an effort to support that individual. Till then as long as they don't bother me I won't bother them.

FTM| 12.16.09 @ 8:06PM

John Kennedy blundered into the Apollo program. That guy was way too busy chasing skirts to know or care about what he was doing.
(My impression)

I want to hear a politician define their perception of a list of problems and what they're going to do, the actions that they'll take and the resources that they'll devote to solving the problem.

Google ITER/Z-Axis Accelerator. We have a technology that can potentially produce cheap thermonuclear power with helium gas as a by-product. Politicians have paid lip service and said less than squat about the technology for over ten years now. On the other hand they've been hyping AGW for all it's worth because they want to impress the soccer moms.

Sorry, I have more important things to occupy my attention that wasting my breath talking to a politician or listening to a politician.

Richard V| 12.17.09 @ 12:43AM

FTM, Ken (Old Texican), astonerii,

The issue of nuclear waste disposal has been solved by incorporating thorium into uranium fuel rods, thus rendering the spent fuel non radioactive. The company who owns this patented technology is Light Bridge Corporation (NYSE: LTBR), previously known as Thorium Power LLC. I own shares of LTBR which are trading today at $6.10 a share. In a few years you may see LTBR share price explode to a 5-bagger or better.

FTM| 12.17.09 @ 1:25AM

Richard V

Never heard of the process.

Nothing new though, there's lots of things that I've never heard of. Bottom line is though, we have alternate power generation technologies that we can follow-up on. All we have to do is to disengage the social engineers (liberal and conservative) and get the show on the road.

DaveS| 12.17.09 @ 6:56PM

Richard, your heart may be in the right place, but adding thorium does nothing to render something radioactive non-radioactive.

JO| 12.17.09 @ 5:45AM

Mother Earth is no different to any women, she has her moods (duck). Sometimes she gets hot, but then she cools down again. She even did this long before humans nestled into her bossom.

It is not wise of man to think he knows all of Mother Earth's mysteries and secrets, for She is unique, mysterious and has many secrets.

It is only the deluded and arrogant who claim to know and comprehend the complex matrix of varibales that drives her climate, her moods; only God who knows, but He choses to remain silent.

Lets us learn to love, understand and adapt to Mother Earth just the way she is, with all her moods and all her mysteries, we will all be the better for it - believe me.

PS. My wife made me write that.

DaveS| 12.17.09 @ 6:58PM

Based on safety record, site one in Manhattan. I should know: I work at the one just up the river from there.

Margie| 12.17.09 @ 10:49AM

Sounds to me we have some great guys here who could run for office...!

Richard V| 12.18.09 @ 12:55AM

DaveS,

I was rather cryptic in my description of the benefit of using thorium in the nuclear fuel in an effort to mitigate the costs of nuclear waste disposal. I'd like to invite you to read about the technology at www.ltbridge.com. The following is an excerpt from the company's literature:
"Lightbridge develops and owns advanced nuclear fuel designs for existing light water reactors currently in operation around the world and new generation light water reactors that are being built or have been proposed for construction worldwide

Lightbridge utilizes thorium-based nuclear fuel designs optimized to address key concerns typically attributed to traditional nuclear power, such as proliferation and waste. The result is an advanced fuel cycle which offers enhanced proliferation resistance, significantly reduced volume, weight and long-term radio-toxicity of used fuel, and improved fuel cycle economics.

Intellectual Property
Lightbridge Corporation's nuclear fuel designs are protected by U.S. patents and their foreign equivalent in several countries. We are continuously analyzing new intellectual property as it becomes available from our research and development activities to ensure all designs are protected either through patents or trade secrets."

Best regards,

Richard

Osamas Pajamas| 12.18.09 @ 1:56AM

Meanwhile, back at the hacienda, blowhard David Letterman is still "Doin' The Lewinsky" on global-warming propagandists, and still out to destroy Sarah Palin. David Letterman is a scientist, dedicated to the scientific method, and a friend of the truth.

Richard Baker| 12.19.09 @ 9:15AM

JO:
I've always wondered how people who claim to know what the Earth is going to do climate-wise in 10-15 years can't tell me what's going to happen next week with the weather.

JO| 12.20.09 @ 12:43AM

Indeed Richard. Climate science is a bit like the science of psychology, although climate science much harder to design and repeat experiments, impossible in fact.

I doubt if there are any humans being who really understands what drives climate, although many will try to convince us they do.

Socrates would make mince meat out of them.

Richard Baker| 12.20.09 @ 5:15PM

JO:
Indeed!

Larryg| 12.20.09 @ 6:46PM

Have a look at these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeY8oqAGhyA

tammyyy| 12.21.09 @ 4:51AM

About the same as the AGW, ie pro-man made global warming, crowd. How many times have we heard an AGW person point to ONE thing and say see this prove man is causing global warming whether its a hurricane, a drowning polar bear, or a warmer then normal summer in Great Brittan, some in the AGW crowd are as guilty as some deniers.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Bowt.....id=2926555

Mike Shaw| 12.24.09 @ 2:07PM

Vice President Gore has found yet another money raising scam for which there is "no controlling legal authority". He has made far too much money lying to Americans. Has anyone made plans to make him pay it all back? He has cost us jobs and prosperity. A normal person could not live with themselves, yet he persists in the face of the truth.

James Welker| 12.31.09 @ 5:43PM

A couple of points..... I seem to recall a DDT crisis, and an zone layer crisis. Both of which, after causing millions of deaths and costing billions of dollars, turned out to have causes other than those originally stated.
Finally, even if AGW is a fact, how will making Al Gore a billionaire solve AGW? If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Gore is more "don't do as I do but do as I say" kind of guy. Upon reflection, I can't think of a single AGW proponent, who practices what he preaches.

JMWinPR

G.S. Williams| 1.1.10 @ 11:04PM

Firstly, may I wish everyone a very Happy and prosperous New Year.

The term, ¨denier¨, is far more applicable to the Warmists, because they are DENYING the real Science. Would you all agree?

G.S. Williams

Bowtrol| 1.24.10 @ 12:07PM

Nice.

Jason| 1.30.10 @ 12:51PM

Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thanks for lunch!

Breast Actives

Acnezine| 2.9.10 @ 1:51PM

Thanks for the share.This is cool

sfgsf| 2.25.10 @ 3:31AM

When we need to convert AVCHD video on mac to other common and wanted video or audio formats, AVCHD Video Converter for Mac is always the first one that occures in our mind. What characteristics does this magic AVCHD Video Converter Mac have?
AVCHD Video Converter for Mac,AVCHD Converter for Mac

77| 4.2.10 @ 3:09AM

hefgdlshg

http://www.51ghd.com| 4.3.10 @ 2:25AM

The ghdhair styler is one of the hottest beauty products on the market. From the UK, Australia and United States, GHD hair straighteners get rave reviews from consumers who are looking for something better than cheap, quick-fix straighteners.
Thousands of companies now offer the GHD IV around the world; how do you know if you’re buying the real thing? Follow our checklist to authenticate your cheap ghd straightener:
Buy from a respected retailer – Products sold from overseas or “second-hand” sites are frequently counterfeit because there is no accountability. Buy from a reputable merchant located in your home country.

ghdmanufactoryoutlet| 4.4.10 @ 3:22AM

hdgh

sunglass| 4.4.10 @ 3:24AM

sgfg

paulsmithoutlet| 4.4.10 @ 3:33AM

fd

burberryoutlet| 4.4.10 @ 3:35AM

gdfg

adfasd| 4.7.10 @ 5:50AM

iTunes Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can convert iTunes support formats, such as MP3, AIFF, WAV, MPEG-4, AAC, Apple Lossless, etc. to any other format and vice versa.
AVI to MP4 Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can not only convert AVI to MP4, but also support converting between all other video formats, HD video formats included. In addition, AVI to MP4 Converter also functions as excellent AVI codec, audio converter, audio/picture extractor and video editor.

potropica | 4.9.10 @ 8:18PM

I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You Poptropica

Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale poptropica

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. poptropica
When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica
I’ll have a full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!poptropica

Getting Hercules to Help You

Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. poptropica
Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you.poptropica
. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out.Poptropica When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica

mili8951| 5.8.10 @ 1:57AM

http://www.edhardycawholesale.com/

Cheap Flight to Bangkok| 6.26.11 @ 10:39PM

We do not just offer you the last minute cheap flight to Bangkok. We “always” offer you the cheap flight to Bangkok. If you are looking for the real cheap flight to Bangkok, contact us and be satisfied with our price.

Gentech| 6.26.11 @ 10:39PM

Today is the era of “quality”, not that of quantity. To gain the word “quality”, you have to start from high quality ideas. Are your business ideas within your own organization good enough? No need to answer by yourself. Try consult Gentech! Gentech is a source for more business opinions and suggestions. Share some work with Gentech and enjoy your high quality high profit business.

Wii| 6.26.11 @ 10:39PM

If you are seeking something both useful and fun, choose Wii. Wii will offer you the most enjoyable exercising time ever. Have a nice day with Wii, play Wii, and move with it.

Game| 6.26.11 @ 10:39PM

Find some fun! Find some game ! You can experience various styles of game; action, RPG, sports, and horror. Take yourself into the world of imagination, and forget about your stress in the real world for a period of time. Playing a game can help you more than your thought. Bring it on!

IBCBET| 8.1.11 @ 12:53AM

This is the moral equivalent of Richard Nixon trying to explain away the 18-minute gap in one of his Watergate tapes. ibcbet-th IBCBET ibcbet online