↑ Grab this Headline Animator

A steady drip of errors in the top report on global warming — and the erosion they are causing in public confidence of the science behind it — have some scientists calling for drastic changes in how future United Nations climate reports are done. 

A push for reform being published in Thursday’s issue of the prestigious scientific journal Nature comes on top of a growing clamor for the resignation of the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The work of the climate change panel, or IPCC, is often portrayed as one massive tome. But it really is four separate reports on different aspects of global warming, written months apart by distinct groups of scientists.

No errors have surfaced in the first and most well-known of the reports, which said the physics of a warming atmosphere and rising seas is man-made and incontrovertible. So far, four mistakes have been discovered in the second report, which attempts to translate what global warming might mean to daily lives around the world.

“A lot of stuff in there was just not very good,” said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the first report. “A chronic problem is that on the whole area of impacts, getting into the realm of social science, it is a softer science. The facts are not as good.”

It’s been a dismal winter for climate scientists after the high point of winning the 2007 Nobel, along with former Vice President Al Gore, for championing efforts to curb global warming and documenting its effects.

–In November, stolen private e-mails from a British university climate center embarrassed a number of scientists for their efforts to stonewall climate skeptics. The researchers were found to have violated Britain’s Freedom of Information laws.

–In December, the much anticipated climate summit of world leaders in Copenhagen failed to produce a meaningful mandatory agreement to curb greenhouse gases.

–Climate legislation in the United States, considered key to any significant progress in slowing global warming, is stalled.

Read the rest of this entry

Big snow on the way.

Last week, some of them were really accurate.

And some of them were dead wrong.

A large portion of the U.S. just experienced a snowstorm of massive proportions.

Is that why it’s now usually called climate change instead of global warming?

Where I live, three local television weatherpersons, both daily newspapers, and the local affiliate of the Weather Channel were predicting snow starting on Friday afternoon and that we would see five to seven inches of snow by Saturday afernoon.

Guess how much time I spent on snow removal that Saturday.

Less than five minutes sweeping a dusting of snow off of my front sidewalk.

That may sound like I got lucky that the storm missed me, until you consider all of the postponements and cancellations of sporting, social and scholastic events, evening college classes canceled, etc.

Consider for a moment how many people had to change or abandon their plans, not to mention the financial ramifications.

Everyone knows that the folks predicting the weather sometimes get it right, and sometimes they get it wrong.
The problems caused failed by the weather prediction for my immediate area is one thing, but what are the ramifications when it happens on a global scale?

And thanks to these environmental jihadists who worship at the altar of Al Gore, nation’s from around the world are spending millions, if not billions, of dollars on climate change summits, attempts to reduce CO2 emissions, and on and on.

Most financial analysts agree that the Cap And Trade bill currently awaiting Congressional approval will inflict a crippling blow on the U.S. economy.

And what is all of this hysteria based upon, besides the manic rantings of Al Gore, a snake oil salesman without any scientific qualifications, who millions of people take as gospel, while overlooking the fact that Gore is making tens of millions of dollars off of his “carbon credits” Ponzi scheme.

Or another intellectual giant, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who in 2008 predicted that, thanks to global warming, there would be no snow or cold in Washington D.C.

I wonder how many people who were stupid enough to believe RFK are feeling about that opinion piece.
Many of them can’t re-read it because over 100,000 of them are without power thanks to thirty inches of snow.

Maybe we should base our climate change fears on the United Nations panel of climate experts who based their claims on an article from a magazine article and a college student’s term paper.

How much attention should any rational human being pay to the findings of the United Nations Climate Chief, who made the statement that global warming skeptics should rub their faces with asbestos.

How about the “scientist” who considered suicide when his  global warming findings were questioned?

Of course, some folks are rational enough to see the talk of climate change for the scam that it is.

My point  is, when a supposed “expert” can’t even  accurately predict the next day’s weather, why should I believe any of the claims of Al Gore and his carbon credit cronies?

Even most of those who voted for him in 2008 were aware that Obama knew as much about international relations and foreign policy as Homer Simpson but their thinking was that all would be fine with a top foreign policy expert like senate veteran Joe Biden in the VP slot and a savvy Hillary heading the State Department.

Barack would be an outstanding domestic president, tending to such things as health care for all, legal or not, sick and healthy, poor and wealthy, aged or young while Jolly Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton, would take care of all things extra-national.

Jolly Joe is no Dick Cheney and Hillary is no Condi Rice.  They’re more akin to Soupy Sales and Mme. LaFarge.  

What wasn’t factored in was Biden’s innate boobery and Hillary’s main interest, beating her boss in the primaries in 2012, so it’s no wonder the pickle we’re in as a nation, both domestically and internationally. 

We’re told that much of the international community came to despise us when GWB was in charge, despising mostly his America First, Bush Doctrine, his national defense strategy for terroristic threats.

Bush  bodaciously proclaimed the United States would henceforth feel free and unencumbered to interdict any terrorist nation or terrorist-supporter in order to forestall another 9/11/2001.  In addition, we would be free to launch pre-emptive, “preventive” wars against nations perceived as dire threats to our security.

In short, the Bush Doctrine declared that America would be pro-active rather than reactive, that our approach would be to hit them before they got another chance to hit us again. 

It’s unfortunate we only applied the pro-active feature of the doctrine to strategically launching the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and not to the tactical nitty gritty of executing those wars.  Nation-building and winning hearts and minds came to supersede victory and our troops paid for the tactical shift in body bags. 

We forgot General MacArthur’s wise words that “There is no substitute for victory.”

Nevertheless, the UN-ers, countries which allow the United Nations to do their thinking and planning in matters of national defense, went into spasms of recriminatory hand wringing and hair pulling, the non-Muslim world’s version of ululating in despair. 

The Bush Doctrine was very nationalistic, so unilateralist, too cowboy-ish and antithetical to the principles of the United Nations, to all of which complaints GWB effectively said, “Too damned bad!”

The UN-ers were initially ecstatic with the election of Barack Hussein Obama and turned out by the hundreds of thousands to welcome him as the new, less antagonistic, more peace-loving, more cooperative leader of the Western World. 

It was finally time for that New World Order Europe had heard so much about.  It was if the strains of Grease were heard thoughout the streets of Paris, Berlin, and London: “We go together like ramma lamma lamma ka dinga da dinga dong,/ Remembered forever. . . that’s the way it should be./ Waooo, Yeah!”

Less than a year into his reign, his numbers began plummeting, disenchantment set in, and Europe’s new theme song became “The Party’s Over.”  They’re again not very happy world campers. 

Frankly, despising and fearing us is far preferable to the current climate of pitying and scoffing at us over Obama’s ineptitude.

Of course, other nations can’t say they’re laughing at us, feel sorry for us, and have no respect for Obama.  What they do instead is ignore us, ignore our importunings, and go their own ways, irrespective and regardless of what America thinks.

That attitude of disrespect was shown not only by European nations but by the two countries which are establishing themselves to supplant the USA as the preeminint international powers of the twenty-first century and our own President Bumbler is functioning as enabler to India and China.

Is Obama’s crouching, bowing, and scraping to foreign leaders all part of our socialistic leader’s stated intent of wealth distribution not just to America’s needy but to the planet?

More about crouching in Part Two.

Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered his country’s atomic agency on Sunday to begin the production of higher enriched uranium, in a move that’s likely to deepen international skepticism about the country’s real intentions on the crucial issue of enriched uranium.

In comments broadcast on state television, Ahmadinejad said: “God willing, 20 percent enrichment will start” to meet Iran’s needs. He did not give a date for the start of the enrichment process.

He was speaking at a meeting attended by the head of Iran’s atomic energy agency, Ali Akbar Salehi.

Turning to Salehi, Ahmadinejad said: “Mr. Salehi, begin production of 20 percent” enriched uranium.”

Read the rest of this entry

Back in May of last year, we reported on how the Inter-American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing Of And Trafficking In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives And Other Related Materials was signed by President Bill Clinton but never ratified by the Senate.

And now the zealots who consider private ownership of firearms a crime against humanity have found a new ally in the International Action Network On Small Arms.

To give you some idea of how delusional the gun grabbers in the UN really are, take note of the claim made in the first 10 seconds of the video:

“Small arms and light weapons are truly weapons of mass destruction.”

How do you reason with some United Nations bureaucrat who ranks a .357 Magnum on the same scale as a nuclear device?

You don’t.

Fanatics such as these have effecively banned private owneship of firearms in numerous countries around the world.

The fact that in all cases crime rates have risen dramatically doesn’t deter them from their anti-gun agenda.

It also fails to stop them, as well as other prominent public figures, from being the biggest hypocrites on Earth, as some of the loudest voices against private ownership of guns don’t go anywhere without armed bodyguards.

The threat to American firearms owners has never been greater.

With President Obama being on record as an anti-Second Amendment individual, along with his falling over backwards to try and make the rest of the international community love America no matter what, he may feel that urging Congress to sign the UN gun ban treaty will somehow make him a great statesman in the eyes of the rest of the world.

So if you want to protect your Second Amendment rights, click here to find contact information for your Senators and tell them in no uncertain terms that they should not ratify an arms control treaty that will only affect law-abiding American citizens.

The economy, deficit spending, the size of the federal deficit and terrorism all ranked higher.

So how will this affect Al Gore?

Where will he find the money for all of the cheeseburgers he is stuffing down his throat?

Well, he can always count on his book sales.

As Barack Obama begins his second year in office, the public’s priorities for the president and Congress remain much as they were one year ago. Strengthening the nation’s economy and improving the job situation continue to top the list. And, in the wake of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, defending the country from future terrorist attacks also remains a top priority.

At the same time, the public has shifted the emphasis it assigns to two major policy issues: dealing with the nation’s energy problem and reducing the budget deficit.
About half (49%) say that dealing with the nation’s energy problem should be a top priority, down from 60% a year ago.
At the same time, there has been a modest rise in the percentage saying that reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority, from 53% to 60%.

Read the rest of this entry

Thanks to recently filed Congressional expense reports there’s new light shed on the Copenhagen Climate Summit in Denmark and how much it cost taxpayers.

CBS News Investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports official filings and our own investigation show at least 106 people from the House and Senate attended – spouses, a doctor, a protocol expert and even a photographer.

For 15 Democratic and 6 Republican Congressmen, food and rooms for two nights cost $4,406 tax dollars each. That’s $2,200 a day – more than most Americans spend on their monthly mortgage payment.

CBS News asked members of Congress and staff about whether they’re mindful that it’s public tax dollars they’re spending. Many said they had never even seen the bills or the expense reports.

Read the rest of this entry