Monday, May 21, 2007

What’s going on in George Bush’s mind?

“So come with me, where dreams are born, and time is never planned. Just think of happy things, and your heart will fly on wings, forever, in Never Never Land.” - Peter Pan*******
"I'm the commander in chief, see, I don't need to explain, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting part about being president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."- George W. Bush, quoted in Bob Woodward's book 'Bush at War'
New York Magazine Puts Bush on the Couch - Earlier this month, New York Magazine published a series of essays under the collective title, “Bush's Mind: Analyzing the President.” [link follows below]. In 17 essays by experts in politcs and psychology, the magazine offers what it calls a psychopolitical survey of the inner George W. Bush: http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/02/26/new-york-magazine-puts-bush-on-the-couch/ Bush, like his mother, has an almost inhuman ability to identify his own advantage without the slightest regard to its cost to others. Bush’s upbringing in wealth and privilege is key to understanding him, and yet the public is blind to it.

Bush's Mind: Analyzing the president: http://nymag.com/news/politics/Bush/26993/ I think Bush has come to believe he’s on a lonely, noble mission—doing the right thing in spite of the ravings and denunciation by pygmies—and that to some degree he thinks people outside the Oval Office have to be lied to. But he is very mysterious—he doesn’t reveal much in the way of personal qualities.


One longtime former Republican official, who held senior posts in both the first and second Bush administrations, was bluntest of all. "My question is," this former official told me, "does he expose himself to people who respectfully disagree, or thoughtfully disagree, or may have a legitimate suggestion? Not a lot, no. I think some of us are just born with a really, really active curiosity. If you're on a farm, you ask, 'How does this irrigation system work?' I think he has a very narrow curiosity. He's polite. He was raised to be polite. But you just never sense a deep curiosity. His interests are exercise and chopping wood."
*******
Vanity Fair: Inside Bush's Bunker: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/purdum200710

For any second-term president—as the pressure grows to cement his legacy, and with many of his best aides gone—the physical bunker of an electronically sealed, sniper-patrolled White House, which restricts his access to old friends and new ideas, can lead to psychological isolation. Talking to administration insiders, the author learns why George W. Bush's disconnect is even more extreme, from the "Churchillian riff" he goes into when Iraq is discussed, to his eerie optimism, to his increasing reliance on a dwindling band of diehards.
by Todd S. Purdum October 2007
*******

Gore Blasts Bush in 'The Assault on Reason' - Former Vice President's Book a Searing Assault on the Bush Administration: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3195676&page=1 In the book, Gore is accusatory, passionate, and angry. He begins discussing the president by accusing him of sharing President Richard Nixon's unprincipled hunger for power -- and the book proceeds to get less complimentary from there. While Gore stops short of flatly calling for the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, he certainly gives the impression that in his view such a move would be well deserved. He calls the president a lawbreaker, a liar and a man with the blood of thousands of innocent lives on his hands.
Report: In Meeting, ‘Wild-Eyed’ Bush Thumped Chest While Repeating ‘I Am The President!’ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/31/bush-wild-eyed/ He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of “our country’s destiny.” This is the second time in recent weeks that accounts have surfaced of Bush lashing out or “ranting” in private meetings when responding to criticism of his Iraq policy.

Bush Confirms He Will Seek More Dictatorial Power
After securing supreme status for his office and a six month window to implement whatever surveillance methods he wishes, Bush says his work is not yet complete
Infowars.net August 7, 2007 Steve Watson
While Constitutional experts and even sectors of the corporate mainstream media have denounced the latest power grab by the Bush administration as "unnecessary and highly dangerous", the President himself has confirmed that he will seek even more authority from Congress and will attempt to pass more legislation aimed at granting the government unquestionable power over the people.
Legislation signed Sunday gives the government the green light to install permanent backdoors in communications systems that allow warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, a blatant violation of the 4th amendment.
The administration has a 6 month window in which to impose any surveillance program it chooses and that program will go unchallenged and remain legally binding in perpetuity - it cannot be revoked. Under the definitions of the legislation, Bush has been granted absolute dictator status for a minimum of 6 months, dovetailing with a recent Presidential Decision Directive that also appoints Bush as a supreme dictator during an announced emergency.
The bill was passed on Friday after the president jawboned Congress , saying lawmakers could not leave for their August recess at the weekend unless they "pass a bill that will give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect the United States."
Despite these huge freedom crushing steps, Bush says he is not done:
"While I appreciate the leadership it took to pass this bill, we must remember that our work is not done," Bush said in his Sunday statement . "This bill is a temporary, narrowly focused statute to deal with the most immediate shortcomings in the law."
The statement continues:

"When Congress returns in September the Intelligence committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director McConnell, including the important issue of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001."
This basically means that the administration will push for liability for ISP's and cell phone companies in order to head off court cases brought by the ACLU and others, including retroactive protection which would neutralize all attempts to challenge the administration's wiretapping activities spanning back to 9/11.
Constitutional expert and Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin has slammed the statement and pointed out the use of Orwellian doublespeak by Bush whereby he effectively admits to breaking the law and illegally spying on American citizens without actually saying so: "Apparently 'allegedly helped us stay safe' is Bush Administration code for telecom companies and government officials who participated in a conspiracy to perform illegal surveillance... Because what they did is illegal, we do not admit that they actually did it, we only say that they are alleged to have done it." --------
As the popular left leaning blog Think Progress has pointed out, even the corporate controlled mainstream media has editorialized against the FISA legislation, with the New York Times today calling it an “unnecessary and dangerous expansion of President Bush's powers.”:
USA Today:
A skittish Congress allowed itself to be stampeded last week into granting the president unfettered surveillance power. When it returns to Washington, it should do what it can to make sure that the sun goes down on this flawed measure.
Washington Post:
To call this legislation ill-considered is to give it too much credit: It was scarcely considered at all. Instead, it was strong-armed through both chambers by an administration that seized the opportunity to write its warrantless wiretapping program into law — or, more precisely, to write it out from under any real legal restrictions.
The New York Times:
While serving little purpose, the new law has real dangers. It would allow the government to intercept, without a warrant, every communication into or out of any country, including the United States. Instead of explaining all this to American voters — the minimal benefits and the enormous risks — the Democrats have allowed Mr. Bush and his fear-mongering to dominate all discussions on terrorism and national security.
The Los Angeles Times:
You know something's wrong with this Congress when a Democratic champion of privacy rights feels compelled to vote for Republican legislation that compromises those rights. That's what California Sen. Dianne Feinstein did last week when she joined a stampede to approve a temporary “fix” sought by the Bush administration in a law governing electronic surveillance.
San Francisco Chronicle:
No-limits spying is on a roll. In rushed votes, both the House and Senate meekly accepted a White House plan to vastly expand phone and e-mail eavesdropping. The changes were sold as a key step in tracking foreign terrorists and their allies on American soil. But the shift guts any semblance of oversight, leaving the picking and choosing of targets to spy agencies.
The Boston Globe:
The administration maintains that technological changes have created problems with the 1978 law. But never has Bush demonstrated why the terms of that law, which permitted officials to get warrant approvals up to 72 hours after they started a wiretap, are no longer workable. This and other questions could have been answered if Congress had demanded an open debate on the administration's bill. Its failure to do so is a shameful abdication of its own responsibility. It's difficult to maintain a system of checks and balances when one branch simply checks out.
Rocky Mountain News:
Now the authority to approve wiretaps rests with the attorney general - hardly a reassuring prospect given Alberto Gonzales' performance in that office - and the director of national intelligence. … Given the administration's expansive view of its own powers, this FISA rewrite could allow much wider eavesdropping, with little outside oversight.
Sacramento Bee:
After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush did an end run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which prohibits eavesdropping on Americans without judicial oversight. Instead of going to Congress to change the law, Bush decided to simply monitor without warrants the international phone calls and e-mails of people inside the United States. Six years later, the Bush administration belatedly has gone to Congress. But instead of promoting modernization in the law, the administration has ginned up new fears about terrorist attacks and cowed Congress into passing hasty, ill-considered changes.
Seattle Post Intelligencer :
The redeeming aspect of the political theater involving Americans' rights to privacy is that Congress wrote itself an option for a better ending in six months. The latest power grabs represent a move to legalize already existing covert programs that are in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States. The neocon administration has brought its crimes out into the open and the puppet Congress, rather than holding it accountable, is actively legalizing criminality.
"TerrorStorm is something that should be seen by everyone, no matter what their stance/affiliation/political bent. " - Rich Rosell, Digitally Obsessed UK Get TerrorStorm on DVD today
*******
'The President Has Accepted Ethnic Cleansing'
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was just in New York (more...) for the United Nations General Assembly. Once again, he said that he is only interested in civilian nuclear power instead of atomic weapons. How much does the West really know about the nuclear program in Iran?
Seymour Hersh: A lot. And it's been underestimated how much the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) knows. If you follow what (IAEA head Mohamed) ElBaradei (more...) and the various reports have been saying, the Iranians have claimed to be enriching uranium to higher than a 4 percent purity, which is the amount you need to run a peaceful nuclear reactor. But the IAEA's best guess is that they are at 3.67 percent or something. The Iranians are not even doing what they claim to be doing. The IAEA has been saying all along that they've been making progress but basically, Iran is nowhere. Of course the US and Israel are going to say you have to look at the worst case scenario, but there isn't enough evidence to justify a bombing raid. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is this just another case of exaggerating the danger in preparation for an invasion like we saw in 2002 and 2003 prior to the Iraq War?
SEYMOUR HERSH: We have this wonderful capacity in America to Hitlerize people. We had Hitler, and since Hitler we've had about 20 of them. Khrushchev and Mao and of course Stalin, and for a little while Gadhafi was our Hitler. And now we have this guy Ahmadinejad. The reality is, he's not nearly as powerful inside the country as we like to think he is. The Revolutionary Guards have direct control over the missile program and if there is a weapons program, they would be the ones running it. Not Ahmadinejad.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Where does this feeling of urgency that the US has with Iran come from?
Hersh: Pressure from the White House. That's just their game.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What interest does the White House have in moving us to the brink with Tehran?
Hersh: You have to ask yourself what interest we had 40 years ago for going to war in Vietnam. You'd think that in this country with so many smart people, that we can't possibly do the same dumb thing again. I have this theory in life that there is no learning. There is no learning curve. Everything is tabula rasa. Everybody has to discover things for themselves.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Even after Iraq? Aren't there strategic reasons for getting so deeply involved in the Middle East?
Hersh: Oh no. We're going to build democracy. The real thing in the mind of this president is he wants to reshape the Middle East and make it a model. He absolutely believes it. I always thought Henry Kissinger was a disaster because he lies like most people breathe and you can't have that in public life. But if it were Kissinger this time around, I'd actually be relieved because I'd know that the madness would be tied to some oil deal. But in this case, what you see is what you get. This guy believes he's doing God's work.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: So what are the options in Iraq?
Hersh: There are two very clear options: Option A) Get everybody out by midnight tonight. Option B) Get everybody out by midnight tomorrow. The fuel that keeps the war going is us.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: A lot of people have been saying that the US presence there is a big part of the problem. Is anyone in the White House listening?
Hersh: No. The president is still talking about the "Surge" (eds. The "Surge" refers to President Bush's commitment of 20,000 additional troops to Iraq in the spring of 2007 in an attempt to improve security in the country.) as if it's going to unite the country. But the Surge was a con game of putting additional troops in there. We've basically Balkanized the place, building walls and walling off Sunnis from Shiites. And in Anbar Province, where there has been success, all of the Shiites are gone. They've simply split.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is that why there has been a drop in violence there?
Hersh: I think that's a much better reason than the fact that there are a couple more soldiers on the ground.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: So what are the lessons of the Surge (more...)?
Hersh: The Surge means basically that, in some way, the president has accepted ethnic cleansing, whether he's talking about it or not. When he first announced the Surge in January, he described it as a way to bring the parties together. He's not saying that any more. I think he now understands that ethnic cleansing is what is going to happen. You're going to have a Kurdistan. You're going to have a Sunni area that we're going to have to support forever. And you're going to have the Shiites in the South.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: So the US is over four years into a war that is likely going to end in a disaster. How valid are the comparisons with Vietnam?
Hersh: The validity is that the US is fighting a guerrilla war and doesn't know the culture. But the difference is that at a certain point, because of Congressional and public opposition, the Vietnam War was no longer tenable. But these guys now don't care. They see it but they don't care.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: If the Iraq war does end up as a defeat for the US, will it leave as deep a wound as the Vietnam War did?
Hersh: Much worse. Vietnam was a tactical mistake. This is strategic. How do you repair damages with whole cultures? On the home front, though, we'll rationalize it away. Don't worry about that. Again, there's no learning curve. No learning curve at all. We'll be ready to fight another stupid war in another two decades.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Of course, preventing that is partially the job of the media. Have reporters been doing a better job recently than they did in the run-up to the Iraq War?
Hersh: Oh yeah. They've done a better job since. But back then, they blew it. When you have a guy like Bush who's going to move the infamous Doomsday Clock forward, and he's going to put everybody in jeopardy and he's secretive and he doesn't tell Congress anything and he's inured to what we write. In such a case, we (journalists) become more important. The First Amendment failed and the American press failed the Constitution. We were jingoistic. And that was a terrible failing. I'm asked the question all the time: What happened to my old paper, the New York Times? And I now say, they stink. They missed it. They missed the biggest story of the time and they're going to have to live with it.
Interview conducted by Charles Hawley and David Gordon Smith
*******
One businessman from New York was asked to the White House to offer his views on stem-cell research—"a major C.E.O., a hospital board chairman," Rollins recalls. The man to Rollins that, after he spoke up, Bush "put his finger in my chest" in angry disagreement.
*******
If the guy's last name wasn't Bush, he'd be lucky to have a job as a greeter at a Wal-Mart.
- Buzzflash
*******
If Past Is Prologue, George Bush Is Becoming An Increasingly Dangerous President:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0421-26.htm
by John W. Dean, a former counsel to the president.

President George W. Bush's presidency is a disaster - one that's still unfolding. In a mid-2004 column, I argued that, at that point, Bush had already demonstrated that he possessed the least attractive and most troubling traits among those that political scientist James Dave Barber has cataloged in his study of Presidents' personality types.
Barber, after analyzing all the presidents through Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, found repeating patterns of common elements relating to character, worldview, style, approach to dealing with power, and expectations. Based on these findings, Barber concluded that presidents fell into clusters of characteristics.
Bush has never understood what presidential scholar Richard Neustadt discovered many years ago: In a democracy, the only real power the presidency commands is the power to persuade. Presidents have their bully pulpit, and the full attention of the news media, 24/7. In addition, they are given the benefit of the doubt when they go to the American people to ask for their support. But as effective as this power can be, it can be equally devastating when it languishes unused - or when a president pretends not to need to use it, as Bush has done.
Apparently, Bush does not realize that to lead he must continually renew his approval with the public. He is not, as he thinks, the decider. The public is the decider.
Bush is following the classic mistaken pattern of active/negative presidents: As Barber explained, they issue order after order, without public support, until they eventually dissipate the real powers they have -- until "nothing [is] left but the shell of the office." Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all followed this pattern.
Active/negative presidents are risk-takers. (Consider the colossal risk Bush took with the Iraq invasion). And once they have taken a position, they lock on to failed courses of action and insist on rigidly holding steady, even when new facts indicate that flexibility is required.
The source of their rigidity is that they've become emotionally attached to their own positions; to change them, in their minds, would be to change their personal identity, their very essence. That, they are not willing to do at any cost.
George Bush has misled America into a preemptive war in Iraq; he is using terrorism to claim that as Commander-in-Chief, he is above the law; and he refuses to acknowledge that American law prohibits torturing our enemies and warrantlessly wiretapping Americans.
Americans, increasingly, are not buying his justifications for any of these positions. Yet Bush has made no effort to persuade them that his actions are sound, prudent or productive; rather, he takes offense when anyone questions his unilateral powers. He responds as if personally insulted. Barber's collective portrait of Wilson, Hoover, Johnson and Nixon now fits George W. Bush too: "He sees himself as having begun with a high purpose, but as being continually forced to compromise in order to achieve the end state he vaguely envisions," Barber writes. He continues, "Battered from all sides . . . he begins to feel his integrity slipping away from him . . . [and] after enduring all this for longer than any mortal should, he rebels and stands his ground. Masking his decision in whatever rhetoric is necessary, he rides the tiger to the end."
There is, however, the possibility of another terrorist attack, and if one occurred, Americans would again rally around the president - wrongly so, since this is a presidency that lives on fear-mongering about terror, but does little to truly address it. The possibility that we might both suffer an attack, and see a boost to Bush come from it, is truly a terrifying thought.

*******
Bush: Pathological liar or idiot-in-chief?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22134108/
Olbermann: Timeline for Iran’s nuclear ambitions was clear, but he kept on
By Keith Olbermann
Thurs., Dec. 6, 2007
There are few choices more terrifying than the one Mr. Bush has left us with tonight.
We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War III about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole, or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked, at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so, whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed were still even remotely plausible.
A pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief. It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: A critical juncture in our history and, contained in either answer, a president manifestly unfit to serve, and behind him in the vice presidency an unapologetic warmonger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself.
After spokeswoman Dana Perino’s announcement from the White House late last night, the timeline is inescapable and clear.
In August the president was told by his hand-picked major-domo of intelligence, Mike McConnell, a flinty, high-strung-looking, worrying-warrior who will always see more clouds than silver linings, that what “everybody thought” about Iran might be, in essence, crap.
Yet on Oct. 17, the president said of Iran and its President Ahmadinejad:
“I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon.”
And as he said that, Mr. Bush knew that at bare minimum there was a strong chance that his rhetoric was nothing more than words with which to scare the Iranians.
Or was it, Sir, to scare the Americans?
video
Co-Dependent Congress Must Wake Up: The President Needs a Straitjacket and a Padded CellSubmitted by BuzzFlash on Wed, 02/14/2007 - 4:47pm.
by Dave Lindorff
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/791
It's time to simply admit the obvious: The president of the United States is crazy as a loon, and the Congress and the media are functioning as co-dependents as he runs the country off a cliff.
Bush says in his latest press conference that he is "certain" that Iran is providing "technically sophisticated" roadside bomb weapons to Iraqi insurgent forces to help them kill Americans.
He probably is "certain." But nobody else of consequence in the government is, and the evidence to support his claim is simply not there.
*******
Bush's Messiah Complex
By Dan FroomkinSpecial to washingtonpost.com
Monday, January 7, 2008; 1:17 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/01/07/BL2008010701413_pf.html
With time running short on his presidency -- and on the eve of a trip to the Middle East -- President Bush seems to have overcome his aversion to talking about his legacy and is now speaking fervently about how he expects to be remembered.
As it turns out, the president sees himself as quite the heroic figure.
"I can predict that the historians will say that George W. Bush recognized the threats of the 21st century, clearly defined them, and had great faith in the capacity of liberty to transform hopelessness to hope, and laid the foundation for peace by making some awfully difficult decisions," Bush told Yonit Levi of Israel's Channel 2 News. Bush held several interviews with Middle Eastern journalists last week in anticipation of his trip to the region, which starts tomorrow.
"When he needed to be tough, he acted strong, and when he needed to have vision he understood the power of freedom to be transformative," Bush said of himself to Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer of the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot.
As for the people of the Middle East, Bush told Hisham Bourar of al-Hurra Television: "I would hope that they would say President Bush respects my religion and has great love for the human -- human being, and believes in human dignity."
The Bush record, the president told Nadia Bilbassy-Charters of al-Arabiya Television, is one of liberation -- "liberation, by the way, not only from dictatorship, but from disease around the world, like HIV/AIDS or malaria."
On a personal basis, Bush told Bilbassy-Charters that he hopes that people would know "that he hurts when he sees poverty and hopelessness" and "that he's a realistic guy."
Bush's self-image contrasts sharply with his image among his fellow Americans. More than 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the job is doing, and a CNN poll in November found that 58 percent of Americans rated Bush either a poor president, a very poor president, or the worst president ever. [read more at site]
*******
I hear Bush is going to rewrite the Bible. It's called the King George version.
*******

The VesselBy Gary Hart, former U.S. senator
He's the Man With No ShadowBy Robert Stone, author of Prime Green: Remembering the Sixties
His Dad, the Bottle, VietnamBy Jonathan Alter, Newsweek columnist
The Real AgendaBy Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor, Slate
He Is Not a Crook By Melvin Laird, counselor to President Nixon
Listening to HimselfBy Peter D. Kramer, author of Listening to Prozac
Once More, With FeelingBy Mark Green, former NYC public advocate
Simplicity HimselfBy Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic
What Would Jesus Do?By Scott Dikkers, editor-in-chief of The Onion
He's a Pathological OptimistBy Joshua Wolf Shenk, author of Lincoln’s Melancholy
Mr. SubliminalBy Christopher Buckley, author of Thank You for Smoking
His SmileBy Deepak Chopra, president, Alliance for a New Humanity
Deep Down He KnowsBy Ted Sorensen, speechwriter for President Kennedy
He Misunderstands HistoryBy Alan Brinkley, Allan Nevins Professor of History, Columbia University
He's a Decadent AristocratBy Andrew Solomon, author of The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression
The Clinical DiagnosisBy Susan Andersen, professor of psychology, NYU
*******
Uncovering the Psychological Roots of the Bush Tragedy
By Peter Michaelson
28 January 2008
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1520

Obviously, the best scoops and disclosures are published before the voting. Yet belated information about unfit politicians is still important news. A recent effort in this genre is Jacob Weisberg's The Bush Tragedy, in which the author gives ample reasons why George W. Bush was, and still is, immensely unqualified to be president.
Weisberg, editor-in-chief of Slate.com, attributes Bush's flawed leadership to his complicated relationship with his family and, in particular, with his father. The author writes that Bush "has been driven since childhood by a need to differentiate himself from his father, to challenge, surpass, and overcome him." Weisberg says his book is the "black box" that explains the plane crash of Bush's presidency. For all his interesting observations, however, Weisberg could have gone deeper.
He notes that Bush is insecure, aggressive, and burdened with feelings of being inadequate and a disappointment to his family. Bush lacks the true confidence that would allow him to accept his limitations, admit his mistakes, and salvage what he can of the wreckage of his administration, the author says.
He notes that Bush developed a firm strategy to make his political choices completely different from his father's -- yet he doesn't say why. Nor does he mention the possibility that Bush has a personality disorder or that he might be, as Dr. Justin A. Frank claims in Bush on the Couch, a sociopath.
*******
When Loyalty Is Not a Virtue: A Glimpse into Bush's Amoral World
by Andrew Bard Schmookler
March 16, 2007
The issue of the place of loyalty in the Bushite worldview has been put once again into the spotlight. What has brought this back to center stage is this scandal of the firing of the U.S. Attorneys: 1) we now know that loyalty to Bush was a central question upon which the Bushites based their decision on whether or not to keep or to fire those representatives of justice around the country-- in other words, the whole value of fairness and justice was overwhelmed by the priority placed on the loyalty of their minions in their unceasing struggle for more and more power; and 2) we are beginning to witness the working out of the fate of Alberto Gonzalez, the Bush loyalist whom this president transferred to the Attorney Generalship without any expectation that he would service justice itself, but only the political interests of his lord and master, to whom he has sworn fealty.
Although loyalty is always highly valued among our politicians, George W. Bush has shown himself exceptional in placing so high a priority on loyalty in assessing his people.
While in many contexts loyalty is rightly regarded as an important moral virtue, Bush’s excessive valuing of loyalty is less a sign of his appreciating a moral virtue than of his inhabiting a world in which true morality is scarcely relevant.
That’s what underlies Bush’s pronounced penchant for appointing cronies rather than well-qualified people, and of his bestowing honors on people who have stood by him while failing the country.
So when this president bestows the Medals of Freedom on a George Tenant, whose failures in the pre-war intelligence helped plunged America into a disastrous war, or on Paul Bremer, whose misjudgments helped squander what chances there were of avoiding disaster, it is indeed a scandal. For these honors are supposed to acknowledge achievements in the service to the nation as a whole, and to the nation’s values, and not just loyal service to an individual.
But while calling it a scandal is a valid moral judgment on this president’s actions, we should also understand that Bush’s excessive valuing of loyalty is a clue to why this president consistently works to advance his own power at the cost of the nation’s good order.
*******
video
[under construction]

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Kent State Massacre in 1970 (Part 1)

*******
*******
New light shed on Kent State killings
Shots fired at Guard, declassified files indicate
By James Rosen SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Previously undisclosed FBI documents suggest that the Kent State antiwar protests were more meticulously planned than originally thought and that one or more gunshots may have been fired at embattled Ohio National Guardsmen before their killings of four students and woundings of at least nine others on that searing day in May 1970.
Left: Ohio National Guardsmen fire tear gas to disperse a crowd of Vietnam War protesters on the commons of Kent State University on May 4, 1970.
As the nation marks the 40th anniversary of the Kent State antiwar protests Tuesday, a review of hundreds of previously unpublished investigative reports sheds a new — and very different — light on the tragic episode.
The upheaval that enveloped the northeastern Ohio campus actually began three days earlier, in downtown Kent. Stirred to action by President Nixon's expansion of U.S. military operations in Cambodia, a roving mob of earnest antiwar activists, hard-core radicals, curious students and others smashed 50 bank and store windows, looted a jewelry store and hurled bricks and bottles at police.
Four officers suffered injuries, and the mayor declared a civil emergency. Only tear gas dispersed the mob.
An exhaustive review later concluded that this unrest on the streets — the worst in Kent's history — was "not an organized riot or a planned protest."
But the FBI's investigation swiftly uncovered reliable evidence that suggested otherwise. Among the strongest was a pre-dawn conversation — never before reported — between two unnamed men overheard inside a campus lounge later that night. Their discussion was witnessed by the girlfriend of a Kent State student and conveyed up the FBI chain of command 15 days later.
"We did it," one man exulted, according to the inquiry. "We got the riot started."
The second man expressed disappointment at being excluded from the riot's planning. "Wait until tomorrow night," the leader replied excitedly. "We just got the word. We're going to burn the ROTC building."
This was 20 hours before the ROTC headquarters on the Kent State campus, an old wooden frame building, was, in fact, burned to the ground.
"What about the flare?" the second man asked before the leader spotted the coed listening to them and abruptly ended the conversation. Dozens of witnesses later told the FBI they saw a flare used to ignite the blaze.
Now largely forgotten, the torching of the ROTC building was the true precursor to the killings at Kent State because it triggered the deployment of the National Guard to the fevered campus.
That deployment climaxed in bloodshed on the afternoon of May 4, 1970, with the guardsmen, clad in gas masks and confronted by angry, rock-throwing students, firing their M-1 rifles 67 times in 13 seconds, killing Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer and William Knox Schroeder.
A report submitted to Attorney General John Mitchell in June 1970 stated "there was no sniper" who could have fired at the guardsmen before the killings.
Numerous witnesses corroborated this.
A female freshman provided the FBI with a sworn statement that "there was no shot before [the guardsmen's] volley, and there were no warning shots fired." The Justice Department's internal review cited statements by six guardsmen who "pointedly" told the FBI that their lives were not in danger and that "it was not a shooting situation."
Yet the declassified FBI files show the FBI already had developed credible evidence suggesting that there was indeed a sniper and that one or more shots may have been fired at the guardsmen first.
Rumors of a sniper had circulated for at least a day before the fatal confrontation, the documents show. And a memorandum sent to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on May 19, 1970, referred to bullet holes found in a tree and a statue — evidence, the report stated, that "indicated that at least two shots had been fired at the National Guard."
Another interviewee told agents that a guardsman had spoken of "a confirmed report of a sniper."
It also turned out that the FBI had its own informant and agent-provocateur roaming the crowd, a part-time Kent State student named Terry Norman, who had a camera. Mr. Norman also was armed with a snub-nosed revolver that FBI ballistics tests, first declassified in 1977, concluded had indeed been discharged on that day.
Then there was the testimony of an ROTC cadet whose identity remains unknown, one of the pervasive redactions concealing the names of all the FBI agents who conducted the interviews and of all those whom they interrogated. Although presumably angry over the demonstrators' destruction of the campus ROTC building, the cadet's calm, precise firsthand account nonetheless carries a credibility not easily dismissed.
Before the fatal volley, the ROTC cadet told the FBI, he "heard one round, a pause, two rounds, and then the M-1s opened up."
The report continued that the cadet "stated that the first three rounds were definitely not M-1s. He said they could possibly have been a .45 caliber. … [He] further stated that he heard confirmed reports of sniper fire coming in over both the National Guard radio and the state police radio."
The cadet also told the FBI he observed demonstrators carrying baseball bats, golf clubs and improvised weapons, including pieces of steel wire cut into footlong sections, along with radios and other electronic devices "used to monitor the police and Guard wavelengths."
Separately, a female student told the FBI she "recalled hearing what she thought was [the sound of] firecrackers and then a few seconds later [she] heard noise that to her sounded like a machine gun going off, but then later thought it may have been a volley of shots from the Guard."
Absent the declassification of the FBI's entire investigative file, many questions remain unanswered — including why the documents quoted here were overlooked, or discounted, in the Justice Department's official findings.
At a minimum, the FBI documents strongly challenge the received narrative that the rioting in downtown Kent was spontaneous and unplanned, that the burning of the ROTC headquarters was similarly impulsive and that the guardsmen's fatal shootings were explicable only as unprovoked acts.
The FBI files provide, in short, a hidden history of the killings at Kent State. They show that the "four dead in Ohio" more properly belong, in the grand sweep of history, to four days in May, an angry, chaotic and violent interlude when a controversial foreign war came home to American soil.
*******
Some might argue that this posting should be included with the material on "Police State" under the posting "Is George Orwell Dead? Big Brother Isn't!" Perhaps so but I believe that this incident is important enough to merit a section by itself. Do you consider it strange that this massacre was downplayed in the media for 37 years? Yes I'll mention it. All us citizens, world-wide, never stood up and questioned it either. Maybe psychological, or maybe a state of denial, but nevertheless, WE citizens failed to demand an investigation into what happened and their killers got away. The "protest" movement also died that day!

U.S. National Guard and the pictures of "The 4 Students" who died.
The Lethal Media Silence On Kent State's Smoking Guns by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/992 After 37 years of official denial and cover-up, tape-recorded evidence that has existed for decades and has been in the possession of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has finally been made public. It proves what "conspiracy theorists" have argued since 1970 -- there was a direct military order leading to the unprovoked assassination of unarmed students. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents show collusion between Ohio Governor James A. Rhodes and the FBI that aimed to terrorize anti-war demonstrators and their protests that were raging throughout the nation. But the media's apparent unconcern about confirmation of the official order to carry out these killings may bear a simple message: that we should be prepared for them to happen again.
Mary Ann Vecchio screams as she kneels by the body of a student.
*******
Kent State, May 4, 1970: America Kills Its Children http://www.spectacle.org/595/kent.html Twenty-five years ago this month, students came out on the Kent State campus and scores of others to protest the bombing of Cambodia-- a decision of President Nixon's that appeared to expand the Vietnam War. Some rocks were thrown, some windows were broken, and an attempt was made to burn the ROTC building. Governor James Rhodes sent in the National Guard. The units that responded were ill-trained and came right from riot duty elsewhere; they hadn't had much sleep. The first day, there was some brutality; the Guard bayonetted two men, one a disabled veteran, who had cursed or yelled at them from cars. The following day, May 4th, the Guard, commanded with an amazing lack of military judgment, marched down a hill, to a field in the middle of angry demonstrators, then back up again. Seconds before they would have passed around the corner of a large building, and out of sight of the crowd, many of the Guardsmen wheeled and fired directly into the students, hitting thirteen, killing four of them, pulling the trigger over and over, for thirteen seconds.
*******
US History Encyclopedia:
Kent State Protest
On 4 May 1970 Ohio national guardsmen opened fire on Kent State University students protesting the Vietnam War. In a mere thirteen seconds four students were killed, and nine others wounded. What had begun as a small campus demonstration turned Kent State into a symbol of the Vietnam era worldwide.
Kent State students protested President Richard M. Nixon's 30 April announcement that troops would invade Cambodia to strike against suspected guerrillas. Nixon's declaration set off a chain reaction, and 1.5 million students protested around the country. The president fueled the confrontation by calling them "bums" who were "blowing up the campuses." Tensions in Kent, Ohio, escalated in the days leading up to 4 May. Mayor Leroy Satrom declared the city under a state of emergency after a disturbance downtown got out of hand. On 2 May Satrom requested that the Ohio National Guard deploy.
Despite the presence of armed soldiers, Kent State students continued to hold rallies. The situation spiraled out of control when a fire burned down the university Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) building. Governor James Rhodes arrived on 3 May and condemned student radicals, comparing them to nazis and communists. In response protesters gathered on campus but were teargassed.
On 4 May a rally drew approximately two thousand students, many merely curious onlookers. National Guard officers ordered the protesters to disburse, shooting tear gas into the crowd. Next more than one hundred armed guardsmen advanced on the students. The troops moved toward the protesters, up a hill, and then down to a practice football field. Reaching a fence at the far end, some knelt and aimed their weapons. Students retreated into a parking lot between several buildings, but some lobbed rocks and tear gas canisters back at the guardsmen.
Kent State students dive to the ground as the Ohio National Guard fires on faculty and students on campus during the May 4, 1970, Vietnam War protest, which left four students dead and nine injured.
*******
After ten minutes the troops moved back up the hill. When they reached the crest, a group of twenty-eight guardsmen turned quickly and shot in the direction of the parking lot and the main group of protesters. They fired sixty-one rounds of ammunition. Of the thirteen people killed or injured, only two were actively participating in the confrontation. One student was killed while walking to class, and another ironically was an ROTC student. Others were more than one hundred yards away.
As news spread Kent State and nearly five hundred other colleges were closed. Ten days later another shooting occurred, this time at Jackson State University in Mississippi. Police and state patrolmen fired into a dormitory at the all-black school, killing two students and wounding nine others. The lack of attention given to the deaths at Jackson State embittered many in the African American community.
Kent State immediately transformed from a sleepy midwestern college into the symbolic epicenter of student protest in the Vietnam era. Lingering romantic notions of the 1960s ended with the Kent State shootings. The incident has been immortalized in countless books and even a television movie, but nothing was more stinging than the song by the group Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, "Ohio," with its haunting lyrics, "Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming. … Four dead in Ohio!"
*******

Monday, May 07, 2007

Global Warming - Fact or Fiction? (Part 1)

*******

*******
*******
video
Global Warming Hoax, Planned in 1961
*******
Environmentalists vs. Scientists
Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory - August 29, 2007 Posted by Matthew_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (4:45pm ET)
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966 Last week in his blog post, New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears, on the Inhofe EPW Press Blog, Marc Morano cited a July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics.Protecting the Environment by G. Edward Griffin - Updated 2007 May 1 : http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=protect_enviro&refpage=issues We are alarmed over the use of dire predictions about unsustainable development to stampede us into accepting expanded governmental controls at all levels. Toward the end of 2006, Paramount Classics and Participant Productions released a theatrical film entitled An Inconvenient Truth hosted by former Presidential candidate, Al Gore. A rise in temperature heats up the oceans and causes them to release huge amounts of CO2, far more than any other source on the planet. Historical records show that a rise in temperature always came before a rise in CO2 and, conversely, a drop in temperature always preceded a drop in CO2. Yes, the two trends are locked together, as Gore dramatically illustrated, but CO2 levels are the result of the process, not the cause of it.
Scientists Claim Final Proof of Global Warming by Mark Henderson: http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/threat/threat6.htm Powerful evidence for global warming has been discovered by scientists funded by the US Government, demolishing the chief argument of sceptics who deny that the phenomenon is real. Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich, said: “It will become that much harder for people to claim that the world isn’t warming and that the warming isn’t caused by greenhouse-gas emissions.”
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics, by EPW Blog, Wednesday, May 16, 2007: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm Many prominent scientists have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven "consensus" on man-made global warming.
ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know a Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype' http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them.
Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming (February 02, 2007): http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=B777A414-802A-23AD-49C8-30ADD03ADEE0 Dr. Shaiv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=469DD8F9-802A-23AD-4459-CC5C23C24651 Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm. The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.
Number of Climate Change Skeptics Grows (May 16th 2007): http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=866 Bummer for the United Nations, Al Gore, and Rupert Murdoch. It appears a growing list of meteorologists, climate researchers, astrophysicists, geophysicists, botanists, and other scientists are reversing course on so-called climate change. “Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics.
Flash! U.S. Corporate Media Ignore Disaster Story! Impossible You Say? http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1138 Hansen, saying that recent evidence of melting at the poles shows ice melts much differently, and faster, than once assumed, warns that a few degrees rise in temperatures in northern regions could produce much worse results. While he says we could see a resulting rise in sea levels over this century of several meters (bad enough), he also warns that with only the widely predicted 5-6 degree Fahrenheit rise in this century the IPCC has predicted, the earth could see these two huge ice sheets collapse almost entirely over the next century, with a resulting sea rise of some 80 feet or more.
Climate Expert Questions Gore’s Global Warming Campaign:http://www.yoursdaily.com/science_tech/climate_expert_questions_gore_s_global_warming_campaign This past weekend concerts took place around the world to focus attention on the problem of global warming, which former U.S. Vice President Al Gore says is the greatest single threat facing humankind today. Most of the world's scientists agree that it is a problem and that it is largely caused by human use of fossil fuels, which produce so-called greenhouse gases that trap the Earth's heat. Al Gore and scientists who wrote the United Nations report on climate change say the debate is over and the time has come to act. But some prominent climate scientists are objecting to that, claiming that the debate has yet to even begin.
Canadian Climatologist Says Sun Causing Global Warming: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/avery070707.htm Canadian climatologist Tim Patterson says the sun drives the earth’s climate changes—and Earth’s current global warming is a direct result of a long, moderate 1,500-year cycle in the sun’s irradiance.Climate Extremism: the Real Threat to Civilization - Gore, Boxer, Suzuki lead an all-star cast exploiting science:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/Canada_Free_Press__RSS_Feed.xml There is nothing particularly unusual about current weather and climate change – it is generally well within long-term normal patterns. However, the public believes otherwise due to a combination of the way in which people have been taught to view nature, political exploitation of science and the hidden motives of environmental extremists. How did this happen and where are we headed if climate change hysteria continues unchecked?
Global Warming to eclipse International Terrorism - Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Osama bin Laden: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover041007.htm Al Gore and Maurice Strong have made Global Warming the new terrorism. Osama bin Laden, getting by in a cave somewhere in nether regions of Afghanistan-Pakistan will be bypassed, unless he can be caught polluting the environment. Meanwhile, when Pogo the Possum uttered the classic words: “We have met the enemy and he is us”, he must have had Al Gore and Maurice Strong in mind.
Water Experts Find Earth’s Warming, Rainfall Linked to Sun: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/avery072407.htm A team of water experts says the pattern of droughts and floods in South Africa shows our global warming was triggered by the variability of the sun’s irradiance rather than by human-emitted CO2. They say variations in South African rainfall patterns are keyed to periodic reversals of the sun’s magnetic field—and to the constantly changing distance between the sun and the earth as both move through space.
Global warming scientists fudge data by Klaus Rohrich: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/klaus081607.htm The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body pushing for laws that would limit man-made carbon emissions through a series of ultra-draconian regulations aimed primarily at developed nations, has a dirty little secret: its scientists have fudged their data to make the global warming picture look worse than it actually is.
Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in Nasa Climate Data: http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.
Antarctic ice grows to record levels & Over 500 scientists published studies countering global warming fears: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming091307m.htm According the NASA GISS data, the South Pole winter (June/July/August 2007) has cooled about 1 degree F since 1957 and the coldest year was 2004. This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa.

Repercussion Gone: Mass Extinction and the Hazards of Earth's Vanishing Biodiversity:http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/05/gone.html It is a fact widely accepted by biologists but little known by the population at large. By the end of the century, half of all species on Earth may be extinct due to global warming and other causes. Who will survive the world's dwindling biodiversity, and why?
Melting ice cap triggering earthquakes: The Greenland ice cap is melting so quickly that it is triggering earthquakes as pieces of ice several cubic kilometres in size break off. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/08/climatechange Scientists monitoring events this summer say the acceleration could be catastrophic in terms of sea-level rise and make predictions this February by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change far too low. The glacier at Ilulissat, which supposedly spawned the iceberg that sank the Titantic, is now flowing three times faster into the sea than it was 10 years ago.
Robert Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, said in Ilulissat yesterday: "We have seen a massive acceleration of the speed with which these glaciers are moving into the sea. The ice is moving at 2 metres an hour on a front 5km [3 miles] long and 1,500 metres deep. That means that this one glacier puts enough fresh water into the sea in one year to provide drinking water for a city the size of London for a year."

Global Warming Is Reversible
Bernie Sanders
November 27, 2007
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071210/sanders
Scientists now tell us that the crisis of global warming is even worse than their earlier projections. Daily front-page headlines of environmental disasters give an inkling of what we can expect in the future, multiplied many times over: droughts, floods, severe weather disturbances, loss of drinking water and farmland and conflicts over declining natural resources.
Yet the situation is by no means hopeless. Major advances and technological breakthroughs are being made in the United States and throughout the world that are giving us the tools to cut carbon emissions dramatically, break our dependency on fossil fuels and move to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. In fact, the truth rarely uttered in Washington is that with strong governmental leadership the crisis of global warming is not only solvable; it can be done while improving the standard of living of the people of this country and others around the world. And it can be done with the knowledge and technology that we have today; future advances will only make the task easier.
video
Despite all these theatrics, most environmentalists have criticized the summit for failing to agree to firm targets for reducing emissions.
*******
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening.
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
*******
The Virtues of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
by Arthur Robinson
February 25, 2008
The Earth’s atmosphere and surface are warmed by solar radiation; the greenhouse effect – primarily caused by atmospheric water vapor; and other less-understood phenomena. Carbon dioxide and methane are also greenhouse gases, but their physical properties render their greenhouse effects very weak. Neither warms the Earth significantly, and no greenhouse warming caused by these two substances has ever been unequivocally observed. The warming and cooling of the Earth is correlated most closely with fluctuations in solar activity and is entirely uncorrelated with human hydrocarbon use.
This has not, however, troubled Al Gore, the United Nations, and their enviro retainers, who are regaling the body politic with unverified computer projections that purport to predict the weather centuries in the future. These computer models cannot predict the weather next week, nor can they even “predict” the weather last year. In order to make the models conform at least somewhat to past temperature trends, their handlers have introduced 6 and even 7 adjustable parameters into their calculations. As Enrico Fermi famously remarked when quoting his friend, the great mathematician and computer pioneer John von Neumann, “with 3 parameters I can fit an elephant and with 4, I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
Why are these people doing this? Why has Al Gore positioned himself to become a historical laughing stock, and why have a few hundred United Nations climate change-funded “scientists” joined them? The reason surely is not global warming. If they truly were alarmed as they say about imminent climatic peril, they would be clamoring for the Penner-Teller solution. These scientists have shown that slight injections of sun-blocking particulates into the upper atmosphere would immediately erase all Earth warming of the past 200 years. Teller estimated the cost to achieve this cooler temperature at about $1 billion. A similar additional amount would probably be required annually to maintain the cooling.
If Al Gore were truly alarmed about hydrocarbon use, he would be clamoring for nuclear power plants. The construction of just 50 nuclear installations similar to that partially completed at Palo Verde near Phoenix would erase most of the U.S. carbon dioxide output – and would also erase most of the U.S. trade deficit at the same time. Yet, while The Wall Street Journal recently counted 381 nuclear power plants in various stages of planning or construction around the world – but none being constructed in the United States, Al Gore and his retainers actually oppose nuclear power.
So, why are they doing this? In the words of Indiana Jones – “fortune and glory, kid, fortune and glory” – paraphrase that “money and power, madam, money and power.” Al Gore, himself, has already accumulated astonishing personal wealth during his campaign against world energy technology and is now a principal in a new corporation being formed to profit from public fear of global warming. Meanwhile, United Nations bureaucrats are mesmerized by the prospect of taxing and rationing world energy supplies – a position of virtually unlimited wealth and power that would give them life-and-death control over both world technology and the human race.
*******
Are the Ice Caps Melting?
Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/
By Steven Goddard
Published Thursday 3rd July 2008 15:46 GMT

PBEM The headlines last week brought us terrifying news: The North Pole will be ice-free this summer "for the first time in human history," wrote (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html) Steve Connor in The Independent. Or so the experts at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado predict. This sounds very frightening, so let's look at the facts about polar sea ice.
As usual, there are a couple of huge problems with the reports.
Firstly, the story is neither alarming nor unique.
In the August 29, 2000 edition of the New York Times, the same NSIDC expert, Mark Serreze, said (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00E3DD1E31F93AA1575BC0A9669C8B63):
"There's nothing to be necessarily alarmed about. There's been open water at the pole before. We have no clear evidence at this point that this is related to global climate change."
During the summer of 2000 there was "a large body of ice-free water about 10 miles long and 3 miles wide near the pole". Also in 2000, Dr Claire Parkinson at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center was quoted as saying: "The fact of having no ice at the pole is not so stunning."
Submarines regularly surface (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server?show=nav.2546&outputFormat=print) at the North Pole
Secondly, the likelihood of the North Pole being ice free this summer is actually quite slim. There are only a few weeks left where the sun is high enough to melt ice at the North Pole. The sun is less than 23 degrees above the horizon, and by mid-August will be less than 15 degrees above it. Temperatures in Greenland have been cold this summer, and winds are not favorable for a repeat. Currently, there is about one million km2 more ice than there was on this date last summer.
So what is really going on at the poles?
The Tipping Point that wouldn't tip
Satellite records have been kept for polar sea ice over the last thirty years by the University Of Illinois. In 2007 2008, two very different records were set. The Arctic broke the previous record for the least sea ice area ever recorded, while the Antarctic broke the record for the most sea ice area ever recorded. Summed up over the entire earth, polar ice has remained constant. As seen below, there has been no net gain or loss of polar sea ice since records began.
(http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/07/03/ice_change_large.jpg)
Click to enlarge
Last week, Dr James Hansen from NASA spoke about how CO2 is affecting the polar ice caps.
"We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes... The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would," he said.
Well, not exactly.
Hansen is only telling half the story. In the 1980s the same Dr Hansen wrote a paper titled Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases [pdf (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf)], in which he explained how CO2 causes "polar amplification." He predicted nearly symmetrical warming at both poles. As shown in Figure 2-2 from the article, Hansen calculated that both the Arctic and Antarctic would warm by 5-6 degrees Centigrade. His predictions were largely incorrect, as most of Antarctica has cooled and sea ice has rapidly expanded. The evidence does not support the theory.
In 2004, Dr Hansen returned to the subject. This time, he explained (pdf) (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Hansen_Nazarenko.pdf) that most of Arctic warming and melting is due to dirty snow from soot, not CO2.
"Soot snow/ice albedo climate forcing is not included in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change evaluations. This forcing is unusually effective, causing twice as much global warming as a CO2 forcing of the same magnitude," he wrote.
Once the snow dirties, it absorbs sunlight, warms, and quickly melts. Then the land and air above warms, causing higher temperature readings. This affects the Arctic more than the Antarctic simply because there aren't many people living near the Antarctic. The Arctic is polluted by European cities and oil fields in Siberia - where gas flaring generates huge amounts of soot.
In fact, scientists at the University of California have estimated that up to 94 per cent of Arctic melt (http://www.physorg.com/news100354399.html) is due to dirty snow.
In other words, then, Antarctic temperatures and ice are going the opposite direction of what Dr. Hansen predicted, and most of the Arctic warming is due to soot, not CO2. His own research directly contradicts his recent high-profile statements about the Arctic and CO2.
Dr Hansen also talks frequently about the unprecedented temperature rise in the Arctic, yet his own temperature records show that much of the Arctic (including Greenland) was warmer from 1920-1940 than now. The NASA graph below from Nuuk, Greenland is typical of long term records of the region.
Nuuk, Greenland is a key location because it is located in the southwest portion of the island and is not far from the mouth of the Jakobshavn Glacier - the most rapidly moving glacier in the world and a poster child for global warming campaigners. It is also the largest city and capital of Greenland, located just south of the Arctic Circle. NASA literature from the last few years focuses heavily on anomalous melt in southwest Greenland as a concern for sea level rise.

Temperature anamoly at Nuuk

During the ice age scare in the 1970s the Arctic cooled dramatically, and is only now returning to temperatures comparable to sixty years ago. Most of the other Arctic locations with long-term records show similar trends. Long-term NASA temperature records in the Arctic are very sparse, but most show a pattern similar to Nuuk. Most of the other Arctic locations with long-term records show similar trends.
Ostrov (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222206740006&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1), Hatanga (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222208910006&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1), Gmo (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222202920005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1), Bodo Vi (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634011520003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1), and Reykjavik (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=620040300000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1) are good examples.
Another pollution problem reported by NASA is known as the Arctic Haze (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2006/2006051022278.html). This is a human-generated brown cloud which hovers over the Arctic and traps heat. Additionally, we know that the summer of 2007 had unusually low cloud cover in the Arctic (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arm.gov%2Fscience%2Fresearch%2Fpdf%2FR00143.pdf&ei=5YhnSKOTLp2qiAGSwpCDCw&usg=AFQjCNHV8GPsFFWEJrsfGwZJU5mKeD5w1A&sig2=VUvm8kJts2R_wotunDCGPw), which contributed to the unusual melt. But probably the most important factor in the anomalous "melt" was a spate of strong winds (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html) which blew all summer up the Bering Strait, across the pole and out into the warm waters of the North Atlantic. This compressed the sea ice towards Greenland and revealed a large area of open water north of Siberia and Alaska.
But in 2008 we are not seeing that. The winds and temperatures in the Arctic are quite different, and as of today there is more ice than normal (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.9.html) around Siberia. The Arctic melt season ends in about seven weeks because the sun will get too low. As of June 26 (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20080626.jpg), there is no indication that the North Pole is in danger of melting.
The BBC's Richard Black wrote an article last week claiming that Arctic Ice is melting "even faster than last year." Looking at the Cryosphere Today map (http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=30&fy=2007&sm=06&sd=30&sy=2008), it is abundantly clear that ice is melting more slowly than last year. By the end of June, 2007 the Hudson Bay was essentially ice-free. This year it is close to normal, with cold temperatures predicted for most of the rest of the short melt season. Someone is apparently having trouble reading maps at either the BBC and/or NSIDC.
Northwest Passage?
Last summer, the headlines read "First ever traversal of the Northwest Passage". This sounds very dramatic, except that it is entirely incorrect. As the BBC reported: "In 1905, Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen became the first person to successfully navigate the Northwest Passage, in a wooden sailboat." The Northwest Passage has been navigated at least one hundred times (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6999078.stm) over the last century.
According to official US Weather Bureau records (pdf) (http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf) from 1922, there was open sailing very close to the North Pole that year. Anthony Watts unearthed (http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/) this quote from the Weather Bureau:
"In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 degrees in ice-free water.
We must check back in seven weeks to see if the North Pole is ice-free. My money is on the experts being wrong - again. As the great physicist Dr Richard Feynman said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." ®
Editor's note: This is one in an occasional series examining "PBEM", or "Policy-based Evidence Making".
Also by Steven Goddard...
Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer (5 June 2008)http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/ Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? (2 May 2008)http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
© Copyright 2008
*******
Climate change is 'faster and more extreme' than feared
Climate change is happening much faster than the world's best scientists predicted and will wreak havoc unless action is taken on a global scale, a new report warns.
By Paul Eccleston Last Updated: 1:39AM BST 20 Oct 2008
Arctic sea-ice in September 1979 and 2007, showing the biggest reduction since satellite surveillance began. Photo: Fugro NPA Ltd
wwf.org.uk
'Extreme weather events' such as the hot summer of 2003, which caused an extra 35,000 deaths across southern Europe from heat stress and poor air quality, will happen more frequently.
Britain and the North Sea area will be hit more often by violent cyclones and the predicted rise in sea level will double to more than a metre, putting vast coastal areas at risk from flooding.
The bleak report from WWF - formerly the World Wildlife Fund - also predicts crops failures and the collapse of eco systems on both land and sea.
And it calls on the EU to set an example to the rest of the world by agreeing a package of challenging targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions to tackle the consequences of climate change and to keep any increase in global temperatures below 2C.
The agency says that the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - a study of global warming by 4,000 scientists from more than 150 countries which alerted the world to the possible consequences of global warming - is now out of date.
WWF's report, Climate Change: Faster, stronger, sooner, has updated all the scientific data and concluded that global warming is accelerating far beyond the IPCC's forecasts.
As an example it says the first 'tipping point' may have already been reached in the Arctic, where sea ice is disappearing up to 30 years ahead of IPCC predictions and may be gone completely within five years - something that hasn't occurred for a million years.
It could result in rapid and abrupt climate change rather than the gradual changes forecast by the IPCC.
The findings include:
* Global sea level rise could more than double from the IPCC's estimate of 0.59m by the end of the century.
* Natural carbon sinks, such as forests and oceans, are losing their ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere faster than expected.
* Rising temperatures have already led to a major reduction in food crops resulting in losses of 40m tonnes of grain per year.
* Marine ecosystems in the North and Baltic Sea are being exposed to the warmest temperatures measured since records began.
* The number and intensity of extreme cyclones over the UK and North Sea are projected to increase, leading to increased wind speeds and storm-related losses over Western and Central Europe.
The report was issued to coincide with a meeting of EU Environment Ministers today to discuss new laws aimed at tackling climate change. Some countries, including Italy and Poland, have already rejected proposals for higher cuts in emissions claiming they are unaffordable and unrealistic when many countries are facing recession.
The UK is the only country so far to commit to a legally binding 80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050 which the Government claims can be achieved by a switch to renewable energy sources - such as wind and wave - combined with a new generation of nuclear power stations.
In the report WWF urges the EU to commit to a reduction target of at least 30 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 without relying on offsetting overseas and to provide financial support so developing countries can cut their own emissions and prepare for unavoidable impacts of climate change.
WWF-UK's Head of Climate Change, Dr. Keith Allott, said: "Climate change is a major challenge to the future of mankind and the environment, and this sobering overview highlights just how critical it is that EU environment ministers, who are meeting today to discuss EU legislation to tackle climate change, commit to a strong climate and energy package, in order to ensure a low carbon future.
"If the European Union wants to be seen as leader at UN talks in Copenhagen next year, and to help secure a strong global deal to tackle climate change after 2012, then it must stop shirking its responsibilities and commit to real emissions cuts within Europe."
The report has been endorsed by Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the newly elected Vice Chair of the IPCC, who said: "It is clear that climate change is already having a greater impact than most scientists had anticipated, so it's vital that international mitigation and adaptation responses become swifter and more ambitious."
*******
Obama Wants a Climate Czar...
By Tom DeWeese
December 8, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom124.htm
...but Al Gore has no Consensus
Former Vice President Al Gore had quite a year. He produced an Oscar-winning film warning of the coming global warming Armageddon. The film and his activism led to a Nobel Prize. Flush from those victories, Gore "took the Hill," as he testified before a hushed hearing room in his old Senate haunt, predicting more dire consequences if global warming isn’t stopped. All of that was followed by mass rallies across the nation, with energized college students; editorials and magazine covers, and even legislation in Congress to curtail the use of carbon fuels. Gore concluded his triumphant moment in the spotlight with a major address in Washington on July 17, 2008, in which he boldly laid out his plan for a "wrenching transformation" of society he deemed necessary for man to survive.
That was the highlight of his life and probably his last hurrah, because ever since, an inconvenient truth found in science is showing (as I’ve reported over and over on these pages) that global warming is not man-made. In addition, scientists are finding more global cooling than heating – and that too is not man-made. To add insult to injury for poor Al, the legislation in Congress was defeated with the help of 30% of Democrats. Now scientists around the world have begun to speak out against Gore’s zealotry. In short, Al has no scientific consensus.
In his dramatic road show, Gore warns, "The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes on our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis." Of course, Gore has been warning of a "10 year tipping point" for several years.
In fact, the UN started to warn of a 10-year countdown in 1989. That’s when the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) warned that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend was not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos.
Twenty years later – and as Al continues to issue the same tired warning, there has been no chaos, no flooding and no eco-refugees. However, what has occurred is an outpouring of dissent against the theory of human caused global warming fears.
Here is just a sample of the headlines in the global warming story in 2008:
RUSSIAN SCIENTISTS CHALLENGE CLIMATE CHANGE CONSENSUS - Russian scientists ‘reject the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming’ - The Hindu – India’s National Newspaper: July 10, 2008:
Considerable presence’ of global warming skeptics exist, science group admits – July 16, 2008 – Australian Herald
India Issues Report Challenging Global Warming Fears – July 9, 2008
Team of 13 International Scientists Write Letter To UN Sec. Gen. – IPCC ‘Must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices’ - 14th of July, 2008)
Australian scientist reverses view on man-made warming! Now says ‘new evidence has seriously weakened’ the case - (By Mathematician, Rocket Scientist & Engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government) – July 18, 2008)
Nobel Prize Winner for Physics Declares Himself Dissenter ‘I am a skeptic’ – July 2, 2008
Top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Turns on IPCC. Calls Warming Fears: ‘Worst scientific scandal in the history’ – June 27, 2008 - By Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the Yokohama National University, also contributed to the 2007 UN IPCC AR4 (fourth assessment report) as an expert reviewer.)
New scientific paper shows CO2’s effect on temperature was overstated 500-2000% - Published in Physics and Society journal of the American Physical Society – July 2008)
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, presented ‘smoking gun’ analysis showing UN IPCC models--significantly overstated climate sensitivity to human climate forcings’ - June 17, 2008
Arctic ice INCREASES by nearly a half million square miles over this time last year - July 18, 2008
New Study Exposes UN IPCC as ‘single-interest organization’ with echo chamber process – July 15, 2008 – By Climate data analyst John McLean
Atmospheric Physicist James Peden Dissents from man-made CO2 Fears – ‘The so-called Greenhouse Effect is a Myth’ – Peden is formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere.)
South African Scientist: ‘There is no evidence man-made CO2 causes climate change’ – By Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation.
Climatologist dismisses extreme weather predictions due to man-made warming as ‘complete nonsense’ – Climatologist Stewart Franks
Another Scientist Smacks Down Fear Mongers: Midwest Floods and ‘Completely Unjustified’ Climate Change Fear Mongering – June 22, 2008 - By Mike Smith is a certified consulting meteorologist and a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society He is CEO of WeatherData Services, Inc., an AccuWeather Company, based in Wichita.
Another scientist Dissents: MIT’s Rose: Cooler heads needed in global warming debate (By Robert Rose is a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific disciplines at the graduate and undergraduate levels)
Veteran UN Climate Scientist Resigns Science Group in Protest: "AN ORCHESTRATED LITANY OF LIES" By UN IPCC Chemist Dr. Vincent Gray
Prominent scientist refutes his own theory, finds warming does not increase hurricanes – July 15, 2008 - Dr. Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric science
Another prominent hurricane expert reconsiders view: New study says global warming not worsening hurricanes – May 19, 2008 - By Meteorologist Tom Knutson of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J.
Arctic ice has actually increased by nearly a half million square miles over this time last year - July 18, 2008
Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way
UK Scientist Calls Man-Made Warming Fears ‘Dangerous Nonsense of the Age’ – July 17, 2008 - By Biogeography Professor Philip Stott, emeritus of the University of London
Oceans Cooling! Scientists puzzled by "mystery of global warming’s missing heat" - Marc 19, 2008
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, found not one peer-reviewed paper has ‘ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth’ – March 20, 2008
UN IPCC in ‘Panic Mode’ as Earth Fails to Warm, Scientist says – March 25, 2008
Scientists find dust free atmosphere may be responsible for up to .36 F rise in global temps – March 3, 2008
Analysis in peer-reviewed journal finds cold periods – not warm periods – see increase in floods, droughts, storms, famine – April 24, 2008
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had "no statistically significant warming since 1995."
An International team of scientists released a March 2008 report to counter UN IPCC, declaring: "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate"
Emitting MORE CO2 may ‘be good for life on Earth’, says climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA in May 2008.
New Report finds global sea ice GROWING: ‘World sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were ‘unprecedented’ for the month of April in over 25 years.’
Former Colorado State Climatologist Pielke Sr. Rails Against ‘Abuse of the scientific method’ in global warming study
Swedish scientists: ‘No concrete global warming proof in polar region’ – June 21, 2008
Study: ‘Absolutely no evidence of warming for all of Antarctica’ – July 1, 2008 – Study conducted by Vesa Laine of the Finnish Meteorological Institute in Helsinki; the work was funded by the Academy of Finland and the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation
Flashback: ‘Global Warming Will Stop,’ New Peer-Reviewed Study Says - Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years?
Cooling Underway: Global Temperature Continues to Drop in May - ‘Significantly Colder’ - 16-month temperature drop of -0.774°C!
Alaska sees ‘longest stretch of no-nineties in the Alaska climate record, since 1904’ – June 25, 2008 - By Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Peru declares state of emergency due to record-breaking cold spell – 61 children die – June 19, 2008
Meteorologist says Man-Made Global Warming Movement ‘Rapidly Running Out of Gas’ - In past year (By Meteorologist James Spann) - June 17, 2008
And yet, Al Gore and his legions continue to pass global warming off as the greatest threat ever to man’s survival. Not only have they called for "Nuremburg-type trials to silence skeptics – but even for civil disobedience "to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration."
Why does he continue the campaign in light of so much proof to the contrary? Why does new President Barack Obama want to create a cabinet position for a "Climate Czar" even though there is so much proof that man-made global warming is little more than a hoax? Because the issue is not, and never has been about saving the planet. It is about enforcing a new economic "ecologarchy" that seeks to control our every action from the top. We used to call it socialism, now we call it going green.
*******
Scientists Debunk Global Warming
By Geoff Metcalf
December 16, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf273.htm
“Hypocrisy is the essence of snobbery, but all snobbery is about the problem of belonging.” — Alexander Theroux
Smart people continue to do stupid stuff…personifying the Metcalf bromide about “some people don’t want to be confused with facts that contradict their preconceived opinions or prejudices.”
Notwithstanding the Nobel Prize, Oscar, and ubiquitous fawning of the limousine liberal legions, the empirical reality is Global Warming is an urban legend/myth.
Over 650 international scientists are out of the closet and articulating their dissent over the folly of man-made global warming bull excrement.
Here is a link to the Intro and full Senate report
My chronic criticisms (of over a decade) are insignificant. However, others (far more credentialed and knowledgeable) are finally being heard.
• “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. • “Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is; they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. • Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever, says,“…Global warming has become a new religion.”
The list is long and growing.
What remains amazing is that smart people (who ought to know better) continue to enable a scientifically discredited, overwhelmingly expensive, junk science boondoggle.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger remains captive of liberal lieutenants to feed the Hollywood myopics fueling the gospel according to Al Gore. President-elect Barack Obama seems intent on placating his disgruntled liberal base with the way expensive bone of global warming fanaticism.
Meanwhile, “real” threats from Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and wildcard terrorists are only exacerbated by the begrudging acknowledgement that terrorists have a major “Jones” to deploy biological weapons of mass destruction. States, national and global economies are lower than whale poop and bailout mania inevitably will spark big-time inflation.
Why do the nattering nabobs continue to feed the fictional global warming beast?
According to Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet, “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,”
Frankly, the problem (which most pols are scared spitless to admit is a problem) is the same challenge scientists now face. Atmospheric physicists James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, noted, “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.”
Despite the overwhelming contradictory science, the promoters and enablers of the Global Warming panic lack the courage to admit they were wrong…and move on.
Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata, hit the nail on the head when he candidly said, “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” Follow the money honey…but wait…what money?
The Washington Times recently noted, “It is time to file this theory (Global Warming) in the dustbin of history…Alarmists are in denial and running for cover.”
The 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN flacks who authored the media enabled (hyped) IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Obama has said he plans to cut U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, now about 17 percent above 1990 levels, back to 1990 levels by 2020 and then by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
According to the Guardian, in Britain, European Union officials have proposed making an 80 percent to 95 percent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2050 in exchange for developing countries’ reducing their emissions by 15 percent to 30 percent over the next decade.
Bush rejected Kyoto, which sets 2012 targets for 37 developed nations to cut emissions, because it would cost too much. What was “too costly” for the Bush administration (given the current global economy) is confiscatory for the new Obama team.
Global warming is bogus…to throw billions of dollars that don’t exist after a media enabled liberal dream quest is counterintuitive and a cancer that needs to be surgically and finally removed from the body politic.
*******
IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data to Push Global Warming
Al Gore-linked Goddard Institute claimed “hottest October on record” after using temperature figures from September
Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com
Monday, November 17, 2008
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.htmlClimate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the acceptance of man-made climate change theories.
On Monday, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
“This was startling,” reports the London Telegraph. “Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.”
It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.
When NASA was confronted with this glaring error, they then attempted to compensate for the lower temperatures in Russia by claiming they had discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic, despite satellite imagery clearly showing that Arctic sea ice had massively expanded its coverage by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany, since summer 2007.
The figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are one of the primary sets of data used by the IPCC to promote its case for man-made global warming and they are widely quoted because they consistently show higher temperatures than other figures.
“Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called in question,” reports the Telegraph. “In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.”
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC and a close ally of Hansen, also raised eyebrows recently during a presentation in Australia, during which he claimed that global temperatures have recently been rising “very much faster” than ever as he cited a graph showing purported temperature increases over the last decade. In fact, as even the vast majority of man-made global warming advocates will concede, temperatures since 1998 have moved sideways and over the last 18 months they have clearly begun a downward trend.
Whether such “mistakes” are made in genuine error or are part of a politicized push for man-made global warming to be universally accepted, and the evidence clearly suggests that latter is the case, the fact is that we can no longer tolerate the cry that “the debate is over” on man-made global warming in light of such gargantuan falsehoods.
Likewise, the push for carbon emissions to be reduced by 80 per cent or more, a figure that would completely cripple western economies and lower living standards to a near third world level, can no longer be accepted as a reasonable course of action now that the primary authority on man-made global warming, the UN IPCC, has been proven to be using fraudulent data to make its case.
Foisted upon the public by means of giant multi-million dollar PR campaigns and brainwashing mandates that have worked themselves into every sector of society, including education, movies, television the arts and culture, all the attention and funding is being lavished upon a manufactured hoax, peddled with the aid of phony data, as governments prepare to suck what’s left out of the middle class and poor with carbon taxes that do nothing to help the environment, while all the real environmental problems are left in the shadows.
*******
It's Cold Outside, But Global Warming Industry Still Hard At Workby Christopher C. Horner
12/23/2008
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNtempsdropglcontinue.html
The most expensive secret you’re not supposed to know is that George W. Bush leaves office with the planet cooler than when he entered. This dangerous trend threatens the multi-billion dollar “global warming” industry, adding new urgency to the ritual shriek of “we must act now!” in the scramble to impose a costly regime of mandates and energy taxes.
The global warming industry’s tactics already range from comical to reprehensible. As a result of a cooling atmosphere -- which thanks to the “global cooling” panic we began measuring in 1979 -- you are distracted with irrelevant surface temperatures. This is possibly because more than 90% of our surface thermometer network is in violation of rules for locating the instruments. For example, why are so many now on asphalt parking lots, black tar roofs, airport tarmacs, and even hanging directly above barbeque grills?
Such childishness is only the tip of the iceberg of outrages employed to advance an ideological agenda. Our schools torment those whom they are charged with protecting from abuse, with night terrors among the less egregious outcomes. Their brainwashing includes hate mail campaigns to skeptics, reporting on their parents’ willingness to adopt an agenda, and even emotional breakdown requiring institutionalization.
High government officials around the world abuse their powers to expand government’s powers. The media moved from pushing catastrophism in order to sell copy, to expressly abandoning journalistic principles and declaring that, regarding global warming, “balance is bias.”
Last year, after Kevin Rudd was elected Australia’s Prime Minister, he addressed a gathering of that nation’s “best and brightest” pondering how to achieve their policy dreams. One idea floated was to strip Aussies of their citizenship if they expressed doubts about man-made climate catastrophe. So as to not be extremist, however, this allowed for the prospect of restoring one’s standing upon -- you guessed it -- reeducation.
The mostly taxpayer-funded science community is repeatedly caught fudging their numbers to exaggerate and even manufacture warming. Peer-review journals place hurdles in the “skeptic” path to publication while publishing demonstrable falsehoods without bothering to check the claims’ viability.
Gang Green smears any who dare speak out as unqualified or shills corrupted by “Big Oil” money. Media and lawmakers repeat the claims, yet show no curiosity about the staggering $300 million given to Al Gore. Who is it so covetous of frightening you into accepting costly policies in the name of a “climate crisis” as to underwrite this aggressive lobbying and re-branding blitz? Gore won’t tell us, but you can bet they stand to profit at your expense.
The establishment furiously engages to shout down, censor and shut down dissent. They now have the active participation of the National Academy of Sciences thanks to a back door created to elect “environmentalists” who otherwise would not attain this status and who then exercise a veto over others who do not share their worldview. Forget the policy implications, and consider how this threatens the various institutions of science once the entire enterprise is inevitably exposed.
It is now mainstream in the campaign to suppress speech to call for criminalization of skepticism (that is, of science) and imprisonment of its practitioners. British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett publicly demands that media outlets refuse to grant “skeptics” space, on the grounds that they are just like Islamic terrorists.
Who, then, is surprised that scientists receive professional and even death threats for their heresy, and one in Norway had the wheels fall off of his car -- twice -- after speaking out, once when his young daughter was a passenger? His mechanic said the lugs had been loosened. Apparently dissent is not patriotic to the global warming industry.
One prominent former CEO now pushing alarmism says that continued opposition to “climate” policies, specifically a supranational organization to which we cede the necessary authority, will be “paralyzing” and “suffocating”. Officials and opinion leaders similarly argue that the global warming issue is simply too important to be left to democracy and that we must suspend certain such arcane notions, if just for this one issue.
This is madness. It has to stop.
The first step in our recovery is to have a public discussion about why proponents of the global warming agenda must stoop to these tactics.
*******
Professor denies global warming theory
By Raymond Brusca Staff Writer
Published: Monday, January 12th, 2009
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
Physics professor William Happer GS ’64 has some tough words for scientists who believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.
“This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview. “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”
Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore, reportedly for his refusal to support Gore’s views on climate change. He asked last month to be added to a list of global warming dissenters in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report. The list includes more than 650 experts who challenge the belief that human activity is contributing to global warming
Though Happer has promulgated his skepticism in the past, he requested to be named a skeptic in light of the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, whose administration has, as Happer notes, “stated that carbon dioxide is a pollutant” and that humans are “poisoning the atmosphere.”
Happer maintains that he doubts there is any strong anthropogenic influence on global temperature.
“All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it’s not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide,” Happer explained.
Happer is chair of the board of directors at the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit conservative think tank known for its attempts to highlight uncertainties about causes of global warming. The institute was founded by former National Academy of Sciences president and prominent physicist Frederick Seitz GS ’34, who publicly expressed his skepticism of the claim that global warming is caused by human activity. Seitz passed away in March 2008.
In 2007, the Institute reported $726,087 in annual operating expenses, $205,156 of which was spent on climate change issues, constituting the largest portion of its program expenses, according to its I-990 tax exemption form.
In a statement sent to the Senate as part of his request, Happer explained his reasoning for challenging the climate change movement, citing his research and scientific knowledge.
“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” he said in the statement. “Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken.”
Geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer, the lead author of the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — whose members, along with Gore, received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize — said in an interview that Happer’s claims are “simply not true.”
Oppenheimer, director of the Wilson School’s Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, stressed that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global temperatures, noting that he advises Happer to read the IPCC’s report and publish a scientific report detailing his objections to its findings.
The University is home to a number of renowned climate change scientists. Ecology and evolutionary biology professor Stephen Pacala and mechanical and aerospace engineering professor Robert Socolow, who are co-chairs of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) and the Princeton Environmental Institute, developed a set of 15 “stabilization wedges.” These are existing technologies that would, by the year 2054, each prevent 1 billion tons of carbon emissions. They argue that the implementation of seven of these wedges would be needed to reach a target level of carbon in the atmosphere.
Neither Pacala nor Socolow could be reached for comment.
Happer said that he is alarmed by the funding that climate change scientists, such as Pacala and Socolow, receive from the private sector.
“Their whole career depends on pushing. They have no other reason to exist. I could care less. I don’t get a dime one way or another from the global warming issue,” Happer noted. “I’m not on the payroll of oil companies as they are. They are funded by BP.”
The CMI has had a research partnership with BP since 2000 and receives $2 million each year from the company. In October, BP announced that it would extend the partnership — which had been scheduled to expire in 2010 — by five years.
The Marshall Institute, however, has received at least $715,000 from the ExxonMobil Foundation and Corporate Giving division from 1998 to 2006, according to the company’s public reports. Though Exxon has challenged the scientific models for proving the human link to climate change in the past, its spokesmen have said that the company’s stance has been misunderstood. Others say the company has changed its stance.
Happer explained that his beliefs about climate change come from his experience at the Department of Energy, at which Happer said he supervised all non-weapons energy research, including climate change research. Managing a budget of more than $3 billion, Happer said he felt compelled to make sure it was being spent properly. “I would have [researchers] come in, and they would brief me on their topics,” Happer explained. “They would show up. Shiny faces, presentation ready to go. I would ask them questions, and they would be just delighted when you asked. That was true of almost every group that came in.”
The exceptions were climate change scientists, he said.
“They would give me a briefing. It was a completely different experience. I remember one speaker who asked why I wanted to know, why I asked that question. So I said, you know I always ask questions at these briefings … I often get a much better view of [things] in the interchange with the speaker,” Happer said. “This guy looked at me and said, ‘What answer would you like?’ I knew I was in trouble then. This was a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] ‘Give me all this money, and I’ll get the answer you like.’ ”
Happer said he is dismayed by the politicization of the issue and believes the community of climate change scientists has become a veritable “religious cult,” noting that nobody understands or questions any of the science.
He noted in an interview that in the past decade, despite what he called “alarmist” claims, there has not only not been warming, there has in fact been global cooling. He added that climate change scientists are unable to use models to either predict the future or accurately model past events.
“There was a baseball sage who said prediction is hard, especially of the future, but the implication was that you could look at the past and at least second-guess the past,” Happer explained. “They can’t even do that.”
Happer cited an ice age at the time of the American Revolution, when Londoners skated on the Thames, and warm periods during the Middle Ages, when settlers were able to farm southern portions of Greenland, as evidence of naturally occurring fluctuations that undermine the case for anthropogenic influence.
“[Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration] was exactly the same then. It didn’t change at all,” he explained. “So there was something that was making the earth warm and cool that modelers still don’t really understand.”
The problem does not in fact exist, he said, and society should not sacrifice for nothing.
“[Climate change theory has] been extremely bad for science. It’s going to give science a really bad name in the future,” he said. “I think science is one of the great triumphs of humankind, and I hate to see it dragged through the mud in an episode like this.”
*******
Record snowfall, plunging temperatures hit the area
By staff reports
La Grange Suburban Life
Wed Jan 14, 2009, 11:18 PM CST
http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/indianheadpark/homepage/x1017440124/Record-snowfall-plunging-temperatures-hit-the-area
La Grange, IL -
A new record was set Wednesday when Chicago had its ninth consecutive day of measurable snowfall, according to the National Weather Service. The previous record was eight consecutive days set from Dec. 13 to 20, 1973.Snowfall records in Chicago date back to 1884.
A wind chill warning has been issued as temperatures as temperartures will not reach single digits until Friday.
*******
How cold is it? Flint's 95-year-old record low falls as 19 below zero hits cityby David Harris The Flint Journal
Wednesday January 14, 2009, 7:58 PM
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/how_cold_is_it_flints_95yearol.html
GENESEE COUNTY, Michigan -- Here's the bad news:
Flint broke a 95-year-old record early Wednesday morning when the temperature plummeted to a frigid 19 below zero. The previous record? Minus 10, set in 1914, according to the National Weather Service.
Here's the even worse news: We won't seeing relief in the next few days.
Early morning lows Thursday are expected to be 9 below zero, with a 20 below zero wind chill. Highs on Thursday will reach 4 degrees.
Friday's lows are expected to be 5 below, with wind chills reaching 25 below. Highs are expected to reach around 6 degrees.
Wind chills will reach 25 below again on Saturday.
We don't get any relief until Sunday, when highs are supposed to be a relatively balmy 22 degrees.
The National Weather Service issued a wind chill advisory through 7 p.m. Thursday.
But the only reason the advisory isn't in effect until Saturday morning, said Matt Mosteiko, meteorologist of the National Weather Service, is because wind chill advisories can only be issued for 24 hours at a time. For now, it's just a wind chill watch until Saturday morning.
And very cold.
*******
video
*******
What if There is No Man-Made Global Warming?By Tom DeWeese March 2, 2009 NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom133.htm
Here are some questions every American should ask their elected officials – especially those supporting “climate change” legislation: If it is proven that climate change is not man-made, but natural, will you be relieved and excited to know that man is off the hook? Will you now help to remove all of the draconian regulations passed during the global warming hysteria, since it was all wrong headed and harmful to the economy and our way of life? Their answers to these questions should be very illuminating as to the true agenda they seek to impose. Is their agenda really about helping to protect the environment, or is it about creating a new social and economic order, using the environment as the excuse?
If they are supporting climate change legislation because of a genuine concern for the environment, then they should now be greatly relieved to know that true science is showing more and more evidence that there is no man-made global warming, and in fact, a natural cooling period has begun.
Last year, 52 scientists authored a much hyped report issued by the UN’s IPCC which said global warming was man-made and getting worse. But in the past year, more than 650 scientists from around the world have now expressed their doubts about the reports findings – 12 times the number of IPCC global warming alarmists now agree it’s bunk.
“I am a skeptic…Global Warming has become a new religion,” says Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly…as a scientist I remain skeptical,” says Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, formally with NASA and called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in history… When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists,” said UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh. “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming,” said U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B, Glodenberg. Top these very few quotes with the fact that 34,000 scientists have now signed a petition saying global warming is probably natural and is not man-made.
Instead, they say the science shows warming actually stopped in 1999. That the brief warming period we experienced in the past decade was completely natural, caused, in part, by storms on the sun, not CO2 emissions from SUVs. The Sun storms have ended and now, a cooling period has begun. That’s it. Done. Crisis over. Man is not to blame.
Hurray! The nation should be rejoicing. No need for expensive green cars, mercury-filled light bulbs, special house building materials, alternative energy, no bird- killing windmills, no special energy taxes, no extra government oversight committees, no more global climate change conferences – and no need for a Climate Czar. Carol Browner can go back into mothballs. We can finally clean out the ten feet of fuel on the bottom of the forests and prevent the massive forest fires. And that will help us reestablish the timber industry and all the jobs that were killed. We can drill American oil and end our dependency on foreigners who hate us. In fact, that stable source of energy and its prices will help restore the Detroit auto industry and all of those jobs. Why, we don’t need a stimulus package – the economy will rebound on its own. We are free. The environment is not in crisis. Rejoice! Rejoice!
That silence you hear is the news media, which refuses to report what any skeptic has to say. That silence you hear is the lack of effort on Capitol Hill to start to pull back from the climate change hysteria. That silence you hear is from the White House where President of Change, Barack Obama now has an EPA director, a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) director and a full blown Climate Change Czar, all working to impose huge cut backs in energy use, taxes, rules and regulations that will bring an already damaged economy to its knees – all in the name of man-made Global Warming – which doesn’t exist. That silence you hear is from global corporations which have bought into Al Gores lie and invested heavily in the promised green economy. In fact, their dollars are the only thing green about any of it. Their commercials are promoting the lie and changing our way of life. None of them are about to change any of these policies, simply to accommodate a few scientific facts.
In spite of all the facts to the contrary, in spite of literally thousands of real scientists joining the ranks of the skeptics, Gore just told Congress that the Global Warming crisis is even worse than predicted. Obama said “the science is settled.”
Why? Because global warming never was about protecting the environment. It was the excuse to enforce global governance on the planet, by creating a new global economy based on the environment rather than on goods and services. In short, it’s all about wealth redistribution. Your wealth into a green rat hole. We used to call it communism. Now we call it environmentalism. It sounds so friendly. So meaningful. So urgent. The devastation is the same.
So, go ahead. Ask your elected representatives how they would react to the fact that global warming is not real. Are they happy and relieved, or do they continue to promote the same insanity called Climate Change? Their answers will tell you their true agenda.
*******
video
Al Gore sued for Global Warming fraud
*******
Global Warming Series:
*******