Obama and the Flag and Now the National Anthem

  A PICTURE IS WORTH 1,000 WORDS: I know it’s an old story that Obama has removed the US flag pin from his lapel after wearing it following 911 and he justified this by stating: “I am less concerned that what your are wearing on your lapel than what is in your heart.”   He also stated that he has abandoned the pin in favor of actions that would be more meaningful in demonstrating his patriotism.  Snopes confirms HERE that this picture is an authentic picture from Time magazine of the candidates (note Richardson & Hillary) at an Iowa steak fry.

Now I am not critical of Obama not wearing the lapel pin, I don’t wear one myself, but his overt decision to take it off and make a statement gives pause, but not a terrible lot of pause until you add this to the question: what is the statement that this action in the picture above demonstrates where he sort of stoically flaunts protocol designed around national respect (hand over heart) in context of his own standard that he would take actions that would more meaningfully demonstrate the authenticity of his patriotism.  I’m not ready to conclude the Manchurian Candidate thing, but I am not sure he is rising to a reasonable credibility level about his true viewpoints with these actions.  He raised this issue himself and we can only measure him by his own statements, standards and actions.

UPDATE COMMENT:  This may be one of those “read my lips” moments…..steve

October 30, 2007 | Filed Under Presidential Politics, The Left | 20 Comments 

Nuclear Holocaust

 I don’t know if this will draw much response, but I want to ask the “active” readers and commenter’s at NSL and even the lurkers to offer a brief (or long if you desire) comment on the following topic.  Remember I get to ask the question and define the parameters and you get to answer.

I want to encourage everyone to offer their opinion on this point without regard for their personal view of President Bush.  I will make the assumption that your personal view of the United States and the security of its people is of the highest order and you have its’ best interest at heart.

The Question is this:  If AFTER all reasonable attempts to have Iran disengage their pursuit of Nuclear weaponry by the United States and our European Allies (including economic sanctions that are going on now and periodically tightened) and just BEFORE it becomes clear that IRAN is on course for the manufacture of a thermo nuclear device, WOULD YOU BE IN FAVOR OF PREEMPTIVE MILITARY ACTION to reduce this threat whether Bush, Hillary, Rudy or whoever is President?  And if not, are you willing to accept the trade off of the possibility of a terrorist or terrorist nation obtaining one of these bombs and using it in the United States, or do  you with an absolute degree of Metaphysical Certitude believe that the United States would not be endangered by this either then or later? For additional information as to the U.S. viewpoint and preparation for Iran on NSL go HERE. (post below)

October 30, 2007 | Filed Under Iran, Nuclear Holocaust, War on Terror | 20 Comments 

Does Bush Budget Suggest Attack on Iran?

 Lets see, Bush has made an emergency request for an emergency war funding bill in the amount of $190 Billion.  Some are speculating that line items contained in this bill may suggest of a forthcoming strike on Iran.  Included in this bill is a request for $88 million to retrofit B-2 Stealth bombers to enable them to carry a new 30,000 pound “bunker buster” bomb called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) which has the capacity to destroy deep underground targets.  Northrop Grumman the prime contractor for the B-2 Stealth Bomber says the B-2 would be able to attack and destroy an expanded set of hardened and deeply buried military targets.  Gerard Baker, U.S. editor of the Times of London, says that the U.S. now believes that it “thinks it has the intelligence and the military capacity to undermine the Iranian threat seriously.” 

The tone of an increasingly recalcitrant and self-confident Iranian regime has taken a significant turn in the past few weeks Baker feels that the debate in Washington is focusing on what to do.

Some say that this retrofit of the B-2 could in fact be for the purpose of attacking bin Laden in his Mountain Caves, but Baker correctly claims that the U.S. own the skies in Afghanistan and Iraq for that matter and would not need to deploy the B-2 for this task.   I agree with Baker on this in that Conventional aircraft could more easily be deployed for this task if there was no threat of enemy air defenses.

According to Baker “The only real question about the next phase in this war is whether an escalation by the U.S., in a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, would further American – and Western – objectives, or impede them. The evidence is increasingly suggesting that the costs of not acting are equal to or larger than the costs of acting.”

October 29, 2007 | Filed Under War on Terror | 2 Comments 

Frank Cerabino, Palm Beach Post

 I entered a discussion with Frank Cerabino an award winning columnist here in Florida with the Palm Beach Post.  It has been obvious to me from his writing that he is most definitely of the Liberal slant.  Frank is a former military person and graduated from the Naval Academy (1977) and later obtained a Masters Degree in Journalism from Northwestern University.  (It is too bad he didn’t spend that time studying economics.)

Frank said something in a column HERE that I took as more of the same tired left wing diatribe about “tax cuts for the rich” where he stated that these funds were coming from the have-nots and going to the rich, and he framed the discussion around the Megayachts that regularly sail in and out of the Palm Beach area.  He went on to conclude his article by stating (as an anchor to his overall conclusion) that “more tax cuts for the rich are in the pipeline.”  I know better than that so I wrote him asking him to point to his back up for these statements.  This launched quite a number of exchanges throughout the day where he would simply dip to an ad hominem belittling of me and totally avoid the “merits” of his own thesis.  (If you read the exchange you will clearly see why).  As you read below you should note that the comments in Red are by me and the comments in Black are by Frank.

Read this for a real life illustration of how influential people in the media want to level charges but not deal with metrics of a discussion about them.  I think Frank is a nice guy, but misguided by his own self-assumed brilliance like so many other liberals in the media that they expect you to accept their “pronouncements” and basically resent being questioned about them…….steve

————————————-Frank, In your article Megayachts prove not everyone is in the same boat, you mentioned tax cuts for the rich twice and the second time when you were wrapping up and summarizing your article you mentioned that tax cuts for the rich were in the pipeline.  You article didn’t actually reference these, could you elaborate.  I would be very interested to learn of what you are referring.
 
Thank You,  Steve————————————–Hi  Steve:
   These tax cuts, as you can see from story, run through 2010.
   Thanks for reading.
   Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says —FrankNOTE: For the sake of space Frank pasted a long article by another columnist regarding the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire in 2010 in response to part of my initial question.——————————-Hi Frank, Oh those tax cuts.  I believe that those tax cuts skewed the income tax burden to the upper end of the tax spectrum, not to mention delivering us from the Clinton recession.  But you mentioned additional tax cuts in the pipeline, which are those.  You really don’t do yourself service discussing tax and matters that you aren’t really up to speed on and to do so with such a bias spin as though somebody is doing something wrong, but I suppose it sells newspapers.   I am sorry to sound somewhat hostile here, I really am not, but really encourage you to look deeper into tax policy and consequences since you are in a position of influence. Steve——————————————The consequences of our tax policy, my dear FoxNews hound, is that the people who need relief the least are the people who get the biggest break. Yes, wealthy people pay a lot of taxes. But the percentage drop in the taxes they pay is the highest of any income group during the Bush years.  In other words, the burden was shifted more to the bottom, not the top, as you somehow managed to think.
     In fact, the tax cuts favoring of the rich have been touted by the administration as a wise move, because giving money to the rich is supposed to result in magically making everybody’s life better, through investment in the economy. But what it has done has widened the gap between the haves and the have nots.
   Clinton recession? I seem to remember a budget surplus, a booming economy, and the recent praises of Alan Greenspan, who in his new book, has the highest praise for Clinton’s stewardship of the economy. (By the way, Greenspan regrets being a cheerleader for those Bush tax cuts that haven’t panned out as advertised.)
     You don’t sound hostile, Steve, you just sound like somebody who has been conditioned to believe that we all do well when government takes from the poor to give to the rich.
     – Frank  

————————————————-

Frank,  (I have interlined his  statements above with my response in red)

 

    The consequences of our tax policy, my dear FoxNews hound, is that the people who need relief the least are the people who get the biggest break. Yes, wealthy people pay a lot of taxes. But the percentage drop in the taxes they pay is the highest of any income group during the Bush years.  In other words, the burden was shifted more to the bottom, not the top, as you somehow managed to think.

You seem to confuse rates with burden.  You are errant about this.  The burden of tax receipts shifted more to the upper bracket after the tax cut.  This is unequivocal.  If you are so sure would you like to pick up an easy $1,000? I put that up against yours and then I’ll prove my point.

Fox News Hound?  A little ad hominem don’t you think? …..I am a tax practitioner and specialize in tax and fiscal policy.  And since you are talking about the Bush Tax Cuts let me say that the people you say need relief don’t actually pay income taxes…at all….cummon, you know that.

     In fact, the tax cuts favoring of the rich have been touted by the administration as a wise move, because giving money to the rich is supposed to result in magically making everybody’s life better, through investment in the economy. But what it has done has widened the gap between the haves and the have nots.

Tax cuts always favor the people that actually pay them.  The important question is impact on the economy.  History is rife with examples of this and you might want to get off your Democratic “talking points.”  Do they do much of your writing?  By the way, economic policy is not magic and history points to the soundest course of action.  Nothing will make everybody’s life better.  The goal is to deliver the best for the most at the least (cost).  That is where egalitarianism misses the boat (no pun).  You wouldn’t want to live in the decaying society where all were equal once you realize what the least common denominator would be. Clinton recession? I seem to remember a budget surplus, a booming economy, and the recent praises of Alan Greenspan, who in his new book, has the highest praise for Clinton’s stewardship of the economy. (By the way, Greenspan regrets being a cheerleader for those Bush tax cuts that haven’t panned out as advertised.)

BTW you obviously haven’t either read Greenspan’s book or listened to his rebuttal to the point you and others are trying to make.  He does not claim that the tax cuts didn’t pan out, but that the spending should have been curtailed.  That’s his gripe.  Bush was wrong here, but I am sure his loose spending was applauded by you and the Democrats at that time.  I personally believe it was a misguided strategy to endear himself to the Democrats in Congress in the spirit of compromise……..I could be wrong………but Tax Policy and Spending Policy are separate issues and you won’t get away with trying to blur that distinction with me.

The Budget Surplus followed the people that control the spending in Congress, which came into office in 1994 and you know who that is, and I’ll add that the single biggest contributor to low inflation and economic growth was technological advancements resulting in productivity gains in that evil concept called “private enterprise.”  (of course you know this I’m sure) I suppose you didn’t realize that the 1st quarter of negative growth in the US economy nearly occurred in the 3rd quarter of 2000 the final year of the Clinton administration (still not the classical definition of Recession) and slightly rebounded in the 4th quarter of 2000 (Christmas impetus).  Any armature can look at the graph (see below) and see the economic growth was clearly headed down throughout all of 2000 while bottoming out after the 1st quarter of 2001.  By the time the recession was confirmed in March of 2001 Bush had been in office two months.  Are you telling me that you don’t know that it takes many month for economic activity to be affected by fiscal or monetary policy.   The stock market began its plummet approximately 13 months before Bush and that is typically the most common leading indicator for the economy.  Again, you aren’t suggesting that the fiscal policy of Bush during February and March of 2001 is what Greenspan is hanging his hat on for the recession are you?  In short it actually is a the Clinton/Greenspan era recession and many believe that Greenspan’s slow response to a contraction of the economy was in part responsible.  He’s isn’t going to make that eminently clear do you suppose. Common……tell it to the masses, but you can’t blow that by me.  This canard that you and others in the media try a propagate that it was a Bush recession (I’ve even heard some Democratic elected officials say “made worse” with the tax cuts……how preposterous, but I suppose it only matters in the context as to who they lying to, anything to stir up the base) is nonsense and shame on you and others.You don’t sound hostile, Steve, you just sound like somebody who has been conditioned to believe that we all do well when government takes from the poor to give to the rich.

I believe the facts will bear out your pre-conditioning, not mine. So, how about that $1,000 wager.  I’ll even accept the burden of proof to establish that the burden of income taxes (not rates) has shifted even more progressively under the Bush tax cuts, after all your argument is about fairness not mathematics.  If you are interested further in my explanation that taxes policy should be established to optimize federal revenue and not to fund pet programs (or social goals) you can check the latest post in my blog (and there are others). http://nextstoplauderdale.com/  B-T-W immediately following that particular blog post is another that criticizes of one of those fearful FOX pundits, Bill O’Reilly. One further point…..  Since your original article was about Yachts, you might be interested to know that the last time the official powers that be (Democratic Congress with Clinton) and not newspaper columnists tried to settle the score with the rich and add big taxes to yachts and airplanes they essentially killed both industries (this is not in dispute) in the USA yet these same evil rich people purchased their yachts and planes overseas without said tax.  The Democrats had to relent and reverse this tax after costing tens of thousands of blue collar jobs.  Is your objective to optimize federal revenues and economic stability and growth or merely a evnious and fool hard attempt to balance outcomes in society?   And ……….. you still owe me an explanation of what “additional taxes” where the have-nots give to the rich are “in the pipeline” as you claimed in your article or do I sense a retraction? –Steve   

————————————

Oh, my.  You’re also one of those people who don’t want to face up to global warming.  I’ll say you’re for “free enterprise.”   (Frank)

———————-

Oh I believe in global warming, just not necessarily the nonsense you’re amen chorus is buying into.  To bad you aren’t for free enterprise.  It probably has made you what you are.  What about that retraction………is it coming? Steve——————————-Steve, we could go round and round forever. Just this last message is enough to tie up another chunk of time to set you straight. But I’m calling it quits here. Good luck to you.   ———————Frank, Ok, and good luck to you, your loss not mine.  I was looking for a way to put a cool grand in your pocket, but I understand that this is not without risks.  I’ll go back to the books and look up those forthcoming tax cuts (in the pipeline) for the VERY RICH since you clearly don’t want to let me know the basis of the following statement that anchors the concluding comments of your article: 

Sure, you may be anxious over keeping your finances afloat, but the megayacht business is booming, more tax cuts for the very rich are in the pipeline, and you have a ringside seat to the grand parade.

 This is not only indefensible, but obviously so recognized by you.  :)  I will conclude by stating that you would be well served to re-read my comments here and at NSL with more of an open mind and a less an ad hominem attitude especially in your position as a public commenter.  I think you have a duty to your readers to be better informed.  It is clear that you don’t want your facts challenged and when they are you refuse to discuss the merits (or lack) of those points.  I know it is easier that way, but that is for people outside the public arena…….. Anyway, good luck and try to keep an open mind. Steve

October 27, 2007 | Filed Under Economics, Taxes | 7 Comments 

There You Go Again………..

charles-rangel.jpg In borrowing a phrase from Ronald Reagan in the second presidential debate with Jimmy Carter on 10/28/80 (corrected) I will apply it this time to the tired strategy of the Democrats proclivity to raise taxes every time they get in control.  You may also recall that at least partial credit has been given for Reagan’s win during the second presidential campaign to the debate with Walter Mondale where Mondale stated that he would raise taxes on Americans if he won, he lost big time.

Now the Democratic Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel, is planning broad and sweeping changes to the tax system with the centerpiece being a 4% to 4.6% surtax on earning in excess of $150,000-$200,000.  You know the “rich” that they keep talking about that are not paying their “fair” share.  [I am not going to debunk this here again today with that endless stream of statistics that demonstrate that this is a lie.]  This tax increase will also have the impact of raising taxes on investments. Now that is a real smart move and all this is just a test for an additional slew of taxes that they will propose after they win the Presidential Election of 2008.  The scariest thing is that they will probably start spending that post election money now since they are so sure they will win it.

Another thing is that this is being falsely touted as a Surtax (which would be a percentage increase to the normal tax).  What this amounts to is an additional two tax brackets in the existing tax structure.  It also has the negative effect of further increasing the “marriage penalty” built into our tax structure.

But let me say this.  I believe that Economists and Statisticians (at least the honest ones) understand that raising taxes doesn’t always produce more income.  It is a more reliable precursor for provoking a recession.

I want to shout this from the rooftops once again……….You don’t establish income tax policy in order to fund what ever projects you are desirous of.  You establish tax rates to maximize federal revenue without regards to spending preferences.  After you establish the rate that will optimize economic growth and consequently revenues you can turn to the budget side of the matter and debate spending priorities with the income that tax policy will produce, again understanding that not all spending is equal in terms of its simulative effect on the economy.

I really think it is time for the Democrats retreat from this age old political strategy that only serves to insure the “economic cycle” of boom and bust and cause greater deficits in the long run turn to a consistent and simulative tax philosophy.  Even their constituency would be much better off if that were to happen, but the Democrats ace in the hole is that their constituency really doesn’t understand this.  This is all about protecting their incumbency.  Hence they again turn to divisive political rhetoric and wrong headed tax policy.  For a deeper explanation of this overall tax proposal by Rangel go HERE.

October 25, 2007 | Filed Under American Left, Fiscal Policy, Taxes | 8 Comments 

Bill O’Reilly is a Pinhead

bill.jpg Bill O’Reilly had John Stossel (a well know Libertarian and award winning news correspondent and co-anchor of ABC’s 20/20 news magazine) on his program discussing the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore.  ABC’S John Stossel made a wonderful presentation (like he always does) about the bogus nature of Gore’s work in the movie “Inconvenient Truth” including the point that the increased polar temperature levels came before the carbon dioxide levels went up.   

Why is Bill O’Reilly being labeled with the much vilified (on The O’Reilly Factor) term “Pinhead” here at NSL?  …..because he took an opposing view from Stossel and based it on a position that CLEARLY demonstrates he doesn’t even categorically understand the nature of the debate.  O’Reilly gave kudos to Al Gore by saying that “even if Al Gore’s facts are wrong, his message is worthy.”  Something regularly stated in the comments section of NSL itself.  Bill goes on further to claim that he (Al Gore) did a good job in “raising awareness that we need to clean the planet.  I’d like conservatives and liberals to get together and talk about how to clean things up.”  Sheeeesh….. 

Bill O’Reilly must believe that CO2 is a common garden variety environmental pollutant.  Apart from Gore’s bogus thesis that (man made) CO2 emissions are raising the temperature of the planet CO2 is not a pollutant and is part of the natural and ordinary processes on the planet.  So accordingly, Al Gore’s thesis on CO2 emissions rises or falls on the Global Warming issue and is not further augmented by the “environmental pollution” argument.  All O”Reilly points out here is his own ignorance on the framework of the debate (apart from his or anyone else’s position).  I wrote Bill O’Reilly today and explained his error and requested a retraction on air………..we’ll see, if he doesn’t he is a Pinhead.  Below is the full segment summary from Bill O’Reilly’s website. 

Al Gore may have a Nobel Peace Prize, but he doesn’t have the approval of ABC’s John Stossel. “Gore is saying the debate is over,” Stossel complained, “and that anyone who disagrees has been purchased. That is repulsive intimidation. Yes, the globe has warmed, but to say for sure that man caused it and government can fix it, that debate is by no means over. How about the exaggerations in Gore’s movie? He says polar bears are drowning when polar bear populations are increasing. He didn’t reveal that temperature increase came before carbon dioxide levels went up.” The Factor argued that even if Al Gore’s facts are wrong, his message is worthy. “He did a good job in raising awareness that we need to clean the planet. I’d like to conservatives and liberals to get together and talk about how to clean things up.

October 19, 2007 | Filed Under Environment, Global Warming | 9 Comments 

Seed Change in Global Warming Belief

 I was going to write a response to some comments on my previous post titled The Folly of Al Gore and basically this response was going to be long and was meritorious of a separate identity.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not boasting of my own prose, but this article will be the lifting in whole a recent article (May, 2007) about leading scientists world wide that were previously advocates of the Man Made Global Weather Change thesis and have now recanted claiming that their previous position is errant. 

This is a long article with numerous links for further support.  Please take the time to examine this.  I think this article gives support to those like M2 (frequent commenter on The folly of Al Gore and other posts on NSL) who admit their own skepticism concerning the mantra of those on the Man Made Global Warming bandwagon.  I also believe this article is single handedly a defacto adjudication of the position that is asserted by Al Gore that this matter is “settled science” proving that to be a false statement and based on the veracity scale established by the Left regarding GW Bush’s understanding of intelligence on WMD in Iraq a LIE. 

This belief is not limited to a small cadre of aging prehistoric scientists, but a large and increasing group of diversified and well respected scientists in this field.  I am going to place a page break early so as to not consume the entire front page of NSL, but feel free to follow the story for the full impact…………Steve

P.S. I trust that everyone understand that even if ALL the polar ice over water (i.e. Icebergs) melted that the level of the seas would not be altered other than a small factor for thermal expansion.  Does everyone understand why?  Hint………study up on the phenomena of “displacement.”

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research Following the U.S. Senate’s vote today on a global warming measure (see today’s AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics.  The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming. 

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg.  A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007.  Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )

The media’s climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it’s ‘completely immoral’ to doubt global warming fears )

Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version )  

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown” and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!” “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L’EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster “simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks “the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man’s role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.” Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. “By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century,” Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997.  Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor’s New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.”  A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.”  Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years.”  Wiskel also said that global warming has gone “from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. “If you funnel money into things that can’t be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said.

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. “”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. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” “Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming” and “it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 “will not dramatically increase the global temperature.” “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.”  Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don’t add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker — better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote.  “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990’s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!  But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans bio link )  

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic.  “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006.  “I switched to the other side in the early 1990’s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”  

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears “poppycock.” According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon.  The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.” Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”  

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms “sky is falling” man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind’s addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question — too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.

Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research.  Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.”  “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’” Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson  wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles.  About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics.  “When I go to a scientific meeting, there’s lots of opinion out there, there’s lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. “But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it’s like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn’t — come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we’re about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere,” he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it’s not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles.”  

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,” Jaworowski wrote. “The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present,” he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth’s climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: “It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth’s climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary “Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You’re Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added. 

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote.  More to follow…Related Links:

 

 

Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven “Consensus’

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune’s Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say  

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming ‘Silly’ - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to “Scare Each Other”  

Weather Channel TV Host Goes ‘Political’- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don’t Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes ‘Man-Made Global Warming Hype’

 

October 18, 2007 | Filed Under Global Warming | 4 Comments 

The Folly of Al Gore

dr-william-gray.jpg  Dr. William Gray is reputed to be one of the foremost meteorologists in the world and probably the foremost meteorologist concerning hurricane forecasts and is considered to be a “pioneer” in that field.  If you have heard any annual predications of hurricanes you should know that it is most likely Dr. Gray’s publications from which this is drawn.

Dr. Gray considers that the theory behind Al Gore’s thesis on Global Warming is “ridiculous” and was the product of people (scientists) that according to Dr. Gray “don’t understand how the atmosphere works.”  Dr. Gray believes that the Earth is currently going through a “normal” warming cycle but that the impact of humans on that is “simply too small to have a major effect.”

Dr. Gray addressed the University of North Carolina on the same day that Al Gore received in part the current year award for the Nobel Peace Prize.  He commented that we were brainwashing our children and described the presentation of Inconvenient Truth to school children as “being fed all this.”  He stated that a natural cycle of ocean water temperature was related to the content of salt in the water which was responsible for rising temperatures, which he acknowledged, but he said that same cycle meant that a period of “cooling” would begin soon and last for several years.

He went on to state that those that linked Global Warming to the increase in Hurricane activity were wrong.  He says that we will look back in 10-15 years and see how foolish this current proposition is.  He also says that he realizes that his viewpoint has made him an outsider in popular science circles, but that “It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong.”   ”But they also know that they’d never get any grants if they spoke out. I don’t care about grants.”  Of course when that (cooling cycle) occurs, the left will claim victory resulting from their diligence on the matter now………. J

For additional support for Dr. Gray’s position see my post titled It’s All a Bunch of Hooey (Man Made Global Warming) referencing work by Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin and widely know as the “Father of Scientific Climatology.”

October 14, 2007 | Filed Under Global Warming, Political Correctness, Politics | 13 Comments 

Democrats to Sabotage the War Effort

c4_tomlantos.jpg   NOTE 10/14/07 UPDATE BELOW  It is now clear that the Democrats in Congress are trying to sabotage the war effort or are criminally negligent in causing the same.  In the House of Representatives the Committee on Foreign Affairs has voted to include the word Genocide in a House Resolution concerning the death of Armenians in World War I.   This nonbinding House resolution said the deportation of nearly 2 million Armenians from the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923, resulting in the deaths of 1.5 million of them, amounted to genocide.  I don’t know what the merits of the claim are but it seems a little late to press this matter against the current citizens of Turkey and seems to serve merely as a provocation.  I wonder why during the 50 years Democrats controlled the Congress they didn’t proffer a similar resolution unless………………..