I guess Mrs. Wilson never looked up the word alien in the dictionary, well I did and here it is care of www.m-w.com:

Main Entry: alien
Pronunciation: 'A-lE-&n, 'Al-y&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin alienus, from alius
1 a : belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : STRANGE
b : relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government : FOREIGN
c : EXOTIC 2 : differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility

alien
Function: noun
1 : a person of another family, race, or nation
2 : a foreign-born resident who has not been naturalized and is still a subject or citizen of a foreign country; broadly : a foreign-born citizen
3 : EXTRATERRESTRIAL
4 : EXOTIC

If people are from another place and/or nation they are alien. Then if they are here illegally, that would be without papers for those in Miami Dade county, they would be ILLEGAL ALIENS!!!

From the Tennessee Center for Policy Research: Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Rep. Jason Fields
February 21, 2007 Phone: (608) 266-3756

STATEMENT FROM REP. FIELDS REGARDING SICK LEAVE

Assembly Democrats Follow Long Standing Rule on Vote

MADISON – Recently State Representative Jason Fields (D-Milwaukee) and other legislators debated Assembly Bill 31, relating to eliminating sick leave for elected officials.

“The procedural vote on Tuesday to suspend the rules and vote on AB 31 had nothing to do with the policy of sick leave. Parties, both Democrats and Republicans, traditionally stick together on procedural votes. Normal legislative procedure does not allow for a vote on passage of a bill on the same day it is taken up, the Assembly rules had to be suspended to do so. Assembly Democrats did not delay anything. We simply voted against suspending the legislature’s long established rules to rush the bill to a vote.”

“Furthermore, I don’t know what all the urgency is about. This bill does not have an effect until the NEXT legislative session. The Assembly has time to fully debate the bill. As a matter of fact, the best product was not before the body on Tuesday. There were several amendments drafted – by both parties – to make changes to AB 31. There is no need to fast track it.”

Legislators do not earn vacation time or personal time. They accrue sick time at approximately 65% of what other state employees do. However, no clear system for reporting sick days exists in the legislature.

“Doing away with sick leave, as AB 31 proposes, does not fully address the issue. The problem is an unclear policy of reporting sick leave, so if we want to fix the problem we should fix the reporting system. Something Democrats are already working on.”

Last week’s country was really easy now wasn’t it?!?!

It was Italy of course!!

This week the country is so uniquely shaped that I would find it hard that you would not get it…but if you don’t please don’t let it get you hot under the collar.

I’d rate this one a 3 out of 10.

The Republican State Assembly was blocked by Democrats today as the assembly was ready to pass a bill that would eliminate accrued sick time for politicians.

The Democratic Senate wasn’t any better than their Assembly colleagues by saying that the bill would not go to a vote in the Senate!!

Essentially the State Democrats are telling the people of Wisconsin that their well-being is more important than ours…how many of you are allowed to accumulate sick-time indefinitely to be paid out as cash at some future date.

Here is the JS Online article: Sick leave is staying

To be honest when I read the summary from the IPCC I missed this portion too but thanks to Pete Du Pont, former Governor of Delaware and chairman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, I was able to look it up and was surprised that the IPCC did not even address this phenomenon!!

“The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling,”

Which of these compounds would reduce global warming the most by removing it from the air?

1. Nitrogen (N2)
2. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s)
3. Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
4. Water Vapor (H20)

That is right ladies and gentlemen. As we have been cleaning up the environment buy buying more fuel efficient cars and mandating cleaner energy production we have been putting more and more H2O in the atmosphere!!

CO2 only contributes 10% to global warming while Water Vapor contributes 38%.

So which is truly a danger?

These are a few must reads:

The Boston Globe: Irreconcilable positions: support troops, oppose war

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist February 18, 2007

WHAT DOES IT mean to support the troops but oppose the cause they fight for?

No loyal Colts fan rooted for Indianapolis to lose the Super Bowl. No investor buys 100 shares of Google in the hope that Google's stock will tank. No one who applauds firefighters for their courage and education wants a four-alarm blaze to burn out of control.

Yet there is no end of Americans who insist they "support" US troops in Iraq but want the war those troops are fighting to end in defeat. The two positions are irreconcilable. You cannot logically or honorably curse the war as an immoral neocon disaster or a Halliburton oil grab or "a fraud . . . cooked up in Texas," yet bless the troops who are waging it. Continued…


LA Times: Redefining 'black'

Obama's candidacy spotlights the divide between native black culture and African immigrants.
By Louis Chude-SokeiFebruary 18, 2007

ALTHOUGH NOT quite able to pass for white, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been able to pass for African American. He is biracial, but not white; black, but not African American; American but not African. What has entranced the country more than his somewhat vague policies is Obama's challenge to conventional racial and cultural categories.

Among African Americans, discussions about his racial identity typically vacillate between the ideologically charged options of "black" versus "not black enough" or between "black" and "black, but not like us." Continued...

I recently watched “An Inconvenient Truth” and have to say it was one hell of a dog and pony show! If it wasn’t for the fact that I have a scientific background I could have been swayed.

I’m going to ignore the glaring lies that actually came out of Al Gore’s mouth, the funniest one being that the end of communism was due to bipartisan cooperation, and I’ll focus on a graph that Al used. I found a similar graph on line at the Woods Hole Research Center web site:



Now Al Gore looked at this graphic representation and made a faulty assumption: CO2 levels cause temperature change.

I’ll admit when I looked at the graph my first thought is “Thank God we are raising temperatures! Look what is in store for us if we don’t!!” I mean with over 400,000 years of documented evidence to back it up you could claim that the next ice age is around the corner. Oh yeah they’ve hysterically claimed that before too!

But when I really looked at the graph I noticed something remarkable… there is no lag. What I mean is that there is an instantaneous relationship between temperature and CO2…so how do we know that CO2 is causing temperature increases and it is not the other way around?

An article written by Robert Essenhigh, Professor of Energy Conservation at Ohio State University, Does CO2 really drive global warming?, discusses these two options:

"Case 1: CO2 drives the temperature as is currently mostly frequently asserted; and
Case 2: Temperature drives the CO2 levels."

He concluded that temperature drives CO2 not the other way around.

Global Warming is real. It is going on as you read this. The IPCC was right in concluding that there is nothing man can do to stop this from occurring. That is where the hype ends.

Global Warming is a natural event and as we have seen (Katrina, the Indian Ocean Tidal wave, Tornados, Droughts) Mother Nature is in control.

Very powerful article from today’s Opinion Journal:

Awaiting the Dishonor Roll
Congress "supports the troops" while emboldening the enemy.

Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Congress has rarely been distinguished by its moral courage. But even grading on a curve, we can only describe this week's House debate on a vote of no-confidence in the mission in Iraq as one of the most shameful moments in the institution's history.

On present course, the Members will vote on Friday to approve a resolution that does nothing to remove American troops from harm's way in Iraq but that will do substantial damage to their morale and that of their Iraqi allies while emboldening the enemy. The only real question is how many Republicans will also participate in this disgrace in the mistaken belief that their votes will put some distance between themselves and the war most of them voted to authorize in 2002.

The motion at issue is plainly dishonest, in that exquisitely Congressional way of trying to have it both ways. (We reprint the text nearby.) The resolution purports to "support" the troops even as it disapproves of their mission. It praises their "bravery," while opposing the additional forces that both President Bush and General David Petreaus, the new commanding general in Iraq, say are vital to accomplishing that mission. And it claims to want to "protect" the troops even as its practical impact will be to encourage Iraqi insurgents to believe that every roadside bomb brings them closer to their goal.

Continued…

Last weeks country had quite a few people scratching their heads. Only reason mkfolks knew the answer is she has been looking for a vacation spot!

Last week was Trinidad and Tobago!

This week, since I am traveling, I thought I’d make things easy for everyone…this is rated a 1 out of 10.

Al has mentioned that he was considering this run in his last book as well as a number of times on his radio program…of which only 5 people bought his book and only 9 people listen to his radio program…so I know that this is quite a shock to the other 14 people who even know who he is.

:)

From Reuters today: Rising seas threaten Britain's best-loved beaches

Wow I didn’t realize that the waters surrounding Great Britain was rising! Oh that’s right they aren’t!

The “article” starts off very official like: “Some of Britain's best loved beaches and coastline, from Golden Cap in Dorset to Formby Sands in Lancashire, are under threat from erosion and flooding, the National Trust said on Tuesday.”

But then we get to the heart of the matter and the bias that has now pervaded the media: “Rising sea levels could damage hundreds of miles of the English and Welsh coast over the next 100 years, according to a study commissioned by the conservation group.”

Next 100 years?!? Can they tell me what the water levels are going to be in 5 years? 3 years? Next year?

Since they can not why are we reporting this tripe as though it is real news?

Article should have been titled “If sea levels rise, Britain’s best-loved beaches threatened: study says”

I was rather upset by the column in Sunday’s Journal Times by Michael Burke which railed (no pun intended) against people like me who oppose KRM.

Michael is under the impression that growth that has been seen in the Mayfair and Regency areas only come by way of train. He believes that by putting in place an antiquated mode of transportation that will do nothing for our communities other than consume vast amounts of federal, state, and local tax dollars will bring about vast changes to our area. Now I see that William “Mac” McReynolds is a supporter of this monstrosity. LINK

While Mac has it right that the people of Racine don’t want to pay for this thing he is wrong that the people of the area want it.

I want Mac to force this thing to a vote. If you really think the people of Racine want this thing…put it to a vote. Put KRM as a referendum and see how it comes out.

KRM is NOT good for this area. It is NOT forward thinking.

Doyle would like to asses the oil companies 2.5% per barrel sold here in Wisconsin and mandate that that cost not be passed on to consumers!

HUH!?!?

I would like to see the legislature pass all of the Doyle measures (tax increases all) and mandate that the cost of these programs not be passed on to the taxpayers!

Doyle once again proves that he is bad for Wisconsin and an embarrassment…I hope that those of you that voted for him are happy!!

JT article
JS article

As promised I knew it was only a matter of time before someone would be railing against the Oil Companies again. Lo and behold it is our own Governor! (link)

Today Doyle is outraged because he read a report (link) generated by his Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) that states, “Staff analysis of oil company financial statements indicate that the five major oil companies earned $113.33 billion in 2006” and that “These excessive profits are more than the top four companies in the pharmaceutical, retailer, and industrial/agriculture combined.”

So Doyle is calling for the federal government to repeal the “big tax breaks” that the oil companies get (see my last blog about profits and taxes of oil companies here) and “to cap oil company profits and to force the oil companies to provide a refund to the American people from the windfall they have reaped since Hurricane Katrina.”

DATCP talks about the net income (profit) but never mentions the profit margin. For those of you that are not very business savvy, Profit Margin is an indicator of a businesses ability to control their costs. If Oil Companies were really out to hurt the consumers then you would see that their profit margins would be HUGE but that is not the case. In fact Microsoft and Coca-Cola have a substatially higher profit margin but no one is calling for them to reduce their prices!! (link)

Here is the Chart DATCP is boasting:



Here is a graph of the Profit Margins of the companies they looked at when they “analyzed” the oil company’s profits.


Ultimately what this boils down to is that we are heavily dependant on oil…the more we buy the more these companies make. End of story.

You know that you have become a bit of a techno-geek when this looks cool...



Roto-Rooter's 'Pimped Out John'

I guess Reality Check, SORRY...I meant still unreal...really does know his countries…it was Belgium!

This week’s country, while hard, has a very unique shape that could give it a way so it is only 8 out of 10.

REMEMBER – Posting guesses are great; looking it up and then posting is cheating!

Time magazine has these 8 items as key to the 2008 Presidential Election:

“8 Keys to ’08 Campaign”

1. Iraq
2. Money
3. Religion
4. Amazon Factor
5. Last Minute Campaigns
6. Operatives
7. Blogosphere
8. New Faces

Doyle is out spending like a drunken Democrat again! Where is he coming up with this additional cash? He just made $59 million worth of increases…I wonder how our tax bill is going to look next year?

$15 million increase in Shared Revenue

$44 million increase in Financial Aid

From the Tax Foundation Blog – ExxonMobil’s Record Profits – And Record Taxes.

"While they were recording record profits last year, they were also writing checks to Uncle Sam to the tune of $100.7 billion -- two and a half times what they made in net profit." (emphasis added)



We don’t hear Hilary talking about that now do we?

This is reprinted from the following link: Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?



Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

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 the first Canadian Ph.D. 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. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

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.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

We are going to be bombarded with news stories, or at a minimum Democrat Press Releases, about how the President has opted to “cut” or “slash” Medicare spending in stead of caring for the elderly.

So here are the facts as laid out in a recent AP story (link):


The President is budgeting for Medicare to grow by 6.7% for the next 5 years.

This is in contrast to having it grow by 7.6% for the next 5 years.

The savings is over $66 billion over 5 years…is this a cut?

I am amazed every year when I graph out the Federal Budget. Here is the President’s 2008 Budget:

I’ve highlighted the largest four categories of us to discuss.

Let us start with #3 Defense (19% of the budget): I think that this one goes without too much discussion. The purpose of the government is to protect us from foreign and domestic enemies and therefore should have the funds needed to provide that protection.

#4 the Treasury (16% of the budget): I wonder about the growth of this every year but until we decide that the Internal Revenue Service has gotten too big and we are willing to completely overhaul our tax code…preferably to a flat (or possibly a consumption) tax we are out of luck in reducing this by a large amount.

#1 and #2 are HHS and SSA (combined 42% of budget – 22% and 20% respectively). 42% of our Federal budget is for these two Entitlement Programs!! Both of these departments are huge boondoggles that are grotesquely overweight. There is only one thing that should be done to these departments and that would be the systematic elimination of them.

With a clear conscience there is no feasible way to out and out eliminate them in a 2-5 year time period. Our best hope would be to phase both departments out over say 25-30 years. This would allow for people on these systems to be either transfer to private systems or to simply adapt to the new situation.

Now I know that I sound like a bit of a hard ass here but at no time should the government be responsible for guaranteeing someone health insurance or retirement funds…it just is not their job.

The Preamble of the US Constitution states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Our forefathers believed that the government should “PROMOTE the general welfare” not “PROVIDE the general welfare” there is a huge difference.

The Democrat party has used the Patriot Act as their rallying cry to prove that the Republicans are trying to be “Big Brother” when in fact it is the Democrats themselves that wish to be big brother by promoting governmental guarantees like health care and retirement! These programs help to keep the masses, usually those that are in the lower economic side, in line and help to get Democrats elected. “If we provide for them they will vote for us.”

The reality is simple we need to show people that while hand outs are nice they come with strings…in the case of HHS and SSA that string would be a lazy attitude toward issues that are important. “If Uncle Sam is going to pay for my –fill in the blank with whatever government entitlement program you wish- why should I save any more?” This attitude then causes the program, which was meant to be a safety net, to become a guarantee. This then creates a situation in which government gets to decide matters that people should have a right to, such as what type of life would you like in retirement?

We should do our best to reduce the scope of the Government and begin by reducing Americans reliance on Entitlement Programs.

Our friends at the Tax Foundation noticed that the House Ways and Means Committee is going to hold hearings on the challenges facing the “middle class” so Scott Hodge from the Tax Foundation decided to review what the middle class looks like. (link)

Mr. Hodge found that the image of the “middle class,” married couple with 2 children, is not what it once was. This image of “middle class” now falls in the top 40% of wealthy Americans. He concludes that this is primarily due to dual income families and this increase in dual incomes has contributed to the perception of income inequality.

“When the so-called rich are increasingly couples with two incomes, they will naturally look wealthier than the vast number of single taxpayers who now populate the statistical middle.”

Meaning that when Democrats talk about increasing taxes to the wealthy in America they may be talking about you!

“As lawmakers look for solutions to the economic challenges facing today's "middle-class" but upper-income families, they would do well to consider the way in which taxes--federal and local--are contributing to the problem.”

It is Thursday again and it is time for my favorite contest…Name that Country.

Last week had a lot of people were stumped but with Lebanon being in the news all week I thought that it might have been easier.


This week’s country was hard for me so I’ll put it at a 10 out of 10.

Over the weekend 2 more people have entered the 2008 Presidential contest. They are Michael Charles Smith (R) from Oregon and Former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee (R).

For those that are keeping count that means that there are now 9 Democrats running and 12 Republicans!

My hope is that by December of this year we will be down to 4 and 4, I think that is a much more reasonable field for the American public to digest.

I would predict that the Democratic top 4 will be: Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, and Vilsack.

The Republicans will be: Brownback, Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney.

These are not necessarily the candidates I’d like to see, but the ones I think will be the front runners.

State Representative Jim Ott, former meteorologist at WTMJ Channel 4 and WTMJ radio for 20 years, weighs in on the global warming debate.

Here is the press release: Some thoughts on global warming

Here is the text:

Some thoughts on global warming…

WHAT WE KNOW:
1) Since 1958 background levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have been monitored at a site in the Hawaiian Islands. The data show a slow but steady increase of atmospheric CO2 levels. Many scientists attribute this to human use of fossil fuels, and feel that if we had data father back, say through the 19th century, the data would show levels began to increase during the industrial revolution. What is often overlooked is that there are also significant natural sources of CO2, including forest fires and volcanoes.
2) CO2 is one of the so called “green house” gases, which means it is effective at trapping energy that the earth emits back to space. Theoretically, with rising levels of CO2 more of this energy should be trapped, and the atmosphere should be getting warmer.
3) For the last 20-25 years or so we have had some pretty warm years. On a world wide basis some of this is determined by satellite data, which has only been available since the mid 1980s. So it is somewhat difficult to know the entire significance of this data, since we are comparing it with average temperature data for earlier years and with things like ice cores and pollen data for times before the invention of the thermometer. I would also note that 20-25 years is too short of a time to say that a climate change is taking place. Never the less, many scientist feel that this warmer than average weather and some of the associated affects like the shrinkage of some mountain glaciers is due to the increased levels of CO2 due to human use of fossil fuels.

THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS ASSUMPTION:
Even if we are witnessing the beginning of a long term climate change in progress (and I think it is too soon to say that we are), there are numerous other causative factors that could be involved. We know this because the earth’s climate has gone through major changes long before humans could have been a factor. To assume that the last 20-25 years of warm weather are due to human activity would be similar to having an effect that could be caused by any of ten different factors, and just assuming that one factor was responsible, and ignoring all others. Part of the reason this attitude is prevalent in the area of climate change is that the other factors are not very well understood, so it’s convenient to latch onto one that, at least in theory, is understood.
The mainstream media has played an important role in fostering the idea that global warming is happening, and that it’s due to human activity and that it will get worse. That’s because much of the nation’s media, like the TV networks, are based on the east coast. Whenever there is an unusually warm weather event there, it is a story to them, and they bring in some climatologist or other researcher who believes that global warming is caused by human activity. When the weather on the east coast is cooler than normal, we do not see reports stating that maybe global warming isn’t happening.
Imagine an observer who was present in North America 10,000 years ago as the most recent continental ice sheet was melting. He would have observed the same thing we have observed for the last 20-25 years, but on a much grander scale: a warming climate that spanned hundreds, and probably thousands of years, and the associated melting of the ice.
All of this was happening without the impact of human activity. In fact, the geologic record indicates that there have been four episodes of continental glaciation in the last million years, and each time the climate cooled enough to form the glacier, and then warmed enough to melt the glacier, without any help from man. Back it the 60’s it was fashionable to assume that human civilization has actually developed in an “interglacial” period, and that someday another continental ice sheet will develop. I believe there are some scientists who still hold this view, but you will probably not hear from them on mainstream media outlets.
But even on shorter time scales we have witnessed some major fluctuations in weather patterns. I wouldn’t refer to these as climate changes, because they are of too short a duration. For example, the 1930s (dust bowl era) were warm years. The 1960s were much cooler. The 1990s were warm years. Why did the 1960s cool off at a time when atmospheric CO2 levels were increasing? Why some were our most brutal winters on record in the Midwest in the late 1970s and early 1980s? No one can answer those questions, but it does make one wonder how we can just assume that the warm 1990s and 2000s were caused by human use of fossil fuels, and no other factors were involved.

THE PROBLEM WITH ACTING ON THE ASSUMPTION OF HUMAN CAUSATION OFGLOBAL WARMING:
If we make (and perhaps act upon) predictions that are based on incorrect assumptions, the predictions may turn out to be wrong. For example, after the devastating hurricane season of 2005 a number of hurricane forecasters assumed that global warming was responsible, and that more of the same was on the way. The mainstream media ate this up, and Gulf and east coast residents braced for the worst in 2006. Of course the 2006 hurricane season was exceptionally quiet, with no major storms affecting the United States.
Why? Could it be that the 2005 season was a normal but perhaps extreme fluctuation of hurricane numbers that has been going on for a long time, the causes of which may be found somewhere in global ocean temperatures or in other poorly understood climate feedback mechanisms? What if as a nation we make decisions on food and energy production that are based on a prediction that we will see a continued warming of the climate in the next 50 to 100 years? And what if it turns out that some of the ignored causative factors in climate change become dominant and we have cooler (or wetter, or drier, or more variable, etc.) than expected weather? In fact some of the overdevelopment of low elevation coastal areas (i.e. the coast of Florida, New Orleans, etc.) has taken place during a time of relatively quiet hurricane seasons. After a few decades without a storm like Hurricane Camille in 1969 it is easy to forget that we can’t assume anything about the weather, and that the coastal areas are affected by hurricanes.

THE FUTURE:
Basically, many of the things we should be doing as a nation are the same whether or not human induced global warming is occurring. For example, it is always good to cut down on air pollution whenever possible. We should continue the search for new forms of energy and not waste what we have since fossil fuels are a finite resource that someday will be used up. We should continue to look for ways to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, even if it means using some of our own resources in environmentally sensitive areas. I believe this can be done in a safe and clean way. We should recycle whenever possible, especially if it can be done in an economically advantages way. And of great importance is the need for continued research in the area of climate change and climate influences. It is only in the last 25 years that we have come to understand the El Niño effect, and there certainly is much more we need to learn about how and why the climate changes. Right now, in spite of some of the definitive statements being issued by the scientific community, and the willingness of the mainstream media to take every warm weather event as proof of global warming, we really don’t know for sure whether or not human activity is significantly affecting the climate, or even if the warm weather is going to continue.

WHAT WE SHOULD NOT DO:
The United States was roundly criticized, both here and abroad, for not signing onto the Kyoto Protocol. This was a treaty that would have required us as a nation to cut down on our CO2 emissions by a certain percentage, while allowing some other nations much more lenient restrictions or none at all. I feel it would have been a major mistake for our country to sign onto such a treaty, and I hope that we will avoid such treaties in the future. Those who are doing the criticizing never bothered to ask exactly what reducing our CO2 emissions by a large percentage would actually mean in terms of lifestyle changes, cost, etc. It’s one thing to say we will decrease our CO2 emissions, but it’s another to say we will only be allowed to drive certain kinds of cars, industry will have to cut production by a certain amount, the cost of gasoline is going to increase by a certain amount, and so on. There are the kinds of issues that should be put before the public; a simple percentage on CO2 reduction tells us nothing.
On this backdrop we must also consider the following:
1) We don’t know if the required percentage reductions were achievable, no matter what steps we would have taken as a nation.
2) We don’t know for sure whether or not human activity is responsible for the last 20-25 years of warm weather.
3) We don’t know for sure whether or not the climate will continue to warm in the future, even if human civilization is having an impact.
4) Therefore we don’t know that even if we were to achieve the required reductions in CO2 emission (at a great cost) that there would be the desired results on the climate.
In summary, there’s a lot we still must learn about climates and climate change, and I feel that continued research in these areas is very important. Making assumptions and predictions without a better understanding than we have now may lead to some incorrect predictions, and therefore improper actions. Assuming that whatever seems to be happening at the present time will continue to happen is a common reaction. After the brutal winters of the early 80s many people assumed we were in for more of the same in subsequent winters. It didn’t happen. Assuming that the climate will continue to warm now and that it’s due to human activity is just that: an assumption. We don’t have all the information we need, and we certainly don’t have all the answers.

State Representative Jim Ott
23rd Assembly District

Plants need not defend against air raids

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission concluded Monday that nuclear power plant operators do not have to defend against terrorists crashing an airliner into a reactor.

The agency, in approving a revised defense plan for power plants, said operators should instead focus on limiting radioactive release from an airborne terrorist attack.

Another Thursday means another country.

Last week I gave a small hint (“give you a run”) that should have lead you to Kenya since this country has been synonymous with world class runners for the last 2 decades.

I’m sorry but I couldn’t think of a hint for this week’s country so you will be on your own. I would give this one an 6 out of 10 rating.

I just finished reading Doyle’s Press release in which he wants to raise taxes on cigarettes and then ban the smoking in all, repeat ALL, public places.

Now many people will be talking about how Doyle is just trying to raise taxes to fix the budget mess he is in and the rest will be talking about how unjust it is to tell business owners that they can’t allow a legal activity to take place in their establishment but I think the story is more about payback.

What Doyle is calling for is a ban on smoking in all public locations including all restaurants and taverns. Think about that for a moment there will be no place where a person could go to have a drink and a smoke…or is there?

What I find interesting is that the ban can not be imposed on Indian Casinos…so the ban will drive business to the casinos where people will not only be able to buy their cigarettes cheaply but will be able to smoke them there as well.

Can you say quid pro quo? The Indians spent a lot of money to get Doyle elected and here he is throwing them a bone. This ban is a bad idea!

Okay I just don’t get it now!

How is it possible that gas prices went up 20 cents in 24 hours?

The price of oil was taking a pounding for 2 weeks and the price of gas slowly made its way down to $2 per gallon and we were told that the reason prices fell slower than oil was due to the inventory that the stations had on hand…flash forward to tomorrow when we will be told that the reason prices jumped so much so quickly was due to the expectant delivery of gas.

So which is it? Is the price of gas determined by: a) the cost of the fuel in inventory? b) the cost of the fuel in the next shipment?

Does anyone out there read “opposition books?”

For instance, as you can tell by my user name I consider myself a Republican I regularly read books by Carville, Franken, Chomsky, and others…Do the rest of you do this?

What books would you recommend for a conservative that would like to get into the mind of a liberal?

AP Photo/Albert Seghers

Pet shop owner creates beer for dogs

A number of potential Presidential Candidates threw their hats into the ring this weekend…it is getting to the point where we need a score card to keep track!

Well here is a scorecard just for you!

Democrats:

US Senator Christopher Dodd (CT)
Former Senator John Edwards (NC)
Former Senator Mike Gravel (AK)
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (OH)
Former Governor Tom Vilsack (IA)
Senator Joe Biden (PA)
Senator Hillary Clinton (NY)
Senator Barack Obama (IL)
Governor Bill Richardson (NM)


Republicans:

John Cox
Senator Sam Brownback (KS)
Former Governor Jim Gilmore (VA)
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (NY)
Congressman Duncan Hunter (CA)
Senator John McCain (AZ)
Congressman Ron Paul (TX)
Former Governor Mitt Romney (MA)
Congressman Tom Tancredo (CO)
Former Governor Tommy Thompson (WI)

Pelosi seeks panel to deal with global warming



Reprinted from the Wall Street Journal

INCONVENIENT QUESTIONS

Will Al Gore Melt?
If not, why did he chicken out on an interview?

BY FLEMMING ROSE AND BJORN LOMBORG
Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Last week he was in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune.

The interview had been scheduled for months. The day before the interview Mr. Gore's agent thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

Clearly we need to ask hard questions. Is Mr. Gore's world a worthwhile sacrifice? But it seems that critical questions are out of the question. It would have been great to ask him why he only talks about a sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century. Moreover, sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years. Does Mr. Gore find it balanced to exaggerate the best scientific knowledge available by a factor of 20?

Mr. Gore says that global warming will increase malaria and highlights Nairobi as his key case. According to him, Nairobi was founded right where it was too cold for malaria to occur. However, with global warming advancing, he tells us that malaria is now appearing in the city. Yet this is quite contrary to the World Health Organization's finding. Today Nairobi is considered free of malaria, but in the 1920s and '30s, when temperatures were lower than today, malaria epidemics occurred regularly. Mr. Gore's is a convenient story, but isn't it against the facts?

He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those facts? Mr. Gore talks about how the higher temperatures of global warming kill people. He specifically mentions how the European heat wave of 2003 killed 35,000. But he entirely leaves out how global warming also means less cold and saves lives. Moreover, the avoided cold deaths far outweigh the number of heat deaths. For the U.K. it is estimated that 2,000 more will die from global warming. But at the same time 20,000 fewer will die of cold. Why does Mr. Gore tell only one side of the story?

Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century. Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore--and anywhere.

Mr. Rose is culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, in Copenhagen. Mr. Lomborg is a professor at the Copenhagen Business School.

I gave you a real easy one last week so I’m not going to even tell you what it was!

This week I’ll give you a run for your money…I’d give it a 8 out of 10 for difficulty.

AP headline: House passes Medicare drug bill

The best part of the whole story is…

“The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the legislation was unlikely to result in savings to taxpayers.” (emphasis added)

The President has stated that if this bill reaches his desk he will veto it. The democratic response is:

"The president and his Republican allies have argued that this bill would do nothing. Then why, I must ask, would he bother to veto it?" said Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Here are two photos from the AP both photos were taken on Thursday January 11, 2007 at a march on city hall in New Orleans. The citizens are outraged at the current growing trend of violence that has struck their city and are demanding that things change.


This photo seems appropriate…I wonder where it was after Katrina?

(AP Photo/Bill Haber)

(AP Photo/Judi Botooni)

Do you see it? May be this will help.

Last weeks country was a toughie…I know that a few of you looked it up and I’m glad to say that no one spilled the beans…the country was Paraguay!

This week’s country is so easy I am actually a little embarrassed to post it.



It is a 1 out of 10.



I hope that you will be able to post your answer without looking it up!

Rep. Pridemore (R – Hartford) is proposing to limit how long elected State officials can serve by introducing a state constitutional amendment. (link to press release)

While I agree with Rep. Pridemore when he says “people considering an elective office should do so as a public service and not as a lifelong career choice” what harm is there in a legislator serving 16-20 years?

Now for a Governor, just like a president, I can see that there may need to be something in place to prevent an appearance of a monarchy but at this point all State Offices currently have term limits: Reps serve for 2 years, Senators for 4, Governor for 4, etc. They have to go before the voters every so many years and ask for their job back.

Why do we need to have an arbitrary number of years placed on a State Office when this person must face the electorate every few years?

I hope everyone had a Happy Holiday!

Two weeks ago I posted a country that I thought you guys would knock out of the park…I guess I was wrong. The country was Saudi Arabia!

This weeks country is VERY hard…10 out of 10. Good Luck!