Huckabee For President

Richard Lewis plays Strange Ways on Jam Sessions

The 'game' is a lot of fun. I need to learn how to play this one!

Andrew Meyer, the Bloody Peasant

A coincidence...
I think not!

Also, check out this one...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eNLQY3bQyaM

Why has “global warming” become such a passionate subject?

{the following article was written by Syun Akasofu, retired director of the International Arctic Research Center, I think he knows a little more on this subject than Mr. Gore}

March 2007

Why has “global warming” become such a passionate subject?

– Let’s not lose our cool –

Syun Akasofu

International Arctic Research Center

University of Alaska Fairbanks

The new IPCC Report (2007) states, on page 10, “Most observed increase in globally

averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed

increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Their great effort in making

progress in climate change science is certainly commended.

The media in the world is paying great attention mostly to the term “very likely,”

meaning the confidence level of more than 90%. However, I, as a scientist, am more

concerned about the term “most,” because the IPCC Report does not demonstrate the

basis for the term “most.”

There seems to be a roughly linear increase of the temperature from about 1800, or even

much earlier, to the present. This trend should be subtracted from the temperature data

during the last 100 years. Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present

warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities.

One possible cause of the linear increase may be that the Earth is still recovering from the

Little Ice Age.

Thus, natural causes cannot be ignored in the present warming trend, in addition to the

greenhouse effect. This short article is my criticism on the report from the point of an

arctic researcher. The Arctic is the place where climate change is most prominently in

progress, compared with the rest of the world.

Before critically examining the new IPCC Report, it is of interest to review why global

warming has become such a passionate subject. In order to find the reasons for the

present rampant reaction to global warming, it is necessary to think back to the Cold War

period. At that time in history, both the United States and the Soviet Union had a large

arsenal of atomic bombs, which could have eliminated all living creatures on Earth many

times over. Therefore, scientists and the general public alike urged both governments to

abolish their nuclear armaments, signing statements urging this action. There was broad

consensus, both amongst the public and in the scientific community, on this issue.

The fear of nuclear war subsided as the Soviet Union began to collapse. It so happened

that just before the collapse of the USSR, some groups of US scientists, using

supercomputers, were studying future trends in the earth’s climate. They announced in

1988 that increasing levels of CO2, if unchecked, would cause substantial warming of the

earth’s temperature, resulting in various disasters. It is easy to understand why some

advocative scientists, who were searching for new, significant themes, took up the grand

subject of global warming as their new area of focus. This theme was successfully

presented to the United Nations and an organization called the International Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988. Suddenly, the quiet scientific backwater

of “climate research” was in the world spotlight. Perhaps, the initial motivation should

not necessarily be faulted.

At the same time, many environmental protection organizations and advocacy groups

were anxious; it was proving difficult to attract the attention of the general public. In

addition, some government officials were also searching for new, globally significant

problems to tackle, avoiding more urgent problems of African poverty and other critical

problems. It is not too great a leap to infer that at least some of these groups seized the

opportunity to make global warming their main theme in the hopes of attracting public

interest.

Meanwhile, the IPCC mobilized a large number of climatologists and meteorologists and

published several impressive, voluminous publications, one after the other. In one of

them, “Climate Change 2001,” for example, a figure that became known as “the hockey

stick,” was used prominently in the “Summary for Policy Makers,” in which the

temperature shows a dramatic increase during the most recent 100 years, after a slow

decrease in temperature over the first 900 years. The nickname “hockey stick” was

coined because the temperature-time curve had this sudden, upward kink near the end,

like a hockey stick. (Since then, this particular figure has been discredited; the new IPCC

Report (2007) does not include the figure.)

With voluminous publications participated by hundreds of scientists, it is therefore

understandable that policy makers would trust the “summary,” providing them the

confidence to base major policy-making decisions on the “summary,” as indicated by the

“hockey stick” figure.

Indeed, many policy makers, environmental protection groups, the press, and even some

scientists took the IPCC reports to mean that all the participating scientists had come to a

shared broad consensus that global warming is a very serious issue facing mankind. It is

important to recognize that this consensus is of quite a different nature from the one

reached on nuclear disarmament. A large number of atomic bombs did, in fact, exist;

there was no uncertainty, compared with global warming, which requires much more

efforts to understand for the causes.

The reason for emphasizing this point is that whenever someone says there is some

uncertainty in projections of future temperature increase, someone else will assert that the

danger of global warming has been accurately predicted to be 3°C, as shown in the IPCC

Reports, and agreed upon by hundreds of top researchers. Do all the participating

scientists agree on the term “most?” If they do, what are their scientific bases?

A supercomputer, as complex and powerful as it may be, is a far cry from the complexity

of our real earth! It is simply a very poor virtual earth. Actually, the modelers themselves

should know best the limitations of their results as they continue to improve their models,

and perhaps modelers should, at times, be a little more cautious about their findings. In

any case, modeling is nothing more than an academic exercise, at least at this stage.

There is a considerable difference among results obtained by different researchers. To

give just one example, the predicted year when Arctic Ocean sea ice would disappear

entirely in the summer months spans a range from 2040 to at least 2300. This shows the

uncertainty in modeling studies. Since sea ice plays the role of the lid in warming water

in a pan, it plays a significant role in climate change and future prediction.

To exacerbate this situation, the media, by and large, tend to report worst-case scenarios

and disasters, for example using only the 2040 story. It is understandable that disaster

stories draw more readers than stories about the benefits of global warming.

Unfortunately, most reporters have little or no background in understanding debates on

the simulation results. For these reasons, the initial effort of IPCC has gotten out of

control.

It is also a serious problem that global warming can so easily be blamed for everything

bad that happens, such as floods (which often result instead from massive deforestation or

from loss of wetlands) or extinction of some species (which may result from overharvesting,

loss of habitat, invasion of exotics, pollution problems), etc. In the meantime,

those who are really responsible for these calamities can easily hide under the umbrella of

global warming.

Most reporters, who come to Alaska to try to find the greenhouse disasters, have little

knowledge of the Arctic. They take photographs of large blocks of ice falling from

glaciers at their termini and report that global warming is in progress before their very

eyes. However, glaciers are not static piles of ice, but instead are constantly flowing

rivers of ice. It is normal for tidewater glaciers to calve large blocks of ice from the face

as they reach the sea, and they will do so regardless of how warm or cold it is. Most

glaciers in the world have been receding since 1800 or earlier, well before 1940, when

CO2 began to increase significantly. Why do major media of the world flock all the way

to Alaska, if global warming is a global phenomenon? So far, what they would find is

broken houses in Shishmaref, a little island in the Bering Sea coast, because of coastal

erosion that is difficult to relate to a direct result of global warming. Some of the current

global warming stories, including “The Day after Tomorrow,” are based on science

fiction, not science.

Some of the weak points in the present IPCC Report are:

• There has recently been so much attention focused on the CO2 effect, the Little

Ice age has been forgotten. The recovery rate from the Little Ice Age may be as

much as 0.5°C/100 years, comparable to the present warming trend of 0.6°C/100

years. The warming caused by the linear change must be carefully evaluated and

subtracted in determining the greenhouse effect.

• There was no critical analysis of the mid-century change; the temperature rose

between 1910 and 1940, similar in magnitude and rate to the present rise after

1975. Further, the temperature decreased from 1940 to 1975, in spite of the fact

that the release of CO2 increased rapidly. At that time, we had similar debates

about imminent “global cooling” (the coming of a new ice age) in the 1970s.

• It is crucial to investigate any difference between the 1910-40 increase and the

increase after 1975, since the former is likely to be due to natural causes, rather

than the greenhouse effect.

• The most prominent warming (twice the global average) took place in the Arctic,

particularly in the continental arctic, during the last half of the 20th century, as

stated in the IPCC Report, but it disappeared during the last decade or so. Further,

the IPCC models cannot reproduce the prominent continental warming, in spite of

the fact that the measured amount of CO2 was considered. This particular

warming is likely to be part of multi-decadal oscillations, a natural cause.

• It is also important to know that the temperature has been increasing almost

linearly from about 1750, or earlier, to the present, in addition to multi-decadal

oscillations, such as the familiar El Niño. These are natural changes.

• Both changes are significant. Until they can be quantitatively more carefully

examined and subtracted from the present trend, it is not possible to determine the

manmade greenhouse effect. Therefore, there is no firm basis to claim “most” in

the IPCC Report.

• The IPCC should have paid more attention to climate change in the Arctic.

• The mid-century (1940-1975) alarm of a coming Ice Age teaches a very important

lesson to all of us, including climate researchers. It is not possible to forecast

climate change (warming or cooling) in the year 2100 based on a few decades of

data alone.

• Further, it is very confusing that some members of the media and some scientific

experts blame “global warming” for every “anomalous” weather change,

including big snowfalls, droughts, floods, ice storms, and hurricanes. This only

confuses the issue.

At the International Arctic Research Center, which was established under the auspices of

the “US-Japan Common Agenda” in 1999, our researchers are working on the arctic

climate change issues mentioned in the above, in particular, in distinguishing natural

changes and the manmade greenhouse effects in the Arctic. The term “most” is very

inaccurate.

We must restore respectability – by that I mean scientific rigor - to the basic science of

climatology. We must also stop “tabloid” publications in science. Only then, can we

make real progress in projecting future temperature change. Although I have been

“designated” by the news media as “Alaska’s best known climate change skeptic,” I am a

critic, not a skeptic. Science without criticism could go astray.

In the meantime, environmental protection advocates might consider a return to their

original important themes of protecting the environment from destruction, pollution,

over-harvesting, massive deforestation, and habitat destruction. All these processes of

environmental degradation are taking place right now before our very eyes, and they are

not all related to global warming.

People who are concerned about protecting the earth might also turn their attention to this

question - Why has so little concrete effort been made to reduce the release of CO2,

compared to such a great outcry and hysteria about global warming?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Iraq and Afghanistan

Question:



What percentage of our armed forces have volunteered to serve and fight the global war on terrorism?





Answer:



100%





Think about it...



Every airman, marine, sailor, and soldier without exception either enlisted or re-enlisted after we were attacked on September 11, 2001, and the vast majority since we invaded Iraq in 2003.



What does it matter what those who choose not to serve think? They are unwilling to fight, and since we are not drafting troops, they never will have to defend our country.



That is....



Unless we retreat to our own shores, and allow the fight to return to our soil!



Think about it!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Another Reason To Leave Nature Alone...

Lawsuit: Couple Claims Fertility Clinic Used Wrong Sperm



My wife and I know who the parents of our kids are. There was no possible way for our kids to be anyone's but mine.



Hmmm.....



Maybe God knew what He was doing after all!

powered by performancing firefox

Watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film" on Google Video

Global Warming is a fact, but what causes it?

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film

1 hr 13 min 32 sec - Mar 19, 2007
Average rating:   (11 ratings)
Description: Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary. 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans. The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world's poor. Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2. Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn. A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for." Controversial director Martin Durkin said: "You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don't believe you - it's taken 10 years to get this commissioned. "I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys. "It is a big story that is going to cause controversy. "It's very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks.

Want to see more cool videos?
Go to video.google.com/?hl=en

Think you have an even cooler video?
Add it at video.google.com/videouploadform?hl=en

If you're having trouble watching the video, try copying the following URL into your browser:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=Great+Global+Warming&pr=goog-sl&hl=en

A Good Read

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258498,00.html



I'll post more when I have time. Feel free to post your thoughts here.



Soup



PS - To prevent SPAM I moderate all responses, sorry for the inconvenience.

powered by performancing firefox

Freedom of Speech?

We need to support General Pace's beliefs. It will be a sad commentary on the state of our Nation if he is urged to rescind his comments.



We offer freedom of speech and freedom of religion in this country. I agree with his views, but more importantly, I support his right to voice his views. This is America, and we need to put an end to the tyranny that is 'political correctness'. Forcing him to recant is the same as forcing him to denounce his faith. This is wrong and un-American.



I have included a copy of the article from FOXNews.com

Gay Advocacy Group Wants Apology From Pentagon Top General After Homosexuality Comment



Tuesday , March 13, 2007



AP



WASHINGTON —

A gay advocacy group Tuesday demanded an apology from the Pentagon's top general for calling homosexuality immoral.



In a newspaper interview Monday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace had likened homosexuality to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the military.



"General Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," the advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement on its Web site.



The group has represented some service members dismissed from the military for their sexual orientation.



Pace, chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, made his remarks in an interview Monday with the Chicago Tribune. He was responding to a question about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve if they keep their sexual orientation private and don't engage in homosexual acts.



Pace said he supports the policy, which prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sexual orientation. Over the years thousands have been dismissed under this policy, signed into law by President Clinton in 1994.



"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in the interview. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."



Pace, a native of Brooklyn, N.Y., and a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said he based his views on his upbringing.



"As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of gay behavior) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," Pace was quoted as saying.



The newspaper said Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the policy.

powered by performancing firefox

No, You May Not Leave The Country

From the State Department web site:

Passport Fees

March 8, 2005

Routine Services (Form DS-11)

Non-Refundable

Age 16 and older: The passport application fee is $67. The execution fee is $30. The total is $97 .

Under Age 16: The passport application fee is $52. The execution fee is $30. The total is $82 .

The passport application fee includes the $12.00 Security Surcharge, which became effective March 8, 2005.

During the summer 0f 2001, my wife and I took our 8-month-old son with us on a quick over-night stay in Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada. It was an inexpensive but fun side-trip on our vacation to visit family in Illinois and Ohio. Our son and daughter have both expressed interest, after looking at old photos, in a return trip to the falls (when our newborn is old enough to enjoy it). As beautiful as the American side is, the Canadians have a better overall view of the falls.

With the new decision by our wise and benevolent "Department of Homeland Security" an American family like ours will need to cough-up $440 for the privilege to cross into Canada.

I have to apologize to Canada for the certain loss in tourism dollars they will feel due to this measure. Surely we have a better relationship with Canada than this. These fees are ridiculous, excessive, and unnecessary. It is truly a shame that our government feels they need to charge citizens such an exorbitant amount for the privilege to leave our country.

powered by performancing firefox

Why I Respect Ben Nelson

Senators Hagel and Nelson always respond to serious e-mails. Senator Hagel generally sends a quick e-mail followed by a detailed letter. Senator Nelson usually goes with e-mail only. Here's the latest reponse:



____________________________________________________________



Dear Joseph L.:



Thank you for contacting me to make English the national language of the

United States. appreciate your concerns.



In May 2006, I supported Senator James Inhofe's amendment to the

Immigration Reform Bill, S. 2611, to declare English as the national

language of the United States and to promote the patriotic integration of

prospective U.S. citizens. Inhofe's amendment was included in the

final version of this bill, which the Senate passed on May 25, 2006. />there were amendments in the legislation I supported, I was unable to vote

for the final version of the S. 2611, due to its inability to adequately secure

our borders, which I continue to believe Congress must handle first in order

to resolve the problems of illegal immigration. the end, this legislation

failed to become law after a conference committee (a temporary panel

composed of Senate and House members, formed for the purpose of

reconciling differences in legislation which has passed both chambers) failed

to work out the differences with the House immigration bill, the Border

Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act, H.R. 4437.



Joseph L., I am aware how frustrated you are, as is the case with many

Nebraskans, with the handling of the contentious issue of immigration

reform. we begin addressing our nation's challenges in the 110th

Congress, immigration is certain to be at the forefront of the discussion.

Representative Steve King has recently introduced the English Language

Unity Act of 2007, H.R. 997, to declare English as the official language of

the United States. this bill is pending before the House Education

and Labor and Judiciary Committees. will keep your thoughts in mind

should this legislation come before me in the full Senate.



Thank you again for contacting me with your comments. legislative

process will only work with the input of concerned citizens, and I encourage

you to continue sharing your thoughts and ideas.



Sincerely,



Ben Nelson

U.S. Senator

powered by performancing firefox

GOP is abandoning Bush? Not quite

By Richard Benedetto - USA Today

The Washington punditocracy has proclaimed far and wide that Republicans, disenchanted with the war in Iraq, are abandoning President Bush in droves, leaving him the lamest of lame ducks. However, the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll suggests Bush might not be as wounded as he appears — at least not among his party faithful.



The Feb. 9-11 poll puts Bush's job approval at 37%, but among people who identify themselves as Republican or leaning Republican, his approval rating is 76%.



Thus, despite bad news from Baghdad and carefully crafted hand-wringing by high-profile GOP war critics in Congress such as Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, three of four Republicans in the country are hanging in there with the president.



The poll also shows that rank-and-file Republicans have higher regard for the president than they do Republicans in Congress. They gave GOP lawmakers a 63% job-approval rating, 13 points below Bush's. And 72% of Republicans do not think Bush made a mistake sending U.S. troops to Iraq.



So if congressional Republicans figure the key to re-election in 2008 is taking a hard line against Bush on Iraq, they could be dead wrong. They might lure some independents, but they risk alienating their GOP base. To win, you need solid support from your base plus independents, not independents alone.





Conventional wisdom also says the presidential ambitions of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., could be derailed by his strong support for the war. This poll, however, shows that his stance could be a plus among the base.



What does this high approval among Republicans mean for Bush? It means that as long as his party support remains that strong, he won't fall below 30% approval, a depth that would virtually extinguish his political power. The lowest Bush has fallen is 31%, still enough to make him a significant, although wounded, force in legislative battles with the Democratic-controlled Congress.



The latest congressional skirmish over Iraq underscores the point. In the House's non-binding vote to oppose the president's deployment of more troops to Baghdad, 17 Republicans voted with 229 Democrats to pass the measure. Four GOP representatives didn't vote. Lost was the fact that 180 Republicans stuck with Bush. By that count, Bush gets a 92% loyalty standing among House Republicans who voted. Hardly a GOP exodus.



In the Senate, Democrats fell four votes short of the 60 needed to force a vote on an identical Iraq resolution. Why? Not enough Republicans would go along. Indeed, seven GOP senators broke with the president, and nine didn't vote, yet 33 held firm. Among GOP senators who voted, that's an 83% Republican loyalty rating for Bush.



Though the president may have lost the country on the issues of the day, rumors of his demise among Republicans voters and lawmakers are greatly exaggerated.



Richard Benedetto retired last year as White House correspondent for USA TODAY. He teaches journalism and politics at American University in Washington and is author of Politicians Are People, Too.

powered by performancing firefox

Mr. Gore is a hypocrite

Yesterday morning a fellow teacher and myself were discussing planetary
changes, global warming, etc. I noted that Al Gore's film spoke of
giant hurricanes being the norm now, yet in the year of his film's
release, hurricanes have been almost non-existent! Also, New York has
experienced record snowfalls!



I commented to my teacher friend,
"I wonder what kind of car Al Gore drives, or if he lives in a small,
energy efficient house," to which I added, "I doubt it!"



Below I have included a snippet from FOXNews.com:



....The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, ... cited figures ... (that show the Gore household) burned through 22,619 kilowatt-hours of electricity at their house last August (twice that of an average U.S. household in an entire year).

Click here to read the research center's press release on the report.

...."An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar ... In the film, Gore calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.....The Gore household averaged 16,200 kWh per month in 2005,
and 18,400 kWh per month in 2006 ....natural gas bills for his mansion
and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.



How
dare he have the gall to tell us we need to reduce our carbon emissions
and energy use, when he lives in his mansion. Excuse me, but I believe
Al and Tipper are empty-nesters now, why do they maintain such large
homes? If he wants to be true to his cause, Al and Tipper need to sell
their extra homes in California and Virginia, and purchase a home
adequate for two people. Until he walks the walk, Mr. Gore is simply a
hypocrite.

powered by performancing firefox

English needs to be made official language in U.S.

This is a letter I've sent to President Bush.

English has been the primary language in the United States since its
birth, but English is under attack. The fear of many, and it is a real
threat, is that more and more jobs are requiring bilingual applicants.
This is a thinly veiled way of saying you must speak Spanish to get the
job.

This is extremely backwards Mr. President. When I attended school in
the 1980s, only students bound for college were required to take two
years of a foreign language. Many of my friends took German, French, or
Japanese (the languages of business). I chose Spanish because I figured
I might visit Mexico some day; Europe or Asia seemed less likely.

Now my Spanish is not even close to fluent, not enough to use in the
workplace. I could study more, but why? Why are Americans being
required to learn the language of the latest wave of immigrants? Never
before in our history has the burden of language been placed on the
citizens in favor of the language of the immigrant population.

What's more, I want to know how this can be considered "equal
treatment" when there are millions of immigrants that do not speak
Spanish. Why does Spanish deserve such special treatment? In Grand
Island alone there are over 25 first languages. Americans cannot and
should not be expected to learn 25 languages or more. We cannot and
should not be expected to post signs in 25 or more languages.

English is our commonality, our unifying force. It's time we made
English the official language of the entire country; the only language
used in business, schools and government. Foreign languages should
still be taught and encouraged (to make us competitive), but they
should not be required to go to the local market or to get a job as a
secretary or clerk.

Mr. President, I know you have an affinity for Spanish, as do I, but as
Americans it is our duty to protect the majority of Americans. It is
our duty to create unity. Our language is what allows open discourse.
It is what allows Americans to participate in government. It is part of
what makes us, immigrants from all over the planet, Americans.

powered by performancing firefox

Still not a Blogger

Well, then!



I still have not become a blogger. I guess with everything else in my life, typing to no one seems like a futile exercise. I Need to look into promoting this site. Maybe as I become a knowledgeable advisor, I'll write weekly financial advice!



We'll see.

powered by performancing firefox

Caitlin LeAnn

powered by performancing firefox

Testing a new Firefox Add-on

I decided to try the "Performancing" add-on for Firefox to post to my Blog. Why? Because I never add to this blog, even though I like the idea behind posting a blog. Now, I'm not sure what the best method of advertising this blog is, but I really want to give it a go.



What makes Performancing so unique? It integrates a blog publishing tool directly into the bottom of your browser, allowing the author to post quickly and write comments on a given news item as soon as the thought arises.



Let's see if this makes me a blogger.



~Soup

powered by performancing firefox

Time flies

Wow! I am really bad at this blog thing! Baby #3 will be born within the next six days! Perhaps we'll turn this blog into a baby update site for awhile.

See what happens!