Sunday, 09 December 2007
MAKING GLOBAL WARMING UNANIMOUS
I'll bet you didn't know that the verdict on global warming is
You might have thought it was close, because media don't present people with
more than one set of conclusions about it. But you probably assumed that
somewhere - maybe in a dingy laboratory at a small unaccredited college,
there must be someone whose limited knowledge of the subject causes him or her
to think otherwise.
Well if so, congratulations. Belief in global warming is not
unanimous. It only seems that way.
In fact there are many scientists - not in dingy laboratories at unaccredited
colleges but in highly respected positions at major universities - who
disagree with the Goreosians. I've blogged about a number of
them here in the past.
So why does it seem unanimous? Please read this article,
courtesy of www.heartland.org. It will help you to
(CHICAGO, Illinois - December 5, 2007) -- The United
Nations has rejected all attempts by a group of dissenting scientists seeking to
present information at the climate change conference taking place in Bali,
International Scientists from Climate Change
dissent excluded from participation in Bali
Written By: Tom
Published In: News
December 4, 2007
Publisher: The Heartland
The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
has been denied the opportunity to present at panel discussions, side events,
and exhibits; its members were denied press credentials. The group consists of
distinguished scientists from Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, the United
Kingdom, and the United States.
The scientists, citing pivotal evidence on climate
change published in peer-reviewed journals, have expressed their opposition to
the UN's alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming. As the debate on
man-made global warming has been heating up, the UN has tried to freeze out the
scientists and new evidence, summarily dismissing them with the claim "the
science is settled."
James M. Taylor, senior fellow for The Heartland
Institute explained, "It is not surprising the UN has completely rejected
dissenting voices. They have been doing this for years. The censorship of
scientists is necessary to promote their political agenda. After the science
reversed on the alarmist crowd, they claimed 'the debate is over' to serve their
wealth redistribution agenda."
Taylor continued, "For example, ICSC scientist Dr.
Vincent Gray recently published Unsound Science by the IPCC, which proves
the main claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are
scientifically unsound. Dr. Gray is an expert reviewer for the IPCC and has
submitted more than 1,800 comments on IPCC reports. He is an expert on the IPCC
methodology and published Spinning the Climate.
"Dr. Gray is the last person the politicized UN
wants speaking," Taylor noted. "He single-handedly debunks the entire alarmist
theory. And there are more than 600 Dr. Grays trying to be the voice of reason
and science. All are being censored."
Tayor said, "The ICSC scientists don't agree with
the pre-determined 'Bali Mandate,' so instead of discussion and debate, we get
censorship. Until the UN rejects the politicization of climate change, their
reports, protocols, and mandates aren't worth reading--much less
The ICSC scientists will be available for advice
and counsel in Bali, but they expect scientists to be ignored at the Bali
Now I'm no scientist. I don't know much about, or vouch for, Dr. Vincent Gray. Ditto for the
Heartland Institute. But I do know that the UN hears what it wants to hear and
gives voice to what it wants to give voice to. The UN does this on many
issues, not just global warming.
I also know that, based on the half dozen or so blogs I've already written,
some major league all-star climatologists have spoken up in dissent regarding
global warming and are effectively drowned out by the "approved" voices" which
are so welcome at the UN.
There may be man-induced global warming and there may not be. Just as
there might have been a coming new ice age 30 years ago, when the "scientific
community" (the segment media were reporting on, that is) were assuring us
that in no time flat there would be a glacier in our back yards.
But I don't like being railroaded on global warming or anything else.
If the science is that good and that clear, why are they shutting up everyone
Could it be all that grant money? All those products and services that
will help stave off our impending doom?
And who is profitting by this Chicken-littleism? Certainly not Al Gore
with an oscar in one hand, the nobel prize in another and his carbon offset
company raking in the dough. Nope, nothing in this for
NBC DOES AN ABOUT-FACE
A couple of days ago I blogged about the outrageous decision by NBC not to
air an ad thanking our troops during the Christmas season.
NBC's rationale was that the ad was "political" (it had the web address of
the organization which bought air time, www.freedomswatch.com --- just like the ads NBC airs for countless other companies and organizations.).
I suggested that, if the issue was that the ad is
political (as opposed to just rejecting it because it had a good word
to say about our troops), NBC should forswear all the other
political ads that come its way
too. In other words, leave networks like CNN and Fox (both of which
accepted the ad in question) with all that ad money from the presidential,
senate ,congressional and local candidates.
I'm still waiting for their response to my idea. I suspect, however, that
it could not be stated on their shows because of the FCC's language code.
In any event, NBC's slap in the face to the people
who keep this nation secure wasn't the end of the story. Now we find out
the network was just fine with accepting ads from the hard-left anti-war
group www.moveon.org , which is largely
funded by george soros. soros is the convicted inside trader who hates just
about everything the USA stands for and everything we do in our own interests
Here, courtesy of www.newsbusters.org, are the details:.
NBC Double Standard: Today Show
Aired Antiwar Ad by MoveOn.org
As NewsBusters reported Friday,
television network NBC has decided not to run ads thanking and supporting
America's troops stationed overseas during the holidays.
*****Update: Drudge is reporting that NBC has capitulated
due to "pressure from outraged viewers." Stay tuned...
The sticking point according to NBC's head of
standards and policies Alan Wurtzel was that Freedom's Watch "insisted that the
spot contain the URL address of its Web site."
Yet, such didn't seem to be a problem a few years
ago when MoveOn.org created an antiwar ad entitled "How Many More" that,
according to the organization's website, ran during NBC's "Today"
show (video available here,
h/t NB reader Blair Lovern):
When we gave the media our new TV ad, they ran
it during the news segments on Good Morning America and The Today Show-those
shows are viewed by millions. Now, in order to make sure this moment isn't
forgotten, we need to repeatedly play the ad on TV screens across America.
Will you make a contribution to help make that happen? This is a
critical time to be getting the message out about Iraq and MoveOn.org
Political Action is entirely member funded. Together we can make a big
Now, this ad in question doesn't show the URL for
MoveOn per se. However, as it addresses IN WRITING the organization as
MoveOn.org, that INDEED IS the group's URL.
Convenient loophole or double standard?
Don't you just love that update inserted in the article? The one that
says NBC has capitulated due to the extent of public outcry over their
disgustingly offensive decision?
Remember what NBC really wanted to do when it when you see this ad on their network. Remember that they
didn't WANT to allow it to air, they HAD to.
And remember that three times over when you watch their news
reportage. This is the mindset which creates it.
DEMOCRATIC BS ON WATERBOARDING
I'll let today's excerpted article in the Washington Post (helped
along by the parts I've put in bold print) tell the story:.
Hill Briefed on
Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest,
By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Sunday, December 9, 2007; A01
In September 2002, four members of
Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from
reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the
bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.), was
given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh
techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners
Among the techniques described, said two
officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be
condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol
Hill. But on that day, no
objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the
CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
"The briefer was specifically asked if the
methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the
Congressional leaders from both parties would
later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush
administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that
videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed
in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the
destruction was a coverup.
Yet long before "waterboarding" entered
the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private
briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh
interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with
With one known exception, no formal
objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during
the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said
Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The
lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).
Individual lawmakers' recollections of the
early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings
described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright
support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full
understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House
intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from
2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but
"In fairness, the environment was
different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a
panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there
was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do
to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the
American people.' "
Only after information about the practice
began to leak in news accounts in 2005 -- by which time the CIA had already
abandoned waterboarding -- did doubts about its legality among individual
lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent.
In September 2006, the CIA for the first time
briefed all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, producing
some heated exchanges with CIA officials, including Director Michael V. Hayden. The CIA director said during a television
interview two months ago that he had informed congressional overseers of "all
aspects of the detention and interrogation program." He said the "rich dialogue"
with Congress led him to propose a new interrogation program that
Bush formally announced
over the summer
"I can't describe that program to you," Hayden
said. "But I would suggest to you that it would be wrong to assume that the
program of the past is necessarily the program moving forward into the
My compliments to the Washington Post for telling the truth about this
Now, will the New York Times, which has spent the better part of this week
attacking the Bush administration over waterboarding, like to do a sentence or
two on the Democratic agreement with it?
Don't hold your breath.
BAD WEEKEND FOR THE ANTI-RELIGIONISTS
It seems that when Hollywood isn't pumping out anti-Iraq war films, all of
which are losing money, they are pumping out anti Christmas/anti-religion
The Gold Compass, released this weekend, just in time for the Christmas
season, is a prime example. Want to know how it made out? Well,
here's your answer, courtesy of www.slashfilm.com:..
There was no Saturday miracle surge for New Line.
Compass, an effects-laden family film
starring Nicole Kidman with a reported budget of $200M, received a modest 16%
increase from its opening day, posting an estimated $10.2M on Saturday. Assuming
a Sunday drop of 33%, Compass will finish its opening weekend with a disastrous
It has been said that money is all that drives Hollywood. Yet there
seems to be a pro bono attitude about films that crap on our war effort and/or
our traditional religious beliefs.
The people have spoken. Loudly. Maybe one day Hollywood will hear
them. Losing your shirt on a $200 million budget film certainly could be a
ANDREW YOUNG, RACISM, AND WHO CAN SAY WHAT
First let me post this Associated Press story which details what former UN
ambassador and Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young said while comparing Bill Clinton to
Barack Obama. Then, after you stop rubbing your eyes because you can't
believe he said it, we'll talk:.
Civl Rights Icon
Calls Obama Too Young
Dec 8, 5:52 PM
By ERRIN HAINES
ATLANTA (AP) - Civil rights icon Andrew Young says Democratic
presidential candidate Barack Obama is too young and lacks the support network
to ascend to the White House.
In a media interview posted online, Young also
quipped that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has her
husband behind her, and that "Bill is every bit as black as Barack."
"He's probably gone with more black women than
Barack," Young said of former President Clinton, drawing laughter from a live
television audience. Young, 75, was quick to follow his comment on Bill Clinton
with the disclaimer, "I'm clowning."
Young, a former United Nations ambassador and
lieutenant of Martin Luther King, Jr., made the comments at an appearance at
"Newsmakers Live," an urban media forum that interviews prominent Atlanta
personalities and political figures.
Excerpts of the interview were posted on
Newsmakers Journal, the Newsmakers' Web site, though the date of the appearance
was not included with the video posting. Young was scheduled to appear on
"Newsmakers Live" on Sept. 5, according to a press release.
Repeated efforts by The Associated Press to reach
Young were unsuccessful.
Young's comments were prompted by a member of the
audience who inquired about his opinion on Obama's candidacy.
"I want Barack Obama to be president," Young said,
pausing for effect, "in 2016."
"It's not a matter of being inexperienced. It's a
matter of being young," Young said. "There's a certain level of maturity ...
you've got to learn to take a certain amount of (expletive)."
Young went on to say that Obama needs a protective
network that he currently lacks - a quality that could hurt him if he were to be
elected. He said Hillary Clinton already has that kind of network, including her
husband to back her up.
"There are more black people that Bill and Hillary
lean on," Young said. "You cannot be president alone. ... To put a brother in
there by himself is to set him up for crucifixion. His time will come and the
world will be ready for a visionary leadership." .
I don't know about you, but I read this commentary and wondered if Young
has become non compos mentis.
I have three questions for the former UN Ambassador and Mayor:
-What did Young mean when he said that Bill Clinton is "every
bit as Black as Barack?" Could he possibly have been more
-What did Young mean when he said that "He's probably
gone with more black women than Barack"? Was he saying
that Bill Clinton has done lots of Black women? That Barack Obama
is some kind of Oreo cookie? Both? What was the point of this
-Why is this all about race to Young? Isn't he someone who has,
ostensibly at least, spent a career assuring us that we should look beyond
race? Well, what part of his comments don't feature
And, finally, I have a question for you: what would media reaction have
been if a former Republican UN Ambassador had said something comparable about a
Black candidate? What do you think they'd have done with, say, former
President George Bush if he had claimed that "Mike Huckabee has been with more
Black women than Barack"?
I'll leave you to ponder that...and to ponder why Andrew Young wasn't
absolutely reamed for his lunatic asylum-quality ravings.
THE HOLLYWOOD WRITERS' STRIKE: DO YOU FEEL DIFFERENT?
My wife and I often drive through the Lincoln Tunnel to get from New Jersey to New York,. At about the halfway
point there is a vertical line on the side of the
tunnel, with "New Jersey" noted on one side of it and "New York"
on the other. When we pass it, I sometimes joke that "We're in New York
now. Do you feel any different?" She usually just ignores the comment
(and I don't blame her a bit).
For the past five weeks there has been a writer's strike in Hollywood - the
land where people think you are on tenterhooks waiting for every new
episode of this series or every new monologue from that late night host or
....well, you get the idea.
Here is the latest news about this strike, excerpted from the Los
In Hollywood, the fade to black
By Rachel Abramowitz, Maria Elena Fernandez and
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
December 9, 2007
a rolling blackout, Hollywood is shutting down.
Fallout from Friday's
collapse of negotiations for a new contract between writers and studios will in
the weeks and months ahead leave audiences with dwindling entertainment
If the five-week-long strike by the Writers Guild of America
continues, it's also poised to affect the awards season, the annual ritual of
self-congratulation and promotion that runs through the winter.
short order, both the television networks and the movie studios will begin to
suffer financial pain as the lack of original content prompts viewers to flee --
with advertisers not far behind.
Both sides left the table Friday with a
lot of rancor, and no new talks are scheduled. Further complicating any
resolution is the looming prospect that the Directors Guild of America, whose
contract expires in June, could reach an early agreement with the
Although the studios are banking that they can hold out for at
least six months, the long-term effect could be enormous not only for the
entertainment industry but also for the region. Hollywood's stream of products
contributes nearly 7% -- an estimated $30 billion annually -- to L.A. County's
$442-billion economy, according to the Los Angeles County Economic Development
Corp. If the strike continues into next year, which seems possible now, it will
result in the loss of $1 billion to the local economy, the development group
After the talks broke off Friday, Jon Robin Baitz, creator and
executive producer of ABC's "Brothers and Sisters," put it this way: "There's a
humanistic tragedy in how we are all being forced to follow scripts that have
tragic implications for both sides and the end of very good
First to disappear were new episodes of Letterman, Leno,
Stewart and Colbert. Then scripted shows, including "The Office" and "Desperate
Housewives," stopped shooting new episodes.
Over the last several weeks,
the Writers Guild walkout also has forced the postponement -- and in one case,
recasting -- of several prominent motion pictures. Because their producers did
not think their screenplays were ready for filming, Ron Howard's "Angels &
Demons," starring Tom Hanks; Oliver Stone's "Pinkville"; and Mira Nair's
"Shantaram," starring Johnny Depp, all have been forced to postpone production,
and filming of the next installment of the highly profitable James Bond
franchise could be in jeopardy.
Brad Pitt left the movie "State of Play"
because he felt the script needed revisions that, because of the strike, could
not be made; Universal Studios last week recast his role with Russell
More immediately, the strike leaves such televised events as the
Golden Globes, the Grammys, the People's Choice Awards, the Screen Actors Guild
Awards and, of course, the Oscars in limbo.
No one expects the shows to
be canceled, but anxiety is rife as the various organizations try to figure out
how to put on essentially a comedy-and-variety show . . . without writers. And
soon, all of the writers and other talent will have to decide for themselves
whether they want to attend the shows, cross a picket line or attend galas with
hard-line studio executives.
But without getting a waiver, such shows as
the Golden Globes would be treated as any other "struck company," said WGA
spokesman Gregg Mitchell, adding that any member working on it would be
considered to be crossing the line. The red carpets could also be potential
targets for picketing, leading to unpleasant scenarios of stars discussing their
Prada and Escada gowns to chants of "Peter Chernin, what ya earnin'?" (Chernin
is president of News Corp., which owns the Fox studio and Fox
Still, awards strategists believe that the only shows that
might be able to get waivers are the Academy Awards and perhaps the SAG Awards,
because the Screen Actors Guild is perceived to be an ally of the Writers Guild.
The Golden Globes will certainly be the first major awards show to face this
hurdle. The nominees will be announced Dec. 13, and the show will air a month
I have no doubt that this strike is affecting Hollywood. Obviously it
is. But as someone whose involvement with Hollywood begins and ends at
personal entertainment, I find this a good time to reflect on how utterly
meaningless it is to me.
Even if she barely endures my jokes, my wife is still the beautiful, inside
and out. Our children are still great, our grandson is still
amazing. Our friends are still just as much our friends. We still
live in the same house with the same furniture and the same cars in the
And when we turn on a TV set, every station has something on. If we
like what we see, we watch., If we don't, we change channels or turn the
TV off and do something else. Just like before the strike.
My conclusion, after reflecting on this? It is that nothing has changed
for us. And I'll bet that nothing has changed for you.
So if the writers want to strike, let them. We'll somehow live without
Jack Bauer's latest bad day and Jay Leno's latest joke about President
Bush. Life will go on just fine.
It would be good for Hollywood - writers, performers, executives, etc. - all
of them - to reflect on that a bit themselves.