June 29, 2007

  • Favorite Programs & Web Sites:

    This is the Kaptain’s list*
    of MUST-HAVE programs

    the best of the lot.

    Newest Additions

    JimmyR - Find that MP3!

    Alliance -  Peer to Peer file sharing & FREE! Very Simple!    

    Joost - Great new internet TV from the inventers of Kazaa and Skype.   This will revolutionize tv and entertainment as we know it.  The networks are in real trubble.

    Secureix - If you use bittorrent, you NEED this.  This is great!  Renders your pc’s ip# untraceable. Better than (and not) a proxy server!

     

    Media Players/Jukeboxes:

     

    KMPLayer – The best and simple media player, plays them all.  This is the bestest and simplist and completist for video content. 

    FooBar – The Nice and Easy and FREE!  This is the bestest and simplist and completist for Audio MP3′s.

      MPlayer – Free From SourceForge, good one,  plays them all.

    SkJukebox – Nice Arcade style jukebox for your Mame cabinet.  Plays MP3′s.

    MusicMatch by Yahoo -  Sure, some complain it’s bloatware,  but unlike the other super giant bloated media manager (Winamp), it don’t freeze up your pc every 5 minutes. For it’s  great supertagging ability alone, it’s worth it, especially if you have thousands of mp3′s.  Works flawlessly. Give it to Yahoo on this one.  But I’ll admit, I’ve recently switched to FooBar. 

    P2P/Bittorrent Clients & Sites:

    Alliance -  Peer to Peer file sharing & FREE! Very Simple!    

    Utorrent - Free and simple and light on resources.

    Peerguardian – MUST HAVE if you download from Bitorrent.  Blocks out the bad guys. FREE!

    Great Torrent Tracker Sites:

    Trader’s Den, Dimeadozen, Demonoid , Isohunt, BTJunkie,

    DigitalDistractions

    JimmyR - Find that MP3!

    Internet Radio:

    Midnite Radio - The Kaptain serves up the best just for you.  Uses Streamerp2p radio.

    Oddsock.org – oddcast DSP client for broadcasters.  Use standalone with MusicMatch Jukebox & you’re good to go.

    Jean Shepherd -  Millions of classic shows for FREE!

    Servers:

    WWWFileSharePro – A complete yet SIMPLE web server.  Easy & the best.

    PC Security:

    Nod32 – An effective virus tool.  You will need no other.

    Phone Service:

    Skype - Works Great for about 5 bux a month you have UNLIMITED calling through US & Canada & all the extras.  Why make the monopolies richer and pay all those Al Gore Connectivity fees & taxes?

    PCPhoneline - use to their adapter and software to hook up a regular landline phone to your pc and retain all the normal landline phone features.

    Zippers & Unzippers:

    7zip - One program that does it all.

    Remote Access:

    LogMeIn – A Free Account gives you 100% access to your pc (but not transfer of files).

    File Share Pro – For Complete File Transfer.

    Maxthon – FREE!  transfers files and controls your pc from anywhere.  Why Pay?

    Downloaders:

    Flashget - A great, simple and easy downloader.  Multiple downloads at once.

    Windows Operating Systems:

    Experience Xp – This modified version of XP (if you can find it) has everything you could possibly need, works flawlessly, and updates.

    Free Downloads Online:

    9 Down  – Free downloads usually with cracks.

    Soft 32 – http://www.soft32.com/

    ZeroPaid

    SoftPedia

    FileHippo

     

    Image Hosting:

    ImageShack – Here

    Bay Img – Pirate’s Bay Uncensored Hosting  Here

    DVD Stuff:

    DVD43 - Free decrypting program, easy as pie.

    *This list is incomplete and will be continually updated and added to.  Use utorrent & demonoid to get all these programs.

    Internet Tv

    Joost - Great new internet TV from the inventers of Kazaa and Skype.   This will revolutionize tv and entertainment as we know it.  The networks are in real trubble.

    TVexe - New, not as hot as joost but popular.

    Internet news:

    Doom9 – DVD burning info

    Afterdawn – Dvd Burning info.

    Slyck – Good stuff.

    Digg - Good stuff.

    BoingBoing – More of the same.

June 9, 2007

  • Top Albums Of All Time*

     (*According to the Kaptain):

    • Kinks – Muswell Hillbillies/Village Green Preservation Society (“It is 100 years out of its time — one way or the other.”)/Percy/Everybody’s In Showbiz.    
    • Johhny Thunders – LAMF/So Alone
    • Ronnie Lane – Anymore For Anymore/Slim Chance/See Me
    • Faces – Ooh La La
    • Jerry Lee Lewis – The Complete Palomino Club Recordings
    • Elton John – Friends/Tumbleweed Connection
    • Humble Pie – Eat It
    • Black Sabbath – Vol. 4
    • Dee Dee Ramone – I.C.L.C. EP 1994
    • The Cramps - Smell of Female
    • Ramones – Ramones/Ramones Leave Home, Rocket To Russia
    *List Still In Progress.
    Ok, let’s be honest, I got a Kinks bias.  So.  face it, they’ve put out more quality material than anybody and I could think of more of their lps to put on the list so don’t get me going.  If you think this ain’t so, then you most likely never listened to most of their stuff.

June 2, 2007

  • Environmental News:

    EXPERTS Finally Speaking Out

    AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING!!!

    “Gore Doesn’t Know What He’s Talking About”

    NEW ORLEANS — The top hurricane forecaster in the world called Al Gore “a gross alarmist” for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming and said “He’s one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he’s doing a great disservice and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” William Gray said in an interview Friday  (5/18/07) with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

    Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America’s most reliable hurricane forecaster.

    Gray’s statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.

    Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

    ************************************************

     Carbon Dioxide, Global Warming, and Storm Strength Not Linked!

    FORT LAUDERDALE – Major cuts in carbon emissions would hurt the nation’s economy and provide little or no environmental benefit, a top hurricane predictor said Friday.

    And there’s scant evidence that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases affect hurricane power or frequency, professor William Gray told an audience Friday, the final day of the Governor’s Hurricane Conference in Fort Lauderdale.

    More than 4,000 attended the three-day event.

    “I’ve seen a lot come and go, and I’ve been appalled at the last 20 years I’ve seen,” said Gray, 76, a professor at Colorado State University who pioneered seasonal hurricane prediction methods.

    “I think it’s grossly exaggerated,” Gray continued, speaking of recent global warming predictions. “With all the problems this country has to face, this is a problem that’s not as serious as they say, and we can’t do anything about it anyway. There’s nothing we can do. If we cut down massively in the U.S and Europe, it will make very little difference in global climate change.”

    While Gray is famous in Florida for his hurricane predictions, in the academic world, he has gained a reputation in the past decade as old-school maverick scientist who prefers observational data to modern computer modeling — and as an increasingly shrill critic of former Vice President Al Gore.

    Gray has ridiculed other scientists in the popular press, saying their computer models underestimate the potential cooling from increased rainfall under the heat-trapping “greenhouse effect,” which he acknowledges.

    The same scientists have conceded that climate predictions are imperfect. But they say Gray doesn’t grasp the sophistication of modern supercomputers that use much-improved data from satellite imagery.

    Some studies, including one by federal researchers and one by Kerry Emanuel at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have suggested that global warming could cause hurricanes to grow stronger than they otherwise would, leading to more Category 4 and 5 storms.

    But Gray said hurricane activity is driven more by a major Atlantic Ocean current called the thermohaline circulation. The circulation currently is in a stronger pattern of increased warming in the northern Atlantic, which creates periods of increased storm activity, Gray said.

    “It’s not global warming, it’s this local thermohaline circulation we think is causing it,” he said. “How long do we think it’s going to last? Probably about 15 to 20 years.”

    Gray and his understudy, Phil Klotzbach, stuck to their April prediction on Friday: 17 named storms, nine hurricanes, including five with winds greater than 110 mph. They will update the prediction May 31 and Aug. 3.

    Based on this year’s conditions and on landfall statistics from the past century, Klotzbach said the probability of a Category 3 or higher storm making landfall on America’s coastlline is 74 percent, compared with 52 percent over the past century. The chances for the U.S. East Coast, including Florida , are 50 percent, compared with 31 percent for the century.

    A trend of cooling Pacific Ocean water also could lead to the climate cycle called La Nina, they said, which creates less wind to shear tropical cyclones apart before they grow to hurricanes.

    “We think that’s likely to be the case this year,” Klotzbach said. “It appears we are trending towards a weak to moderate La Nina event this summer.”

    These natural cycles, especially the thermohaline circulation, have more influence on hurricanes than long-term increases in greenhouse gases, Gray said.

    “Things are not going to get worse, even though CO2 is going to build up,” he said. “I think the public has been misled. I don’t think you should worry we’re making storms worse.”

    Source Here

    May 18, 2007 6:39 pm US/Eastern

    ****************************

    People Not To Blame For Global Warming

    (CBS4) MIAMI Dr.William Gray is widely respected in the scientific community. He is a professor in the department of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and says it’s much too early to blame people for global warming.

    CBS-4′s Shomari Stone had a chance to talk to Dr. Gray at the Governor’s Hurricane Conference in Fort Lauderdale and asked him if he believes humans are the cause for global warming.

    “I think this is a natural cycle,” said Dr. Gray. “I’m not saying humans aren’t doing a little bit, but they’re certainly not the major cause of the climate change.”

    That’s quite a different stance from what Al Gore and some environmental groups like Greenpeace allege. They say humans are responsible for global warming through carbon dioxide and other green house gas emissions over the last 30 years.

    “How do they know that?” said Dr Gray. “Unless they have been working down in the trenches with weather for over 50 years like I have, most of my colleagues with similar experiences are very skeptical of the whole global warming.”

    The threat of global warming may be melting polar ice cap, resulting in a rise in sea levels, But Dr. Gray and a number of award winning climatologist’s believe the number of hurricanes is on a natural 30 year cycle, related to the deep ocean, circulation patterns, not global warming.

    “We have had this long 30-year cooling now from the middle to late 70′s,” said Dr. Gray. “The ocean, basic ocean current of the Atlantic Thermo Halen has changed and with a lag, I believe we are going to see some gradual global cooling as we saw from the middle 1940s to the middle 1970s.”

    Dr. Gray adds Al Gore, as well as some environmental groups and media outlets, are scaring people with the threats of global warming. .

    “It’s alarmism, but it makes good press,” claims Dr. Gray. “They think maybe its happening. This is in the good that we alarm people like this so they will cut down on their fossil fuels.

    At 77 years old, Dr. Gray is pleased to share his views on global warming, but he wishes the federal government would be as open minded and fair.

    “They don’t fund the skeptics. I have had trouble the last 15 years getting grant money because I have been well known as being a global warming skeptic, Said Dr. Gray. “They say that’s not the case, but I know it is.”

    Source Here

    NASA’S CHIEF Says:

    Global Warming Ain’t So!!!!!

    NASA CHIEF administrator Michael Griffin continues to draw the ire of preeminent climate scientists inside and outside of NASA, as well as members of Congress, after apparently downplaying the need to combat global warming.

    In an interview broadcast yesterday on National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition” program, Griffin was asked by NPR’s Steve Inskeep whether he is concerned about global warming.

    “I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists,” Griffin told Inskeep. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”

    “To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change,” Griffin said. “I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.”

    Griffin’s comments immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

    “It’s an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement,” Hansen told ABC News. “It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change.”

    Hansen believes Griffin’s comments fly in the face of well-established scientific knowledge that hundreds of NASA scientists have contributed to.

    “It’s unbelievable,” said Hansen. “I thought he had been misquoted. It’s so unbelievable.”

    Several other NASA climate scientists contacted by ABC News echoed Hansen’s comments, saying an overwhelming majority of their colleagues believe global warming is an urgent issue that society should be addressing. The scientists asked that their names not be used because they did not want to jeopardize their careers.

    Griffin’s comments also angered scientists outside of NASA.

    “I was shocked by the statement and I think the administrator ought to resign. I don’t see how he can be the effective leader of a science agency if he doesn’t understand the threat of global warming,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University atmospheric scientist and lead author of some of the latest reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The international body, made up of thousands of climate scientists is considered one of the most authoritative bodies on global warming.

    News media inquiries to NASA headquarters about Griffin’s comments prompted the space agency to make the unusual move of issuing a news release late Wednesday night.

    “NASA is the world’s preeminent organization in the study of Earth and the conditions that contribute to climate change and global warming,” Griffin said in a statement. “The agency is responsible for collecting data that is used by the science community and policy makers as part of an ongoing discussion regarding our planet’s evolving systems. It is NASA’s responsibility to collect, analyze and release information. It is not NASA’s mission to make policy regarding possible climate change mitigation strategies. As I stated in the NPR interview, we are proud of our role and I believe we do it well.”

    Source Here

    Inconvenient FACTS

    or

    Why Al Gore Is Full Of Shit!

        Hollywood & the Oscar’s make me sick, in fact nothing else makes me sicker. Over-Inflated Al Gore & millionaire movie star cronies living in extravagance telling me what I must do to save the environment. How smug. How benevolent. How convenient.  How arrogant they are, reinforcing their self-delusional superiority by telling us what we need to do (because we are too stoopid to live w/out their guidance) to save the world.    

       Why can’t we have politician’s like Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus  who recently said in The Washington Times, March 10, 2007, that ”global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. The IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment…other top-level politicians” do not express their global warming doubts because “a whip of political correctness strangles [their] voice.”  If you think Klaus is just some stoopid eastern european dictator, think again and read what he wrote about transforming his country out of 3rd worldism via the installation of a  free market economy here  http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n2/cj14n2-1.pdf, in the Cato Journal, Vol 4, #2, Fall 1994. 

        My suggestion to bloated Al Gore. First, let’s deal with all the extra weight his over-inflated body  is carrying around.   What about his “food footprint”?  He might wanna donate some of his caloric allowance to feed a small African nation or two. A diet might do him some good. You don’t’ need to be a doctor to tell that he’s on the fast track to a heart-attack anyway. Isn’t he eating more than his “fair share” (a clinton-gore slogan) of food anyway?   But he, and those like him, can tell us we need to cut out the transfats and force us to by making laws that tell private property owners (restaurant owners) what they can and can’t serve (transfatty oils) in their own restaurants.   Gore is more filled with hot air than our Co 2 filled globally over-heated atmosphere.  And if he, or anyone else don’t like certain fried foods (and you know Gore must), who the fudge is forcing them down their (or anyones) throats?  In otherwords, they dont’ have any self control, or don’t believe you have any, so they force rules and laws on the rest of us to assuage their guilt.  Why can’t grown adults decide for themselves what to eat or what to serve at their own restaurants?  Why?  Because Al Gore knows better, that is why. 

        And didn’t you just love the video playing behind Melissa Etheridge’s performance telling us that we should ride a bike to work.  Did any of these rich, arrogant asshole rock or movie stars ride their bikes to the Oscars instead of taking jets (a major waste of oil, since other more efficient means of transportation are readily available) and limos? Hasn’t anybody noticed that most of them have half a dozen or so fancy cars and one or two multi-million dollar houses, yet they have the nerve to tell me i need to set my thermostat lower? What arrogance. What horseshit. When they give up their luxuries (they ain’t living in log cabins at the end of dirt paths in the woods growing their own tomatoes fertilized with goat dung) I’ll think about trying to sacrifice some of my luxuries too, like the recommended lowering of 2 degrees on my thermostat from 70 to 68 degrees, when Melissa Etherige rides a bike to the Emmys or Oscar’s or whatever the heck the name of that crappy show was. 

        What about all the extra resources used and the pollution created in the production of all their fancy limos, extra cars, oversized mansions and swimming pools, jets and things that these *sswipes have no guilt over enjoying?  What about the waste and resources used in the creation of that stoopid show?  If this show wasn’t a waste then I dont’ know what is.   Why should the average American family that has one or two cars, one house of normal size and square footage have to conserve so the extra resources can be used (and pollution created) to allow the Gore-Set to take limos, fly around in jets, have multiple large (vacation) houses and pools and expensive cars?   The answer is obvious and President Klaus of the Czech Republic said it as well as anyone.

      ”Environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection, the global warming movement was just the latest environmental scare campaign, following on the short-lived fears of a population explosion in the 1970s and the expanding ozone hole in the 1980s.  They keep shooting at a moving target.  Behind the terminology is really an ambitious attempt to radically reorganize the world.”   .” Mr. Klaus said this in an address for the libertarian Cato Institute.

        The Czech president is right.  They want to control your lives in a very total and complete way, and this is the foot in the door, and they’ll use any excuse necessary.  The pattern has always been the same, create a crisis, get everyone scared, proclaim yourself the enlightened savior and use this as the excuse to seize power.  Remember “the beast” in the Lord of the Flies?  Remember WMD’s?  Remember only 10 years left of oil supplies in the 70′s?   Remember the red scare and the domino theory?  Remember Fascism?  That’s too far?  It is?  Did you read what Gore has done to intimidate opponents of his theories?  If not read on.  The fact is that this is nothing new, and that’s what’s so scary.

    “Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.”

    Petr Chylek
    (Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
    Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland’s glaciers are melting.
    (Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) at the…
     First International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice Age; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, sponsored by the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological Society, August 21-24, 2001.



    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us Yes, the divinity school dropout tells us to conserve energy while his gas and electric bills for his 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.  Make of this what you want, but let’s be real, Al Gore feels he’s an exception to the rules that he wants us all to follow. 

    Al Gore also has multiple natural gas lanterns in his yard, a large heated pool, and electric gates. In 2006 the Gores averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005.  

    [Source for the above is TennseePolicy.org .]

    Make what you want out of this information.  But the truth is that Al gore doesn’t exactly live by the rules he sets for others whether or not you feel that is fair.  Sure, the Gore people say that he buys “green” energy and that is more expensive (actually for Gore it isn’t as the figures from Gore’s power bill, reported by the AP, show Gore paying about 7.5 cents a kilowatt-hour – pretty much exactly what he’d be paying if he bought his juice from the big coal-fired plant up the road).  But does that account for a bill that is 20 times what the average family has?  And, did you know that Gore just happens to be the Chairman of the company from which he buys this “green” energy, Generation Investment Management?  So, he pays a bit more for his energy from a company in which he is heavily invested in, in essence buying the electricity from himself.    And what is “green” energy anyway?  Well, basically it means the company (and remember Gore is the chairman) gets it’s energy from some higher percentage of  solar, wind or hydroelectric sources and plants some trees (but Gore’s electric company is  NES, which gets its electricity from TVA, and  most of TVA’s electricity is from the fossil fuel and Co2 emitting coal).  Does this justify his excessive use of utilities?  Well, Gore still uses lots of energy and the fact that a higher percentage of his electricity comes from “renewable” resources than the average person does not excuse or change this fact.  His excessive use means he creates a shortage for others that in turn drives up the price.  Is he a hypocrite?  I’ll leave that up to you to decide, but he uses a hell of a lot more energy than the average family, whom he tells to conserve, does.





    Inconvenient FACTS:

    (Gathered by me with the sources at end of list)


    1.  Rises in CO2 and the activities of man DO NOT cause global warming.


    a. More Co2 does NOT lead to warming.  The global average rise in temperature is roughly one degree Celsius or less at equilibrium for a doubling of the air’s carbon dioxide concentration.That is meager warming for so profound a change in the air’s carbon dioxide content. Indeed, it is within the range of climate’s natural variability.(1) 


    b. Any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential. (2)


    c. The last ice age ended approximately 10,000 years ago. This was followed by a period of significant global warming that lasted —5,000 years. The average temperature in this time frame was 2 to 3 degrees Celsius HIGHER THAN WE FIND TODAY. (4)

    d.  A whole study showing a completely insignificant relationship between C02 and global warming can  be found here (  http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm ).  This research has numerous graphs of climate and Co2 rates documenting it’s findings.  It also has temperature and climate graphs showing the fact that NO WARMING has generally occured that can be significantly linked to the “unatural activities” of man. (12)

    e. Rises in CO2 FOLLOW rises in temperature.  An EXCELLENT presentation by Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, State Geologist and Director of the Kansas Geological Survey showing information gathered by Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2006 shows that spikes in CO2 in the atmosphere FOLLOW rises in the climate temperature, and DO NOT PRECEED it! (14)

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Find it Here —->

    http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Gerhard_Climate_Change.pdf or

    Here http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/index2.htm

    2. Global warming if it does exist, is most like the result of natural phenomenon.


    a. 98% of the Co2 put into the air is put there by NATURE. (3)


    b. In July 2004, the London Telegraph reported on a study by Swiss and German scientists suggesting increased radiation from the SUN – not human activity – was to blame for climate changes. (2)


    c. Twentieth century temperature changes show a strong correlation with the sun’s changing energy output. (1)
    d. The main greenhouse effect is natural and is caused by water vapor and clouds. (1)

    e. “Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.” (7)


    3.  Global Warming & GLOBAL COOLING has intemittantly and alternately been predicted repeatedly by the “experts” for over a century. (5)   Popular magazines like Time, Newsweek, Fortune and other magazines carried articles in the 1970′s that fortold of a coming ice age the result of manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun. (5)



    4.  Al Gore’s home electric bill is 20 times more than the average American household. (6)  

    Like it or not, it is what it is.  Draw your own conclusions. 

    5. TWO BILLION years of earth’s temperature (looks like we’re in a very COLD period):
    globaltemp2 (8)


    Earth’s temperature/climate over the last few THOUSANDS of years:
    (9)


    Last 100 Years of Earth’s temperature (not too many trends here):
    (9)

    The temperature has gone DOWN for the last last few decades:

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us (14)

    6. Scientists Do/Don’t Agree! 

    a. “The basic agreement frequently described as representing scientific unanimity concerning global warming is entirely consistent with there being virtually no problem at all.” and, “Intimidation has mostly, but not exclusively, been used against those questioning alarmism.” by none other than Al Gore. (9).

    b. One of the most heavily publicized “proof” of scientific consensus in the last decade concerning climate change has been the Oreskes Study [Oreskes, Naomi. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” Science Vol.306, 3 December 2004 Vol. 1686] as stated by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, when results of  a surveys used in these study are looked at IN DETAIL, they suggest just the OPPOSITE.  For example, one question on the survey asked “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?  This question had a  mean score of 3.62 (on a scale of 1 to 7 with 1=strongly agree and 7=strongly disagree).  THIS is NOT consensus especially when you find out that ONLY 9.4% of the respondents “strongly agree”. with that statement.  In other words, 10% is consensus as far as the Oreskes study has been represented. 

    Detailed results of the (above/Oreskes) study published in Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004 here .

    c. The letter about the above results sent to  Science Magazine that it refused to publish Here.

    d. Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus  recently said in The Washington Times, March 10, 2007, that ”global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so”.

    e.  During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition which states that “the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.” (12) 

    f. Opposition is suppressed.

    “A final aspect of politicization is the explicit intimidation of scientists. It is essential

    to discuss this unsavory subject – albeit briefly and incompletely. Intimidation has mostly,

    but not exclusively, been used against those questioning alarmism. Victims of such

    intimidation generally remain silent for reasons that will become evident. Thus, prior to

    1992, then Senator Gore ran at least two hearings in order to pressure scientists who

    questioned his views.” (13)

    g. “the theory of currently observed global atmospheric warming as a result of increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is a myth,” and  has “proved to be an enduring one.” Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology 50: 899-910. (14).

     

    Sources:

    1-Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and deputy directory of Mount Wilson Observatory, received her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in astrophysics from Harvard University.
    http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2002/march/default.htm


    2- Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html


    3- NASA
    http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.


    4.  Michael Heberling (heberl_m@corpfl.baker.edu) is president of the Baker College Center for Graduate Studies in Flint, Michigan. He is also on the Board of Scholars with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan.
    http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3059


    5. Newsweek, Time & Fortune Magazines.
    http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf
    http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html
     
    6-http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/

    7-Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia/NationalGeographic.com http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html

    8. Christopher R. Scotese, Univ. of Chicago 1976 – 1983 1985 (Ph.D.), Univ. of Tx. at Arlington Full Professor 2002-present, http://www.scotese.com/ScoteseCV.htm
    http://www.scotese.com/paleocli.htm

    9. RICHARD S. LINDZEN,
    Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf

    10. Bray, D. and Hans von Storch “The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change, 2003”

    Professor Dennis Bray, GKSS Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germanyhttp://w3g.gkss.de/G/mitarbeiter/bray/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf

    11. Benny J Peiser, Faculty of Science – Henry Cotton Campus – Liverpool John Moores University – 15-21 Webster Street – Liverpool L3 2ET UNITED KINGDOM – b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk – Phone: 0151 231 4338 Fax: 0151 231 4353 http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

    12. Petition Project
    PO Box 1925
    La Jolla CA 92038-1925
     .

    Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Rd., Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 info@oism.org

    George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K St., NW, Ste 905, Washington, DC 20006 info@marshall.org January 1998

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
    Much More Here  —> http://www.sitewave.net/news/

    Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s atmosphere and climate.

    Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth’s plant and animal life.

    Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

    Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.

    By the way, “The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition’s organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

    13. RICHARD S. LINDZEN,Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf

    14. Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2003. Global warming: are we confusing cause and effect? Energy Sources 25: 357-370.

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N48/C2.jsp

    *****************************************

    Real global warming charts and truths Here.

    Great article here  —> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams082901.asp

    If you see or read just one thing on Global warming, let this be it: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Gerhard_Climate_Change.pdf

    or here http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/index2.htm

    by Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, State Geologist and Director of the Kansas Geological Survey.

May 20, 2007

  • Political News:

    ronpaul

    Ron Paul, Our ONLY Hope!

    The Skinny:

    The ONLY GOP candidate who voted against the war….

    Rep. Ron Paul, the iconoclastic, nine-term lawmaker from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward a second, quixotic presidential bid _ this time as a Republican.

    In 1988, Paul was the Libertarian nominee for president and received more than 400,000 votes.

    Paul limits his view of the role of the federal government to those duties laid out in the Constitution. As a result, he sometimes casts votes at odds with his constituents and other Republicans.

    He was one of a handful of Republicans to vote in 2002 against giving President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq, contending that only Congress had the power to declare war. At times, he has voted against funds for the military.

    Paul bills himself as “The Taxpayers’ Best Friend,” and is routinely ranked either first or second in the House by the National Taxpayers Union, a national group advocating low taxes and limited government.

    More here.

    Speak on it here.

    source here.

    Ron Paul Vs. Rudy:

    5/15/2007

    Rudy Giuliani made clear in Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate that he is not ready to let the facts get in the way of his approach to foreign policy

    The most heated moment in the debate, which aired live on the conservative Fox News network, came when the former New York mayor and current GOP front-runner angrily refused to entertain a serious discussion about the role that actions taken by the United States prior to the September 11, 2OO1, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon may have played in inspiring or encouraging those attacks.

    Giuliani led the crowd of contenders on attacking Texas Congressman Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) after the anti-war Republican restated facts that are outlined in the report of the The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

    Asked about his opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Paul repeated his oft-expressed concern that instead of making the U.S. safer, U.S. interventions in the Middle East over the years have stirred up anti-American sentiment. As he did in the previous Republican debate, the Texan suggested that former President

    Ronald Reagan‘s decisions to withdraw U.S. troops from the region in the 198Os were wiser than the moves by successive Republican and Democratic presidents to increase U.S. military involvement there.

    Speaking of extremists who target the U.S, Paul said, “They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we’re building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.”

    Paul argued that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are “delighted that we’re over there” in Iraq, pointing out that, “They have already… killed 3,400 of our men and I don’t think it was necessary.”

    Giuliani, going for an applause line with a conservative South Carolina audience that was not exactly sympathetic with his support for abortion rights and other socially liberal positions, leapt on Paul’s remarks. Interrupting the flow of the debate, Giuliani declared, “That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.”

    The mayor, who is making his response to the 9-11 attacks on New York a central feature of his presidential campaign, was joined in the assault on Paul by many of the other candidates.

    But congressman did not back down, and for good reason. Unlike Giuliani, the Texan has actually read the record.

    The 9-11 Commission report detailed how bin Laden had, in 1996, issued “his self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia” and identified that declaration and another in 1998 as part of “a long series” of statements objecting to U.S. military interventions in his native Saudi Arabia in particular and the Middle East in general. Statements from bin Laden and those associated with him prior to 9-11 consistently expressed anger with the U.S. military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people and U.S. support of Israel.

    The 9-11 Commission based its assessments on testimony from experts on terrorism and the Middle East. Asked about the motivations of the terrorists, FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald told the commission: “I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States.”

    Fitzgerald’s was not a lonely voice in the intelligence community.

    Michael Scheuer, the former Central Intelligence Agency specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, has objected to simplistic suggestions by President Bush and others that terrorists are motivated by an ill-defined irrational hatred of the United States. “The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people,” Scheuer said in a CNN interview. “We’re being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there’s a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people.”

    It is true that reasonable people might disagree about the legitimacy of Muslim and Arab objections to U.S. military policies. And, certainly, the vast majority of Americans would object to any attempt to justify the attacks on this country, its citizen and its soldiers.

    But that was not what Paul was doing. He was trying to make a case, based on what we know from past experience, for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.

    Giuliani’s reaction to Paul’s comments, especially the suggestion that they should be withdrawn, marked him as the candidate peddling “absurd explanations.”

    Viewers of the debate appear to have agreed. An unscientific survey by Fox News asked its viewers to send text messages identifying the winner. Tens of thousands were received and Paul ranked along with Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as having made the best showing.

    No wonder then that, when asked about his dust-up with Giuliani, Paul said he’d be “delighted” to debate the front-runner on foreign policy.

    Source Here

    ********************************************************

    Guiliani, A BIT CONFUSED!

    Last night in the Republican presidential debate, Rudy Giuliani was asked if he had an “ open-ended ” commitment to Iraq. He failed to directly answer the question, and instead advocated staying in Iraq in order to fight terrorists there so we don’t have to fight them here. He referenced the foiled Fort Dix terrorist plot as an example. Giuliani said, “These people do want to follow us here and they have followed us here. Fort Dix happened a week ago .”

    Giuliani’s claim that the Fort Dix terrorists are an example of why we need to stay in Iraq is extremely flawed. As TalkLeft noted , the individuals arrested at Fort Dix had been in the United States well before the Iraq war, some of them for more than 23 years.

    After the debate, Giuliani went on Fox, where Alan Colmes pressed him on this point. “Three of the brothers came when they were one and six and in single digits chronologically. They didn’t come here to commit jihad. They came here when they were kids . They grew up in the United States,” Colmes said. Flummoxed by the question, Giuliani visibly stuttered and could only offer, “This whole thing is a tremendous danger for us, abroad and here.”

    Click Here to Watch Vvideo Compilation

    Giuliani also said last night, “These people [al Qaeda terrorists] came here and killed us because of our freedom of religion, because of our freedom for women, because they hate us. … The reality is, if you are confused about this , I think you put our country in much greater jeopardy.” Sadly, it is Giuliani who is confused in his diagnosis about the root cause of terrorism.

    Counterrorism expert Michael Scheuer has correctly noted :

    Osama doesn’t hate our freedom: The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that ‘Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do.’ Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It’s American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaida, not American culture and society.

    Source Here.

    ***************************************

    Guiliani caught in BIG lie!


    May 30, 2007


    On Tuesday, members of a 911 truth activist group confronted former Mayor Rudy Giuliani at a New York fundraiser about the fall of the World Trade Center.

    “How come people in the buildings weren’t notified?” asked one member of the group. “And how can you sleep at night?”

    Giuliani’s politely-phrased response, caught by WNBC newscameras filming the event, was “I didn’t know that the towers were going to collapse.”

    That response contradicts remarks the former New York City mayor made about being warned about the collapse during a phone interview with onetime ABC anchor Peter Jennings on September 11, 2001, as shown in a transcript WNBC obtained from the Giuliani 2008 campaign.

    Giuliani told Jennings, “I–I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.”

    The following video from We Are Change and Infowars.com juxtaposes the two quotes.

    ********************************************************

    Ron Paul Place FIRST on Fox News Poll!!!!!

     5/15/2007

    Approx. 11pm ET.

    Sean Hannity announce that RON PAUL placed FIRST in a Fox News Poll of Republican candidates with a whopping 30% of the vote!

    ***************************************

    Thank You, Ron Paul

    Ron Paul, a Republican congressman running for president, is saying what needs to be said about the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq war. Clearly, his rivals and the news media can’t handle the truth.

    At the most recent Republican debate, Paul not only repeated his opposition to the illegal and unconstitutional war, but he also identified 50 years of U.S. intervention in the Middle East as “a major contributing factor” in al-Qaeda’s attacks in 2001.

    “Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack[ed] us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East,” Paul said.

    Paul thus becomes the first person in mainstream politics–he’s been in Congress many years–to acknowledge that U.S. foreign policy has had bad consequences not only for people in the Middle East but for Americans at home as well. A government cannot take sides in so many deep-seated conflicts for as long as the U.S. government has without acquiring enemies and provoking retaliation.

    It doesn’t take much knowledge of history and human nature–not to mention the official 9/11 Commission report–to see this. It’s about time it was said in such a prominent forum.

    Of course, the reaction was stunningly absurd.

    FOX News questioner Wendell Goler asked Paul a stunningly absurd and disingenuous follow-up question.

    FOX News questioner Wendell Goler said in follow-up, “Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?”

    Let’s examine the question. To invite something is to desire the thing invited. Paul suggested no such thing. And who is “we”? Goler’s question implies that Paul was saying the American people or “America” invited the attacks. But Paul was talking about American policymakers, not the American people. So the question was way off the mark and may have been an attempt to bait Paul.

    He wouldn’t take the bait. “I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it,” he said. In other words, the people who masterminded the attack did not say they did it because we Americans are rich or free or non-Muslim. Their grievances relate to systematic U.S. intervention in the region: in particular, the presence of troops near holy sites in Saudi Arabia; a 10-year bombing campaign and killer embargo on Iraq (beginning in 1991), which cost hundreds of thousands of lives; and support for Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

    Rudolph Giuliani, also running for the nomination, responded demagogically, “That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq…. I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.”

    “If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred,” said Congressman Paul, “then we have a problem.”

    Of course, Paul never said “we invited the attack.” And he didn’t back down under Giuliani’s grandstanding: “I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about ‘blowback.’ When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.”

    In saying “blowback,” Paul was using the CIA’s term for the unintended bad consequences of a government operation. He specifically mentioned Iran in 1953, when the Eisenhower administration sent the CIA to help drive an elected secular prime minister from office and return the despotic shah to power. The result was the 1979 Islamic revolution, the seizure of the American embassy, complete with hostages, and close to 30 years of hostility, with war perhaps to come.

    U.S. imperialist polices in the Middle East have been good for special interests and power-loving politicians, but bad for the American people. Someone in government has finally had the courage to say so.

    Thank you, Ron Paul.


    Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation and editor of The Freeman magazine.

    Source:

May 3, 2007

  • You Can Have The General Lee!

    Act Quick, and bid now!!!!

    generallee

     

     

  • Email I Recently Got…

    Please, Show your support!


    I usually don’t pass along these “add your name” lists that appear in my email, but this one is too important. This one has been circulating for months.
     
    I beg of you to please, keep it going!


    To show your support for Hillary and encourage her on her run for President of the United States in 2008, please add your name to the rapidly growing list below and send it on to your entire list.


    1.Bill
    2.Chelesa
    3.

April 18, 2007

  • Imus, Sharpton, Jackson & Yogi.

    “Nappy-headed ho’s”  – Don Imus referring to the Rutgers Women’s basketball team.

    “White folks was in caves while we was building empires…We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” – Al Sharpton

    “Hymie-Town” – Jesse Jackson referring to NYC.

    “Whitey” – Yogi bear talking to a polar bear.

    More Here

April 12, 2007

  • Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”Invonvenient FACTSAl Gore Don’t Want You To Know

        Hollywood & the Oscar’s make me sick, in fact nothing else makes me sicker. Over-Inflated Al Gore & millionaire movie star cronies living in extravagance telling me what I must do to save the environment. How smug. How benevolent. How convenient.  How arrogant they are, reinforcing their self-delusional superiority by telling us what we need to do (because we are too stoopid to live w/out their guidance) to save the world.    

       Why can’t we have politician’s like Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus  who recently said in The Washington Times, March 10, 2007, that ”global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. The IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment…other top-level politicians” do not express their global warming doubts because “a whip of political correctness strangles [their] voice.”  If you think Klaus is just some stoopid eastern european dictator, think again and read what he wrote about transforming his country out of 3rd worldism via the installation of a  free market economy here  http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n2/cj14n2-1.pdf, in the Cato Journal, Vol 4, #2, Fall 1994. 

        My suggestion to bloated Al Gore. First, let’s deal with all the extra weight his over-inflated body  is carrying around.   What about his “food footprint”?  He might wanna donate some of his caloric allowance to feed a small African nation or two. A diet might do him some good. You don’t’ need to be a doctor to tell that he’s on the fast track to a heart-attack anyway. Isn’t he eating more than his “fair share” (a clinton-gore slogan) of food anyway?   But he, and those like him, can tell us we need to cut out the transfats and force us to by making laws that tell private property owners (restaurant owners) what they can and can’t serve (transfatty oils) in their own restaurants.   Gore is more filled with hot air than our Co 2 filled globally over-heated atmosphere.  And if he, or anyone else don’t like certain fried foods (and you know Gore must), who the fudge is forcing them down their (or anyones) throats?  In otherwords, they dont’ have any self control, or don’t believe you have any, so they force rules and laws on the rest of us to assuage their guilt.  Why can’t grown adults decide for themselves what to eat or what to serve at their own restaurants?  Why?  Because Al Gore knows better, that is why. 

        And didn’t you just love the video playing behind Melissa Etheridge’s performance telling us that we should ride a bike to work.  Did any of these rich, arrogant asshole rock or movie stars ride their bikes to the Oscars instead of taking jets (a major waste of oil, since other more efficient means of transportation are readily available) and limos? Hasn’t anybody noticed that most of them have half a dozen or so fancy cars and one or two multi-million dollar houses, yet they have the nerve to tell me i need to set my thermostat lower? What arrogance. What horseshit. When they give up their luxuries (they ain’t living in log cabins at the end of dirt paths in the woods growing their own tomatoes fertilized with goat dung) I’ll think about trying to sacrifice some of my luxuries too, like the recommended lowering of 2 degrees on my thermostat from 70 to 68 degrees, when Melissa Etherige rides a bike to the Emmys or Oscar’s or whatever the heck the name of that crappy show was. 

        What about all the extra resources used and the pollution created in the production of all their fancy limos, extra cars, oversized mansions and swimming pools, jets and things that these *sswipes have no guilt over enjoying?  What about the waste and resources used in the creation of that stoopid show?  If this show wasn’t a waste then I dont’ know what is.   Why should the average American family that has one or two cars, one house of normal size and square footage have to conserve so the extra resources can be used (and pollution created) to allow the Gore-Set to take limos, fly around in jets, have multiple large (vacation) houses and pools and expensive cars?   The answer is obvious and President Klaus of the Czech Republic said it as well as anyone.

      ”Environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection, the global warming movement was just the latest environmental scare campaign, following on the short-lived fears of a population explosion in the 1970s and the expanding ozone hole in the 1980s.  They keep shooting at a moving target.  Behind the terminology is really an ambitious attempt to radically reorganize the world.”   .” Mr. Klaus said this in an address for the libertarian Cato Institute.

        The Czech president is right.  They want to control your lives in a very total and complete way, and this is the foot in the door, and they’ll use any excuse necessary.  The pattern has always been the same, create a crisis, get everyone scared, proclaim yourself the enlightened savior and use this as the excuse to seize power.  Remember “the beast” in the Lord of the Flies?  Remember WMD’s?  Remember only 10 years left of oil supplies in the 70′s?   Remember the red scare and the domino theory?  Remember Fascism?  That’s too far?  It is?  Did you read what Gore has done to intimidate opponents of his theories?  If not read on.  The fact is that this is nothing new, and that’s what’s so scary.

    “Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.”

    Petr Chylek
    (Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
    Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland’s glaciers are melting.
    (Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) at the…
     First International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice Age; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, sponsored by the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological Society, August 21-24, 2001.



    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us Yes, the divinity school dropout tells us to conserve energy while his gas and electric bills for his 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.  Make of this what you want, but let’s be real, Al Gore feels he’s an exception to the rules that he wants us all to follow. 

    Al Gore also has multiple natural gas lanterns in his yard, a large heated pool, and electric gates. In 2006 the Gores averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005.  

    [Source for the above is TennseePolicy.org .]

    Make what you want out of this information.  But the truth is that Al gore doesn’t exactly live by the rules he sets for others whether or not you feel that is fair.  Sure, the Gore people say that he buys “green” energy and that is more expensive (actually for Gore it isn’t as the figures from Gore’s power bill, reported by the AP, show Gore paying about 7.5 cents a kilowatt-hour – pretty much exactly what he’d be paying if he bought his juice from the big coal-fired plant up the road).  But does that account for a bill that is 20 times what the average family has?  And, did you know that Gore just happens to be the Chairman of the company from which he buys this “green” energy, Generation Investment Management?  So, he pays a bit more for his energy from a company in which he is heavily invested in, in essence buying the electricity from himself.    And what is “green” energy anyway?  Well, basically it means the company (and remember Gore is the chairman) gets it’s energy from some higher percentage of  solar, wind or hydroelectric sources and plants some trees (but Gore’s electric company is  NES, which gets its electricity from TVA, and  most of TVA’s electricity is from the fossil fuel and Co2 emitting coal).  Does this justify his excessive use of utilities?  Well, Gore still uses lots of energy and the fact that a higher percentage of his electricity comes from “renewable” resources than the average person does not excuse or change this fact.  His excessive use means he creates a shortage for others that in turn drives up the price.  Is he a hypocrite?  I’ll leave that up to you to decide, but he uses a hell of a lot more energy than the average family, whom he tells to conserve, does.





    Inconvenient FACTS:

    (Gathered by me with the sources at end of list)


    1.  Rises in CO2 and the activities of man DO NOT cause global warming.


    a. More Co2 does NOT lead to warming.  The global average rise in temperature is roughly one degree Celsius or less at equilibrium for a doubling of the air’s carbon dioxide concentration.That is meager warming for so profound a change in the air’s carbon dioxide content. Indeed, it is within the range of climate’s natural variability.(1) 


    b. Any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential. (2)


    c. The last ice age ended approximately 10,000 years ago. This was followed by a period of significant global warming that lasted —5,000 years. The average temperature in this time frame was 2 to 3 degrees Celsius HIGHER THAN WE FIND TODAY. (4)

    d.  A whole study showing a completely insignificant relationship between C02 and global warming can  be found here (  http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm ).  This research has numerous graphs of climate and Co2 rates documenting it’s findings.  It also has temperature and climate graphs showing the fact that NO WARMING has generally occured that can be significantly linked to the “unatural activities” of man. (12)

    e. Rises in CO2 FOLLOW rises in temperature.  An EXCELLENT presentation by Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, State Geologist and Director of the Kansas Geological Survey showing information gathered by Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2006 shows that spikes in CO2 in the atmosphere FOLLOW rises in the climate temperature, and DO NOT PRECEED it! (14)

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Find it Here —->

    http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Gerhard_Climate_Change.pdf or

    Here http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/index2.htm

    2. Global warming if it does exist, is most like the result of natural phenomenon.


    a. 98% of the Co2 put into the air is put there by NATURE. (3)


    b. In July 2004, the London Telegraph reported on a study by Swiss and German scientists suggesting increased radiation from the SUN – not human activity – was to blame for climate changes. (2)


    c. Twentieth century temperature changes show a strong correlation with the sun’s changing energy output. (1)
    d. The main greenhouse effect is natural and is caused by water vapor and clouds. (1)

    e. “Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.” (7)


    3.  Global Warming & GLOBAL COOLING has intemittantly and alternately been predicted repeatedly by the “experts” for over a century. (5)   Popular magazines like Time, Newsweek, Fortune and other magazines carried articles in the 1970′s that fortold of a coming ice age the result of manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun. (5)



    4.  Al Gore’s home electric bill is 20 times more than the average American household. (6)  

    Like it or not, it is what it is.  Draw your own conclusions. 

    5. TWO BILLION years of earth’s temperature (looks like we’re in a very COLD period):
    globaltemp2 (8)


    Earth’s temperature/climate over the last few THOUSANDS of years:
    (9)


    Last 100 Years of Earth’s temperature (not too many trends here):
    (9)

    The temperature has gone DOWN for the last last few decades:

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us (14)

    6. Scientists Do/Don’t Agree! 

    a. “The basic agreement frequently described as representing scientific unanimity concerning global warming is entirely consistent with there being virtually no problem at all.” and, “Intimidation has mostly, but not exclusively, been used against those questioning alarmism.” by none other than Al Gore. (9).

    b. One of the most heavily publicized “proof” of scientific consensus in the last decade concerning climate change has been the Oreskes Study [Oreskes, Naomi. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” Science Vol.306, 3 December 2004 Vol. 1686] as stated by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, when results of  a surveys used in these study are looked at IN DETAIL, they suggest just the OPPOSITE.  For example, one question on the survey asked “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?  This question had a  mean score of 3.62 (on a scale of 1 to 7 with 1=strongly agree and 7=strongly disagree).  THIS is NOT consensus especially when you find out that ONLY 9.4% of the respondents “strongly agree”. with that statement.  In other words, 10% is consensus as far as the Oreskes study has been represented. 

    Detailed results of the (above/Oreskes) study published in Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004 here .

    c. The letter about the above results sent to  Science Magazine that it refused to publish Here.

    d. Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus  recently said in The Washington Times, March 10, 2007, that ”global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so”.

    e.  During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition which states that “the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.” (12) 

    f. Opposition is suppressed.

    “A final aspect of politicization is the explicit intimidation of scientists. It is essential

    to discuss this unsavory subject – albeit briefly and incompletely. Intimidation has mostly,

    but not exclusively, been used against those questioning alarmism. Victims of such

    intimidation generally remain silent for reasons that will become evident. Thus, prior to

    1992, then Senator Gore ran at least two hearings in order to pressure scientists who

    questioned his views.” (13)

    g. “the theory of currently observed global atmospheric warming as a result of increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is a myth,” and  has “proved to be an enduring one.” Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology 50: 899-910. (14).

     

    Sources:

    1-Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and deputy directory of Mount Wilson Observatory, received her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in astrophysics from Harvard University.
    http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2002/march/default.htm


    2- Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html


    3- NASA
    http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.


    4.  Michael Heberling (heberl_m@corpfl.baker.edu) is president of the Baker College Center for Graduate Studies in Flint, Michigan. He is also on the Board of Scholars with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan.
    http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3059


    5. Newsweek, Time & Fortune Magazines.
    http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf
    http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html
     
    6-http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/

    7-Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia/NationalGeographic.com http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html

    8. Christopher R. Scotese, Univ. of Chicago 1976 – 1983 1985 (Ph.D.), Univ. of Tx. at Arlington Full Professor 2002-present, http://www.scotese.com/ScoteseCV.htm
    http://www.scotese.com/paleocli.htm

    9. RICHARD S. LINDZEN,
    Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf

    10. Bray, D. and Hans von Storch “The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change, 2003”

    Professor Dennis Bray, GKSS Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germanyhttp://w3g.gkss.de/G/mitarbeiter/bray/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf

    11. Benny J Peiser, Faculty of Science – Henry Cotton Campus – Liverpool John Moores University – 15-21 Webster Street – Liverpool L3 2ET UNITED KINGDOM – b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk – Phone: 0151 231 4338 Fax: 0151 231 4353 http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

    12. Petition Project
    PO Box 1925
    La Jolla CA 92038-1925
     .

    Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Rd., Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 info@oism.org

    George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K St., NW, Ste 905, Washington, DC 20006 info@marshall.org January 1998

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
    Much More Here  —> http://www.sitewave.net/news/

    Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s atmosphere and climate.

    Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth’s plant and animal life.

    Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

    Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.

    By the way, “The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition’s organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

    13. RICHARD S. LINDZEN,Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf

    14. Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2003. Global warming: are we confusing cause and effect? Energy Sources 25: 357-370.

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N48/C2.jsp

    *****************************************

    Real global warming charts and truths Here.

    Great article here  —> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams082901.asp

    If you see or read just one thing on Global warming, let this be it: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Gerhard_Climate_Change.pdf

    or here http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/index2.htm

    by Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, State Geologist and Director of the Kansas Geological Survey.

March 16, 2007

  • The Police

    I am not a lawyer but this should work:

    1.  all you have to do is provide documentation (reg, ins. card, and license) and,

    2. possibly provide name (they can use pretense of reasonable suspicion to establish grounds for demanding it), but technically you don’t even have to give your name and you never have to give your name on the street when asked (only in the car as on the street you can simply walk away and they can’t do anything to you).

    3.  that’s it.

    4. the thing to do is to ONLY provide documents when asked and to automatically say the following “i don’t wish to be detained, to discuss my affairs, nor consent to searches, am i free to go?” at this point the officers can ONLY run your plate, license, reg and insurance card (and your record) and then that is it, they must let you go unless they already have enough to make the arrest which they don’t, if they’ve tried to asked you questions.  See, you’ve established that you do not wish to talk or consent, and at that point any decision to arrest must be made with the evidence already gathered.  To detain or question you further is a violation of your fourth and fifth amendements rights since you’ve established that you wish to leave.  So NEVER answer questions, YOU DON’T HAVE TO but most people don’t realize that.  So, at a stop or checkpoint when they say where are you coming from, you go right to the “i don’t wished to be detained…” statement and at that point they can only run your documents and must make a decision based soley on evidence at that point.  There is no reason to offer them more.