Global Warming is coming to a city near you at least after 2009-- http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0837368420070809?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true
Climate experts have long predicted a general warming trend over the 21st century spurred by the greenhouse effect, but this new study gets more specific about what is likely to happen in the decade that started in 2005.
To make this kind of prediction, researchers at Britain's Met Office -- which deals with meteorology -- made a computer model that takes into account such natural phenomena as the El Nino pattern in the Pacific Ocean and other fluctuations in ocean circulation and heat content. A forecast of the next decade is particularly useful, because climate could be dominated over this period by these natural changes, rather than human-caused global warming, study author Douglas Smith said by telephone.
This reminds me of the financial models we would make during my career as an Accountant. Weeks are spent formulating and revising financial models that forecast next fiscal year's profit and loss, then budget meetings take place. As the CFO and other principals ponder the numbers on said budget, they determine that profitability needs to be increased. In a flurry to meet budget requirements, we begin to revise our models. Assumptions are changed; a variable is changed here and a variable is changed there and voila - we have now reached our profitability goals. CFO is satisfied. Nevermind that the profit goals we set out for ourselfs are unattainable - if worse comes to worse, we will adjust the financials to meet set criteria at the end of the fiscal year.
Auditors will ask questions, and we always have the right answers.
With all the grants needed to come up with a global warming scenario, I wonder what assumptions, the so-called climatologists need to change to reach their predetermined conclusions? Hmmm - Am I being too presumptious? maybe a bit skeptical?
Let's have a global warming pool, (something like a football pool), and we can make bets on whether their predictions are accurate, especially given the fact we can't seem to predict the weather more than a week in advance.
The real heat will start after 2009, they said.
Until then, the natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide
The sages of the Global Warming Swindle have somehow determined that we have until 2009 before things start heating up. There are people who really believe this stuff. That is what's incredible.
More for all you lefties here http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
For more check out Michelle Malkin http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/
Whose idea was it to have a GOP debate at 8:00 AM in the morning? - And on a Sunday morning. Doesn't anyone know Republicans go to church? There must have been a total of two people watching it, maybe three. I was one of them. In fact, I woke up exactly at 8:00 AM; I turned over, grabbed the remote and turned on the television. My wife didn’t even wake up – so that was good, because she would have told me to turn it off. I am sure, in the next few days, we will hear various sound bytes from the debate, and most people will say “What debate?”
Was it just my impression that the GOP debate doesn’t come off as quite as silly as the Democratic debate. I mean we saw no Snowman talking about global warming, and no crazed lunatic with an AK-47. I actually thought George Stephanopoulos did a good job moderating. ABC only showed three videos in the entire debate as opposed to all the half-witted questions posed by the Youtubers in the Democratic debate. I was very disappointed my question was not posed which had made the first cut on i-caught. But I guess when the network only shows three videos, chances are slim they will choose yours.
I digress. So, why is global warming such a hot (no pun intended) topic with the Democrats and not a hot topic with Republicans (it wasn’t even mentioned.) The reason is this – Global warming is a fraud. Here is the question I posed which made it in ABC's first cut.
Some other frauds which have been perpetrated, and have been found out to be frauds from the Democratic side of the aisle
Paul Ehrlich – The population bomb http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/people/paul-ehrlich/
Global Cooling - http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Eugenics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
I would add to the list evolution, but I won’t. I will stop with the few I mentioned.
Back to the debate -
I understand the American people want change. Change to me is returning to our conservative principles. Bush was never and has never been a true conservative albeit he is better than anything the Democrats have ever had to offer. When you watch the Democratic debate and then the Republican debate, is there any question that the Republicans would continue to grow the economy and continue the war on terror? The Democrats talk about raising taxes and withdrawing from Iraq, (a defeatist approach). They have yet to take “Economics 101” to see why raising taxes stifles growth (they should just make a trip to Europe), and the Democrats also fail to understand that if we were to withdraw from Iraq, the enemy would look at it as a victory, and such a perceived defeat would only embolden radical Islam. As Guliani pointed out, the Democrats don’t even mention “Islamic terrorism.” I will feel much safer with the Republicans in power.
And what is that guy with the first two names again Paul Ron, Ron Paul still doing on the podium. He talks like a Democrat, and he must have used the word neocon about 100 times. Have you ever noticed that when sites such as the drudge report create a poll asking who won the GOP debate, Ron Paul is always the winner http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/popup?id=3436820&POLL299=1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 . As of this writing, he has over 17,000 votes on the Drudge Report with Mitt Romney second at under 3000 votes.. It happened in the last debate on KSFO’s Melanie Morgan’s website too. I can say that Ron Paul has one thing going for him. He has a loyal following that just sits at the computer all day and votes for him. I think Ron Paul’s disciples need a life.
I don’t think abortion is going to be much of an issue this go round, but I do think Mitt Romney needs to get a better answer. I thought Brownback and Romney were going to have a fist fight over Romney’s change of position on the issue of abortion. Romney didn’t defend his position very well, and later in the debate, he said he felt the one area he thought he made a mistake was when he was running for governor of Massachusetts, he was pro-choice. It left me the impression that he was always pro-life, but he only changed his position for political reasons. I wonder if anyone else had the same impression.
Tancredo actually wanted to blow up Mecca and Medina. All I can say is this – if we didn’t have the entire Muslim world gunning for us now, we would after we blew up the two most holiest shrines in the Muslim world. And that came from a candidate other than Ron Paul. I thought Ron Paul was the only wacko up there – I guess not.
When Thompson was done speaking about breast cancer, it sounded like his entire family had it. If that is true, it is definitely a tragedy, but when he then said he would cure breast cancer by 2010, he just sounded like an idiot.
Last week, Obama handed Hillary the Democratic nomination when he said he would withdraw from Iraq, talk to our enemies and invade our allies, which means he would invade another sovereign nation. I thought invading sovereign nations was anathema to the Democrats. I wasn’t sure at first if Guliani agreed with Obama, but he sure didn’t make it clear. Mitt Romney was able to explain why Obama’s position was just plain ridiculous. Will Obama lose his star power now? Will he get booed by the Daily Kos? One can only wait and see.
Why is it that in every other presidential election, I knew who I was going to vote for from the start and why. But, with this current crop of candidates, it is still a tossup. McCain is not even a blip on my screen. Guliani is the one I am looking at albeit somewhat reluctantly. He is also the one I thought who won the debate.
Voy a hacer el intento de cantar unas canciones (dos en español y una en ingles.) Es increíble esta tecnología - ¿Creen que estoy listo para “American Idol.?”
Here I am putting forth the effort to sing a few songs (two in Spanish, one in English.) Isn’t this technology great? Do you think I am ready for “American Idol?”
Mis interpretaciones de Volveré por Diego Verdaguer (aquí presento a mi hija)
Sunday August the 5th, the next Republican Debate by ABC NEWS will commence. I know you are saying, "Oh no, not another one!!" I have sent in a couple of videos with questions I have, and I thought I would post them here. I have posted two questions; the first one is on global warming and the second is on nuclear power. Not sure why I moved around so much. It's not easy to make a video. Will they choose one of my videos? :)
You might recognize this copycat French game program from "Who wants to be a millionaire." Press play to watch the show - don't worry if you do not understand French, it's subtitled.
The question is what revolves around the earth? As the contestant pondered the question for several minutes, he decided to ask for assistance from the audience. More than half of the audience believed the sun revolved around the Earth. The contestant decided to go with the audience. Yeap - its the sun that revolves around Earth. This game show must have been recorded in the 16th century, because it was Copernicus who theorized the sun not the earth was the center of the universe, but he forgot to tell the French. I wonder how many Americans still think the Earth is the center of the universe.
Winston Churchill said, ""The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
Nothing could be truer than Churchill's prescient foresight when watching this game show.
The game show "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" should be dumbed down to maybe second grade. Fifth grade may be too high for the average person.
And these are the people who are electing our leaders.
I was hopefully looking to Fred Thompson as the great white hope to the Republican party. Well, as of today his hiring Spencer Abraham as campaign manager just put my support for him extremely in doubt. He says he is for border security, strong on the war on terror, and then he hires a man like Spencer Abraham - read about him here http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/07/jihad_fred_fred.html .
Who a candidate puts on his team tells much about the candidate himself. I may have to go with Guliani.
And then he might recycle McCain's staffers http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/09/report-fred-may-pick-up-mccains-leftovers/
Mark http://mark24609.blogspot.com/
Juventud, divino tesoro, ¡ya te vas para no volver! Ruben Dario
Last night youtube joined CNN for the Democratic freak show of the week. For the first time, we were given the opportunity to watch the youtubers (the average mentally deficient Democrat) ask the most illiterate of questions from a guitar toting musician (the best of the youtubers) singing about paying too much taxes to a snowman asking about global warming. As usual the Democrats gave the same mundane Democratic talking points. However, there were a few things new in this debate. We learned the word “terrorism” was never mentioned. In fact, it was never mentioned in the other two debates either, but global warming was a hot topic. Immigration was not mentioned either. It is scary to think that Hillary has a definite chance of winning this election. If we were to learn anything from the debate, we learned we are heading the way of Socialist Europe.
Pajamasmedia.com in his live blogging puts it succinctly:
5:52pm We’re in a dead spot, so I’m going to throw one more question out there that I’d like to ask. “It’s 9/11/2001. Airplanes have just flown into buildings, killing thousands. What do you do? Do you take command? Or do you sing ‘God Bless America’ on the Capitol steps, then spend the next six years bitching about the guy who’s trying to do something about it?”
And now a few observations…..
Does Hillary like the word liberal? No, she prefers the word “Progressive.” She states she is a modern progressive. "Liberal," Clinton lamented, "has been turned on its head." She continued to explain how the word "Liberal" has taken on a negative tone meaning "big government." This, of course, is from a lady who wants to socialize health care. One only needs to look at Europe or Canada or maybe Michael Moore’s Cuba to see what a debacle socialized health care will do to the United States. Or a little closer to home, one need only take a gander down to the local Medi-Cal clinic and see how long people have to wait to see a doctor. I would recommend not planning anything for the day. Hillary calls her health care plan Universal Health Care http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/. If it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. Changing liberal to progressive or Socialized Medicine to Universal Health Care doesn’t change who Hillary really is, a European Socialist.
Hillary lists ten issues on her website www.hillaryclinton.com and doesn’t even mention terrorism. Do I feel safer now?
I mentioned the Snowman who asked about global warming. What a concept! In the Early 70s, they would have used a Sun since the argument was global cooling.
In response to the global warming question, Kucinich, the wag of the evening, made a funny and said, “We have to understand the difference between Global Warring and Global Warming” Huh? And then he said we need to go away from oil and begin using alternative energy sources, and then we won’t have to worry about the snowman melting. Kucinich is out to lunch.
We heard all kinds of statements using alternative energy sources from wind (kills birds) to solar, but no one ever mentioned drilling for oil in our own backyard. They are finding more oil in Mexico, Australia, and Russia to name a few, but the wackos in the environmental movement have prevented us from drilling anywhere in the United States.
Someone actually asked a question about Nuclear Power. I have been waiting for this in everyone of the Democratic debates. It is the cleanest from of energy, and the one answer to the candidates so-called global warming.
The answers were revealing. Chris Dodd wants hybrids, electric cars (a total failure), and a carbon tax, Dodd states he is the only one who stands with Gore on the carbon tax. More taxes – who does he think will pay for it? Edwards says “no” on nuclear power. We stopped it in the 70s, and there was a reason for that, and we still don’t have a safe way to dispose of the waste, (wrong!) He also believes Global Warming is a crisis, (wrong!). Obama thinks nuclear power should be explored. Clinton is agnostic on nuclear power (which means she won’t do anything). She agreed with Kerry on his position. “Global warming has the promise of creating millions of jobs” states Clinton. Is she nuts? It could create jobs subsidized by the government. Instead of creating clean and efficient nuclear plants, we take our technology and build nuclear plants in France. The Democrats know nothing about nuclear power and nothing about global warming.
With regards to Nuclear Waste, Dr Bill Wattenburg, an expert in nuclear science states:
New Process saves 95% of Waste from Nuclear Power Plants! This is the UREX process for reprocessing nuclear spent fuel rods that can be done to reduce nuclear waste by 95% and supply a great deal more inexpensive and non-polluting energy to the world. This process is called UREX. It extracts the plutonium from spent fuel rods in a way that the plutonium is not usable for making bombs. This has always been the main argument against reprocessing spent fuel rods -- so-called "nuclear waste." The French have been reprocessing spent fuel rods for over twenty years. The Japanese are now doing the same. Their process called PUREX extracts pure plutonium that can used to build bombs if they want, but they reuse the plutonium as fuel in their power reactors.
Michael Chrichton in State of Fear writes the following about Global Warming:
We know astonishing little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every detail all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.
We are in the midst of a natural warming trend that began in 1850, as we emerge from a four-hundred year cold spell known as the “little ice age.”
Nobody knows how much of the present trend might be a natural phenomenon.
Nobody knows how much of the trend is man-made.
Global Warming is a purely politicized issue that is not based in reality. You should have become suspicious when Gore said there was a consensus on global warming among scientists. But to counter this pseudo-science, the Democrats are willing to stifle the economy. Global warming is similar in scope to the theory of eugenics propagated in the early 20th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics Eugenics was politicized pseudo-science also never based in reality popularized in the 1930s by such people as Alexander Graham Bell and Henry Ford and later used by Hitler to justify his extermination of the Jews. Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels stated, “Repeat a lie long enough and loud enough, and people will believe it's the truth."
This next guy looks like he just woke up around noon to look for his welfare check as he struggled to find the right words and ask the candidates if they favored reparations.
Edwards doesn’t favor reparations. He wants a president who is going to fight for equality, someone who is going to take these people on, the mortgage companies, the bankers, the insurance companies, the drug companies – hmmm – how about the trial lawyers? Obama said reparations should be focusing on investments in the school system and he used the best term of the night, “corridors of shame.” I am sure we will hear more about that. Kucinich was the only one for reparations and evoked the Bible.
All in all, I think the top three winners were in this order, Obama, Hillary and Senator Joe Biden. Even though I did not mention Joe Biden in this piece, he did seem very presidential, and he seemed the most knowledgeable of the other cretins in the debate. My prediction is Hillary will still be the nominee with Obama as her running mate, and God help us all should they win.
Oh by the way, Clinton once again brought up the notion that Bush didn't really win the election against Gore. Of course, she didn't mention Gore's names.
Those were just a few of my observations on the debate. Youtubers were allowed to ask their questions in 30 second clips. Maybe the following should have been the last question:
The Democrats continue their efforts to undermine our security. Every Republican voted for the John Doe amendment. Finally, the Republicans agree on something. The votes in the Senate were 57 to 39, 3 shy of the votes for passage. The cowards who abstained from voting were Brownback, Johnson, Feinstein and Obama. Absense of this type of law is exactly the reason some of the hijackers were able to board the 9/11 planes. The airport ticket takers were afraid to be called racist or be sued.
We have had to pass Good Samaritan laws to prevent frivolous lawsuits in a litigious society. Now we have a common sense amendment that for idiotic reasons most Democrats are against (and this is who we want protecting us in the next administration.)
This will cause the average Joe to hesitate before calling in any suspicious activity if he or she calls at all (think Fort Dix), There is no excuse for this. What is it the Democrats don't get?
John Doe is you. Me. All of us. And he's in trouble.
Yesterday, members of Congress met in conference to finalize provisions of the 9/11 security bill, which implements the final recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. But as of press time, the Democratic majority was using a technicality to block the so-called John Doe amendment from being included in the bill.
The amendment, which protects citizen whistleblowers who report suspicious activity from being sued, was sponsored by Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) after six imams who were removed from a U.S. Airways flight in November filed a lawsuit against the passengers who reported their behavior to flight crews.
Their lawsuit charges that the imams were victims of an "intentional" and "malicious" . . . "conspiracy to discriminate" and seeks compensatory and punitive damages from the airline and "John Doe" passengers - including an elderly couple who, according to legal papers, "purposely turned around to watch them" in the boarding area and then "made a cellular phone call."
"We are fighting in the right place, at the right time, and for the right reasons. Al Qaeda made Iraq the central front in the global war on terror, which is why we must confront them there -- for the safety and security of the American people, as well as for the Iraqi people, too."
Congressman John Boehner, House Republican Minority Leader
A few weeks ago, when I was visiting my Aunt, I asked about those old super 8 films she took of us long ago, those clips of our youth, of long forgotten erstwhile times that were forever to remain in the recesses of our minds. She showed them to me, and I asked if I could put them on a DVD. She assented. I transferred the super 8 films onto a DVD using music of the era since super 8 films had no sound. I invited the family over to view the DVD. As the DVD flickered on my 62 inch screen, we all began to shout out the names of the people we had forgotten long ago.
What captured our imagination most, however, was seeing us in the early 70s playing croquet. As children, we loved that game. When we visited my Aunt, she always had that game of croquet ready for us to play.
A week later, it was the 4th of July. It was time for a family get-together. Gene, my brother, rolled up to the house with a newly purchased croquet set – obviously the video had an impact on him. Gene set it up on the lawn as the children looked at us with strange wonderment. Grown adults were setting up a game that appeared to be made for children. What was all this strange equipment? To a generation brought up on Sega and Nintendo, this must truly have appeared strange; two sticks, hoops and several mallets.
Gene, my brother, began to explain the rules which we had all but forgotten.
Croquet is a game that is played outdoors on the lawn. There are two stakes placed on each side of the lawn with hoops strategically placed around the perimeter. Each player takes his turn hitting his or her ball with a mallet. If the ball goes through a hoop, you are allowed to hit the ball again. The object is to hit the ball and get your ball through all the hoops reaching the stake at the other end until finally you get back where you began. You then are deemed to be poisoned. Once you are poisoned you can hit your other opponents’ balls removing them from the game. There are other rules, but that should give you a basic understanding.
Time to play. I was first. I aimed the mallet, hit the stake and “swoosh”, the ball went through the first two hoops. Rules say, I get two more hits. I was on a roll. I was in my element. I hit the ball through the next hoop, and I still had two more hits since each hoop allows me another hit but with the next two hits, I had failed to get through the next hoop. But that was okay. I was ahead of the game. I just had to wait my turn. I felt good….
My good fortune, however, was not to last. As each turn came my way, I failed to get the ball through that next hoop. Each time I hit the ball, it would swerve off the grass, in the gutter, near another hoop sixteen yards away, but it never seemed to go through the hoop I wanted. Everyone was passing me by including my eight year old niece. There was only one option – I would cheat. When no one was looking, I would kick the ball a few inches in front of the hoop. By that time, however, everyone was eight hoops ahead of me. I was alone in my own little world.
It did not take me long to realize this was internecine warfare. Age did not matter. We were all once again 16. It was sibling against sibling. Any modicum of filial affection that existed between dad and son or dad and daughter vanished in those few moments of intense competition. My brother Andy, the Christian missionary, forgot those Christian mores to which he adhered as he and our other brother Gene quibbled over where Andy’s ball had landed. We were once again playing the way we played when we were in grammar school. Croquet brought out that inner beast within us.
Catherina was the first to become poisoned; her dad, Gene was the second. When Gene became poisioned, shouts of excitement could be heard throughout the neighboorhood. Gene, voluble as always, gloated as he knocked each person out of the game. The game came down to Gene and his daughter. Gene bellowed, “How do you do this?” hoping that this rhetorical question would somehow expiate the crime of Gene’s attempt to poison his only daughter and thereby remove her from the game. It didn’t matter that his daughter was only eight, or that she was even a girl; this was life and death. But, Gene, the once proud dad, missed the ball. It was now Catherina’s turn. Catherina aimed her ball at her dad, and with all the bravery and fortitude of a neophyte, with one swoop knocked her dad out of the game. Catherina, an 8 year old, had beaten the entire Dias clan with that final blow to her dad.
So I have to admit. I watched Live Earth, not so much for its messianic overtones, but because I liked the music. I think Shakira, Madonna and many others are actually very good entertainers. Enter stage left, the messiah of Global Warming and the man who has been responsible for propagating much of the Global Warming myth today. Much has past since the days Al Gore invented the Internet. Al Gore even so much admitted that Live Earth left the biggest Carbon footprint to date. He admitted Live Earth was the biggest concert in history.
Al Gore wants us to believe that Global Warming is not political. I would ask him to try this experiment. Take a group of people, and ask those who believe that Global Warming is caused by human activity to step to one side. Those who do not believe Global Warming is caused by human activity to step to the other side. Then, ask those who are liberal to raise their hands. I would surmise that only the ones on the side that hold the belief that Global Warming is caused by human activity will be the ones who raise their hands.
Al Gore revealed his seven points to reduce CO2 emissions as follows- my comments in italics:
• Demand that my country join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth. (So how about China. China is not part of the Kyoto Protocol and the country has surpassed the United States in CO2 emissions)
• Take personal action to help solve the climate crises by reducing my own C02 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become “carbon neutral”. (Like the concert which you just put on or your private jets.)
• Fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the C02. (So does that mean you will support the cleanest form of energy nuclear plants)
• Work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation.
• Fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal. (Ethanol is another fraud)
• Plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests. (Just planted one)
• Buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crises and building a sustainable, just and prosperous world for the 21st century. (I don’t think so)
In today’s San Jose Mercury http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6326257?nclick_check=1 we find what a mess Governor Schwarzenegger has made of California with his new Green agenda which in part reads.
"This is about California politicians wanting to be leaders in alternative energy. They just jump on whatever is sexy. Right now, it's ethanol," said Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute, which is working with the administration to reduce greenhouse gases. "However, ethanol, particularly from corn, is not a likely fuel source for California."
Part of the problem is that ethanol is made largely from corn in the Midwest and has to be hauled in from out of state in gas-guzzling tankers or diesel-powered trains. That alone nearly cancels its clean-air benefits in California.
The state is pressing ahead anyway. In fact, after responding to a series of document and interview requests from the Mercury News, the state is now trying to speed up its ethanol-fueling timetable. The General Services Department is planning to open a competitive bid next month for companies that can provide E85 - the blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline the state's flex-fuel vehicles are designed to use - to a single station a few blocks from the Capitol.
That is only part of the problem – sounds like the MTBE debacle all over again.
Here is my solution. I believe we need to be energy independent not because of Global Warming, but because currently we are sending petrodollars to countries who have but one desire – our demise.
Begin constructing Nuclear Plants, the cleanest form of energy
Look for oil at home. We have plenty of it, but the environmental wackos prevent us from drilling for it.
Change the speed limit back to 55 mph, that will save a lot of energy
Look for viable alternative sources of energy (not those that are politically correct like Ethanol)
I already use the energy efficient light bulbs because they save money, but those hybrids are a joke unless you want to spend way more than the car is worth. Make a car that is comparable to the current cars on the road then I will think about it.
