Friday, December 14, 2007


Check this out, and make sure to push the page arrows to see all 13. (Thanks to Mike Graham for sending me this link)


Jim said...

Funny how ,leftie, Bill Maher loves to say Bush is dumb. If Bush is so dumb, what doe that make Ann Richards, one of the most talented Democrat former govenors of Texas, Al Gore, John Kerry, and the majority party in the congress as led by those shinny examples of Democrat party competence, (Pelosi, Reid) who pledged to do all sorts of irresponsible things but so far has been defeated by a president with the lowest poll ratings since Harry Truman. If that is dumb we need more of it in the GOP.

Lally said...

Maher is a self-proclaimed "libertarian" and oftens sides with Republicans on some issues. He's seemed more leftie in recent years only because the righties have been so incompetent in governing. Though you are right that Bush and Rove and Cheney and the rest of that crew, and the Republican establishment in general, have been much better at playing hardball politics in such a way to "win" elections even when they lose them because the Dems play softball and end up without an overwhelming and clearcut majority. Bill Cliton was the last one smart enough and politically savy and tough enough to take them on and beat them at their own game, for which they ended up trying to impeach him (if you think it was really about a president lying, you haven't been alive the past seven years). The kind of tactics the right originated under Nixon, elevated into an art form under Reagan and turned into a bloody terminator machine under Bush are smart, in the same way that books that portend to tell readers how to be successful by lying and crushing enemies and so on do. "Smart" perhaps, if you think it's smart to create unalterable climate change and financial ruin for generations to come and not give a shit because your family line is insured to inherit the billions you robbed from the rest of us. Et-endlessly-cetera.

Jim said...

Maher may claim to be a libertarian but acts and sounds like a Bush hating liberal,

I agree that the Republicans lost last years election because they failed to govern responsibly. It was not all about the war. Many conservatives were disappointed because of the runaway earmarks, and poor spending decisions. Bush failed to veto overspending by the Republican congress and the congress failed to critcise Bush on the poor management of the war.

You may remember some of the difficulties the Republicans had getting things done when Daschle was minority leader. The senate is designed by the constitution to temper the "Peoples House". A majority of one in the senate is a majority. Some may even call it a clear majority. But the present day senate has required 60 vote or filabuster proof margin under Daschel, Lott,Fisk and Reid's magority leadership. Republicans did get some good things done including tax cuts, overwhelming support for the war in Afganistan and Iraq, new supreme court judges that are strict constructionist rather than makers of law. They were able to accomplish this with bigger but not filabuster proof majorities.The Republicans had to comprimise with Democrats in order achieve their goals. Reid and Pelosi have two choices, comprimise or win bigger majorities in the next election.

Clinton was impeached because he admitted to purjury. The judge required him to admit to it under oath. He was barred from practicing law in Arkansas and NY. Clinton apologists go on, incessantly, that it was all about sex and of no consequence. The chief law enforcement officer of the US does damage to the judicial system when he flouts the very basis on which it is built, namely, truth telling under oath. He deserved to be impeached maybe not convicted and thrown out of office. It is good to remember if any other American citizen had been convicted of purgury, they would have been thrown in jail.

Climate Change
Einstein was the most respected scientist of the 20th century. He had a lot of things right but even he got some things wrong. He believed the universe was static rather than expanding (big bang theory). The difference between Einstein and many of the global warming crowd was that he invited criticism. Some problems with the human caused global warming are:
1-Ice core samples suggest/prove that global warming has always preceeded a rise in CO2 levels by 600 to 1000 years.
2-Glaciers in Greenland periodically expand and contract. It was no coincidence that the Vikings called Greenland, Greenland. They had to abandon Greenland when the Little Chill (500year mini ice age hit in the 1300's).
3- Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans and is not man made.
4- Temperatures on Mars are rising. How can that be from human activity.
5-Warm periods on earth have been corralated to solar activity including sun spots magnetic activity etc.
6-The polar bear population was 5000 in the 1950's. It is now at 25000 plus.
7-A number of highly qualified scientists are at Bali, criticizing the human global warming hypothesis. Not surprisngly, they were treated cooly, pun intended.

For further info see "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on Youtube. It was produced in the UK and was aired on their TV.

This was fun! I only wish I knew how to work the spell check.

Jim said...

Global Warming

PS: Last week, Pope Benedict criticised the global warming crowd for their attempting a massive redirection of the worlds wealth to combat an problem that has not been been proved and has been presented with dubious science. He would like to see that wealth put to work to better the human condition.

JIm said...

Global Warming - Breaking news

Climate scientists reported in the December issue of the International Journal of Climatology, published by Britain's Royal Meteorological Society, that observed temperature changes measured over the last 30 years don't match well with temperatures predicted by the mathematical climate models relied on by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

• Click here to read more about this week's climate study.

The global-warming hypothesis is based on climate models that suppose that temperature trends in the troposphere, the lowest part of the atmosphere, should be 2-3 times greater than trends in surface temperatures.

As noted in 2000 by the National Academy of Sciences, however, this notion conflicts with real-life observations indicating that the Earth's surface is warming more quickly than the middle and upper parts of the troposphere, defined as between 1 to 6 miles in altitude.

The new study — authored by David Douglass (University of Rochester), John Christy (University of Alabama-Huntsville), Benjamin Pearson (also University of Rochester) and S. Fred Singer (University of Virginia) — compared all 10 available observational data sets with the major models used by the IPCC.

Douglass et al. report in the new study that observational data are in drastic disagreement with the climate models.

The models predict significantly warmer atmospheric temperatures than have actually occurred, despite that "the last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations and more realistic modeling efforts."

"We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution," they concluded.