Slashdot Mirror

anyone saying there is consensus for man-caused global climate change (warming or cooloing)

Do you think there is not consensus amongst climatologists? Can you name one climatologist who still disputes this? (A climate scientist with a Ph.D., that is.) Just one, but keep in mind that the people you're probably thinking of have recently written articles that suggest they do not dispute that basic fact. (Lindzen, in fact, recently wonders why anyone thinks that it was ever "contested". His words: "At some level, it has never been widely contested.")

Summary: Focus on the easy problems. Leave the hard ones to fester forever or until we're attacked again.

Also, give money away to people for worthless anachronistic nonsense like libraries. Because everyone who builds libraries is safe from attack.

Nice plan.

You seem to think we want countries like Iran to be friends of the US. Well, we do. But mostly we want them to be unwilling or unable to attack us. War can solve the later if the former fails.

Unlike Europe, the US doesn't have a fallback position. Europe can afford to be weak because the US is here to solve problems Europe fails to solve (like Kosovo). Who does the US have?

As for Europe, Europe's future can be determined demographically. And it's not really a bright one.

The war may not be going perfectly as planned, but it's going better than if we sent teachers and librarians to protect us.

If he works at a school that has to watch every penny in its budget (like 90% of schools in the world), and he makes barely enough to live on himself (like 90% of teachers in the world)

Horsehockey. Not saying Windows isn't overpriced (although there is now a version for developing countries), teachers, at least in the US, are paid better than most white collar workers.

Your sig is illegal as it is incitement to commit sexual misconduct :

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/? id=110009568

[Gregg Easterbrook] concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested.

If you are a climatologist and get a grant to study the effects of human-produced CO2 on climate, and you found that the effects were negligible and that reducing emissions wouldn't have an impact, then you WOULD most certainly have trouble getting grants. If there was nothing more we could do, why would the government spend money on even more research?

Because you are doing good research that demonstrates that the effects of human-produced CO2 on climate is negligible! If that's not worth funding, I don't know what is!

Don't tell me scientists are so far above everyone else that there isn't a single one who wouldn't consider that because there are for sure.

Absolutely. There have been a couple recently uncovered in particle physics. A real shame. However, they are the exception and not the rule. However, do you really think that an entire field (climatology) would be so "bought"? (Assuming that you're initial belief is right, which it's not.) If you read the recent statements from the darlings of those that would cast doubt on climate science, you'll note that even Lindzen and Michaels don't actully say that humans don't have a significant (negative) impact on global warming. The best these people can say is that others exaggerate the problem. Not only don't say that there is no problem, they'll tell you that humans do contribute significantly to global warming.

Lindzen

He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested.

Michaels

Well, since the human warming got initiated, or began--which most people would view somewhere around the mid-1970s--the rate of global temperature rise has been remarkably constant. It's uncanny how constant it is. And it's about .17 degrees Celsius per decade, or about 1.7 degrees per century.

How about when a scientist is funded to point out the ways in which another (paid!) scientist's conclusions may be either wrong or taken in a politically-driven context that's all about fear?

Other than the media-circuit, when is this ever done? Sure, you might have a scientist who is funded by the government who writes an article pointing out how another scientist's conclusions were wrong, but he wasn't paid to write that specific article. He was paid to do research, and to report the results of that research, regardless of what those results are. That's the difference between government funded research and privately funded research. Privately funded research often has the proviso that the results cannot be published without first being authorized by the funding agency. Do you understand how that causes bias?

You should be delighted that scientists are being offered money to publicly challenge the conclusions of other scientists. If the challenge is weak, the other scientists' findings are strengthened. If the challenge prevails, then it was essential that it was done. What's not to like?

Because these scientists are not actually finding real problems. They just speak in a language that mere mortals don't understand in such a way to suggest that there is doubt. Even when, couched in their own language, they say there is no doubt. Take a look at this article written by Richard Lindzen, provided to me by someone who was arguing against anthropogenic global warming. Ostensibly, he's saying that the global warming alarmists are all wrong. However, read closely and you'll find this gem:

He [Gregg Easterbrook] concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested.

"Never been widely contested"? Then, what exactly are you saying? Oh, just that certain claims by certain climatologists might not be accurate. Not that the overall picture is wrong, just that some/many of the details are. Next time you read an article by Lindzen, keep this in mind. See if he ever actually disputes the main point. Case in point. If you notice, Lindzen is very careful to stick to the Gulf Stream argument. That way, it looks like he's in disagreement with the basic science, without actually having to say anything unscientific. Clever.

One of the problems with the environmental movement is that it attracts loonies. (I do brain modeling, so I hope you don't mind me using the scientific term "loony".) I also happen to be a vegetarian (well, to be precise a pesci-vegetarian). As a result, I often attend our local vegetarian festival. It's amazing how many crazies come out to this thing! If you've never been to one, you should go. Unfortunately, it might just reinforce your current world-view, but at least you should find it entertaining.

What you have to realize is that a lot of sane, educated people also are raising alarms here. Even if you read what the least alarmist climatologists have to say (I'm thinking Richard Lindzen and Pat Michaels), you'll not find a single climatologist (that I'm aware of) who denies the significance of the human impact on climate change. (You do, however, have to read Lindzen and Michaels carefully to see where they admit this. I'll be happy to provide the exact quotes from these articles if you can't find them. Well, the second Lindzen article is actually more about what he doesn't say.)

Dick Cheney spoke at my wife's graduation at Michigan State U. There was a protester there handing out fliers that told of the evils of Halliburton and oil. No one seemed to mind Halliburton until Cheney became the VP, then, all of a sudden, Halliburton is worthy of this girl's attention.

Yes, it's amazing how many people don't realize that Halliburton was a major contractor during the Clinton administration as well. Doesn't mean that Cheney isn't gaming the system. Doesn't mean he is, either. As a rule, I don't trust politicians regardless of political party. I like to point out to my liberal friends who are horified that I voted for Dole in '96 that if Dole had won in '96, we wouldn't have had Bush during 9/11. (In re-reading that, the last sentence seems like quite a bit of a non-sequitor. It stems from the fact that I didn't trust Clinton, either.)

We can't drill in ANWR because of caribou. Do you really think that liberals care about caribou? Do they take trips to go see the migration of the caribou or follow their progress on the Internet? Of course not. They don't want someone making money by drilling for oil.

Well, I'm also against drilling in ANWR, for two reasons - neither one of which is the caribou. First of all, I see very little gain (except for a few oil companies - definitely not for the average American when you look at the small size of the ANWR reserve compared to how much oil we consume annually) and a not insignificant risk. Oil companies do not have a good record when it comes to living up to their promises with respect to the environment. I can give you some examples if you like. Secondly, and far less importantly (because there is relatively little oil in ANWR), more oil = more CO2. However, let me ask you this? Which is more likely: oil companies will lie about the environmental impact because they're greedy OR environmentalists will like about the environmental impact because they don't want "someone making money"? I won't say that environmentalists won't lie (every group has liars as members). However, I think their greatest tendency for lying is by exaggerating the risk in order for people to take the real risk seriously (a very dubious strategy, mind you) - and not just to keep people from making money. I honestly don't think most of them are that petty.

I think we should follow Gonzalez instruction, suspend his habeus corpus rights and just toss him in a hole for all eternity where he can starve to death. Maybe after a few months, or decades he will have a change of heart regarding the importance of this right.

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.

Do you just make stuff up? Since when has Lindzen changed his tune? Here's his July 2nd 2006 op-ed piece.

You know, you're right, I shouldn't say "deny AGW." I should say, "don't necessarily support AGW." The fact is that climate is too poorly understood to create models good enough that we could actually use them for prediction. But hey, since when has cautious science been able to stand up against political hysteria?

And yes, the global warmers are correct in their insistence on a connection between temperature and carbon dioxide levels. The records from ice cores, isotope ratios in the shells of marine fossils, growth ring patterns in trees, and so forth show that at times when temperatures were high, carbon dioxide levels were high, and vice versa. But they get the order the wrong way around. Detailed analysis of the timings shows consistently that the temperature changes come first, with the CO2 increases following after a lag of typically forty to fifty years--just as has happened recently. 154 Although in the latter instance the CO2 rise is conventionally attributed to human activities, before accepting it as the final word or the whole explanation, let's be aware that the Earth possesses enormous reservoirs of carbon in various forms that would find ready release into the atmosphere given even a mild rise in atmospheric and ocean temperature. The frozen soil and permafrost of the polar regions contain carbonates and organic matter that will be reemitted as carbon dioxide upon thawing and melting. Peat, the great Irish fossil-fuel contribution, occurs in a huge belt around the Arctic, passing through Greenland and Labrador, across Canada and Alaska, through Siberia and Scandinavia to the British Isles. It can reach thirty or forty feet in depth, and two million tons of dried fuel can be extracted from a square mile, almost three quarters of it carbon. The oxygenation of this material as air permeated downward after the thawing of a overlying permafrost layer would produce more CO2.

As you point out, this might cause even more increase in temperature, some sort of vicious cycle of greenhouse warming. Historic

And yes, the global warmers are correct in their insistence on a connection between temperature and carbon dioxide levels. The records from ice cores, isotope ratios in the shells of marine fossils, growth ring patterns in trees, and so forth show that at times when temperatures were high, carbon dioxide levels were high, and vice versa. But they get the order the wrong way around. Detailed analysis of the timings shows consistently that the temperature changes come first, with the CO2 increases following after a lag of typically forty to fifty years--just as has happened recently. 154 Although in the latter instance the CO2 rise is conventionally attributed to human activities, before accepting it as the final word or the whole explanation, let's be aware that the Earth possesses enormous reservoirs of carbon in various forms that would find ready release into the atmosphere given even a mild rise in atmospheric and ocean temperature. The frozen soil and permafrost of the polar regions contain carbonates and organic matter that will be reemitted as carbon dioxide upon thawing and melting. Peat, the great Irish fossil-fuel contribution, occurs in a huge belt around the Arctic, passing through Greenland and Labrador, across Canada and Alaska, through Siberia and Scandinavia to the British Isles. It can reach thirty or forty feet in depth, and two million tons of dried fuel can be extracted from a square mile, almost three quarters of it carbon. The oxygenation of this material as air permeated downward after the thawing of a overlying permafrost layer would produce more CO2.

As you point out, this might cause even more increase in temperature, some sort of vicious cycle of greenhouse warming. Historic

There is a fair amount of difference in the professional opinion of a corporate shill who is paid to spout the company line, and someone who has spent the majority of their life studying something.

Yeah, "shills" like the worlds preeminent hurricane forecaster Dr. William M. Gray. He's been studying weather patterns since 1961 and he believes global warming is complete and utter bullshit. He doesn't believe money should be spent hand over fist on global warming computer models and instead should be put into real science like meteorology. Apparently, the global warming crowd doesn't like having their government welfare check threatened by people who might actually put the funds to good use though, so he's been labeled a "propagandist," "shill," "last holdout," and any other derogatory name you can think of. Funny, when Exxon spends a few million on research, everyone involved is a shill, yet when the US Government spends a few billion dollars on modeling it's important work! I wonder, why do the "climate scientists" shout down descent? It couldn't have anything to do with that government check, could it?

This is the best part of the debate. Someone like me (a liberal, as it turns out, but that really doesn't matter) announces that they think the politics of science have gotten out of hand, and we're immediately told, "what you read on Free Republic does not count as experience" (as if I read any such publication, but hey it makes for a great straw-man) and the vauge "loopier and loopier ideas" concept, which isn't even a refutation.

As for real-world examples... it began long ago. For example, the primary author of "Sun, Weather, And Climate" (1978 NASA special publication), John R. Herman was subsequently shunned by his peers as, during the early 80s, the data from that book was used as a counter-point in the greenhouse gas debate.

Any solar observatory these days sees this. They either talk about other topics, or only publish data that fails to contradict the "facts" as accepted by the current consensus. Violating that has one observatory mentioned in the congressional floor debate record as, "an enemy of the planet," I kid you not.

There's also a great article about the modern implications of the "climate of fear" surrounding climate research, but of course, you can't listen to Richard Lindzen because he takes money from those people... but of course, that's self-perpetuating because anyone who speaks up in Lindzen's defense is branded with the same iron, and must seek funding elsewhere... which further invalidates their voice.

I'm not saying that CO2 doesn't cause babies to cry and angels to lose their wings, I'm just saying that there's no way to extract meaningful information from the "consensus" of a community that's scared for their jobs about saying the wrong thing. I would consider Bill Gates a national, even international hero if he invested a large chunk of the Gates Foundation money in funding the best research that tried to assail current climate theory on all fronts. Not because that theory is bad, but because I want to see the research done and done well, so that we really get to find out what the hell is going on on planet Earth.

Let me ask you this: if you did research that suggested that, for example, ground-cover water vapor from irrigation had a strong hand to play in surface warming (that's arm-waving, but it's an example for sake of argument), do you think that you would continue to get funding? Would you be called an "enemy of the planet?" Would you have to go looking to oil companies to support further research and pretty much guarantee that no one listened to you? What if some republican picked up your work and started waving it around, taking it out of context and saying that fossile fuel is as safe as houses because of what you said? Would the community circle around you and defend your reputation from such gross misuse of your work, or would you just find yourself too "controvercial" to continue to work in the field?

We know the answer to these questions because it's been played out for nearly 30 years. You would be asking Slashdot, "what's a good tech job?"

There may not be a political goal, but a PERSONAL goal. When an issue gets hyped, that issue will get studied. Scientists that study the issue get research funding. Read the "Climate of Fear" editorial by Richard Lindzen, the Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220.

In any regards why should anyone be worried over a few million dollars anyway? How much has been spent in the last 7 years by environmental groups? By the goverment? 1.7 billion dollars annualy! I'm reading the Skeptical Environmentalist and there is a lot to learn about the lies and distortions that have been created by the environmental groups distorting scientific research.

Just because they're being funded by the oil companies doesn't mean they're not scientists.

Recently it has become difficult for scientists who don't support the AGW theory to get funding, and they've had to go elsewhere.

(see http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 for one article to this effect).

People think of federal grant agencies as being unbiased but that's absolutely untrue. Even outside of political hot-button issues (e.g. my field, psychology) one has to write grants that toe the popular line a little bit. WITHIN such issues, such as global warming, the pressure to explore certain viewpoints at the expense of others must be immense.

So as far as I'm concerned, fair's fair. If the top down pressure from the grant agencies (which are not strongly under Bush's control, there are many intervening layers of bureacracy) is pushing one side, it's better to have the oil companies funding research which explores alternatives.

The climate is incredibly complicated and there is no way that scientists should have reached consensus on something as complicated as the anthropogenic cause of Global Warming. The fact that there is consensus is a glaring indication that the scientific process is not functioning properly on this issue. That is how science works best, by challenging ideas, not by agreeing with them.

Another interesting link
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=24 6768

This is a great article for those people whose neurons are not already connected to the mainstream media and Al Gore's frontal lobe:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220.

Oh, and it is written by the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT so we may surmise he knows a tad bit more about climate change than Gore.

The best methods available for surveying casualties tells us that the body count is around the most probable number of 655 thousand....

I wouldn't be so sure that study is reliable.

655,000 War Dead? A bogus study on Iraq casualties

The Iraq Body Count project take on it.

Some additional discussion.

However, the key to the validity of cluster sampling is to use enough cluster points. In their 2006 report, "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional sample survey," the Johns Hopkins team says it used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. This is astonishing: I wouldn't survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points.

Neither would anyone else. For its 2004 survey of Iraq, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) used 2,200 cluster points of 10 interviews each for a total sample of 21,688. True, interviews are expensive and not everyone has the U.N.'s bank account. However, even for a similarly sized sample, that is an extraordinarily small number of cluster points. A 2005 survey conducted by ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel used 135 cluster points with a sample size of 1,711--almost three times that of the Johns Hopkins team for 93% of the sample size.

What happens when you don't use enough cluster points in a survey? You get crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP's survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths--four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times the cluster points.

The 2004 survey by the Johns Hopkins group was itself methodologically suspect--and the one they just published even more so.

For the record, Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

And also, Mr Lomborg had a position as a professor of statistics. Your dismissive note about being a professor of economics suggests that he's a soft science type and not up to the task of evaluating climate science. A professor of statistics has exactly the background you want to show that the climate change analysis might be bogus or not.

How about 2 U.S. Senators trying to put pressure on Exxon to stop research on disenting views? Does that count? http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009337 http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ml?id=110009338

How about 2 U.S. Senators trying to put pressure on Exxon to stop research on disenting views? Does that count? http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009337 http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ml?id=110009338

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009337

Here are two Democratic Senators urging Exxon to not support any contrary research in the area of global warming.

How convenient is this? The Wall Street Journal reports that Sentators Rockefeller and Snowe are threatening Exxon to shit up about their doubts about climate change, or else! http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?i d=110009338

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ml?id=110003991

Excerpts:
- "57% of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41% of those saying it is a very unfavorable view."
- "Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance."

But, you're right, probably better to wipe them all out. Who cares about what the majority really thinks when you've got you're "beliefs" :|

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to read this post and ponder:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/? id=110009312

ORLY?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

From the linked article:

"So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

"First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

"Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky."

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.-- FISA vs. the Constitution

Mr. Cole appears to be the only prominent academic in America to have embraced "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," a highly controversial paper by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard. Mr. Cole told the Chicago Sun-Times yesterday that the paper argues the "virtually axiomatic" point held by the rest of the world that a "powerful pro-Israel lobby exists." The result is that "U.S. policy toward the Middle East has been dangerously skewed."

But the paper has been roundly attacked for sloppy generalizations. The two authors claim that "neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel." Even Noam Chomsky, a far-left critic of Israel, wrote that we "have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion." But Mr. Cole praises the two professors for seeking "to end the taboo [on discussions of the "Israel lobby"], enforced by knee-jerk accusations of anti-Semitism."

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful. -- FISA vs the Constitution

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.

--- Rebert F. Turner, co-founder, Center for National Security Law, University of Virginia School of Law
FISA vs. the Constitution

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

A Wikipedian has nominated this article to be checked for its neutrality.

To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup.

Peer reviewed by who exactly.

The original study:

Slate's review.
Another useful breakdown of problems with their methods.
Just one more for flavor.

Their latest study:

The Wall Street Journal's take. This covers the main problem with both studies, ridiculous clustering methodology. It also points out another important aspect as to how poorly the respondents were documented.

Iraq Body Count's review.

A little on the political bias of the 'impartial' researchers:

The Political Pitbull.
Lancet editor at an anti-war protest. Notice his circular reasoning that since his new report using the same flawed methodology confirms his original report that he is completely vindicated.

And that was just from the first page of my Google search.

It's pretty clear that both incidents were poor individual decisions

Remember when the CEO of Diebold wrote a fund raising letter promising to "deliver Ohio to Bush"?

Yet a string of recent court decisions has blocked their implementation in some places, thus siding with Democrats and liberal special interest groups who would rather turn a blind eye to voter fraud.

See http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182
Anders Eg

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful

....everyone knows you can't get a fair trial in your homeland when the people and families you are accused of committing acts against are the ones charged with carrying out your trial! He should have been brought to the ICC. This verdict carries no weight with me whatsoever. His execution will be a travesty... think of the treasure trove of information we could get from him about our own crooks and their past crimes!

Oh the humanity! Saddam being tried and hung by the survivors of the atrocities he ordered, and it doesn't meet your approval! Where is the justice!? Why!? Why do those peasants put their 20 year thirst for justice for the mass murder, mutilation, and rape ahead of your political axe? Why does your approval matter so little to them!!?? That is so unfair!

I know what you mean about spending too. After all, spending $419.3 billion on defense out of a budget of $2.57 trillion seems so "reckless", especially since defense is a federal responsibility under the Constitution, as opposed to education and social security.

Well, at least your body count is, well..... founded.... or somthing.....

A little variety reading for you...

One, Two, Three, Four

Cheers

The European lead negotiations with Iran are failing to produce meaningful results. That is bad enough given the threatening language from the Iranian leadership, and their President's state of mind.

Now it looks like the Sunni vs Shia / Arab vs Persian rivalries, are about to take a much more dangerous form, not to mention the Arab/Muslim conflict with Israel. What is even more disturbing is that the restraints that contained the cold war don't seem to apply. We might end up with a nuclear Jihad.

Here is a tiny research project for your consideration if you really are anti-fascist, which so few on the left are these days.

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.
FISA vs. the Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful. Robert F. Turner,co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law

They are just script-kiddie posers, who was the incompetent clod who programmed this last? What was the admin thinking when he installed anti-virus on exchange. Only morons use windows.

Let's face it geek arrogance is bar none. What ever our specialty, we trash everyone without that knowledge (why do you think some of us stay employed with our childish attitudes).

For Congressmen we expect them to be experts in every field, and unfortunately they "should" be to get their job done. Peggy noonan has a great article on it and how this unrealistic demand causes either extreme arrogance (I "created" the internet) or ignorance (Internet is a series of "tubes", I downloaded an internet the other night).

Support a geek, Raise money for your school.

That may be true, I don't know. But it's not really relevant except to say that Americans would probably give more to foreign aid if that were true and they knew.

Second,VAST MAJORITY of charitable giving in US if for US citizens. 9/11 funds and Katrina funds raised billions... all for us.

I don't know about "vast majority". From what I can find approximately 1.4 billion was donated to 9/11 charities and $3.1 billion to Katrina/Rita charities.

In contrast $1.78 billion (more in raw dollars than anyone else) was donated to tsunami relief, which is more than 9/11. Those stingy Americans gave more to foreigners on the other side of the globe than to the victims of what was a defining event in history. Americans also gave $78 million to Pakistani earthquake victims, which is a significant amount of money for a relatively quiet news item. What may be becoming obvious is that Americans give when they know there's a specific need. That's the main reason for what imbalance there is. Lack of awareness, not desire.

Even if Americans DID give the "vast majority" of charity domestically that makes them less generous how? Individuals giving money with no benefit to themselves to those who need is it charitable giving no matter if the needy person is in the inner city or a Mexican barrio.

And must of the percentage includes giving to the local church, which as you probably know, in US comprise a significant majority of charitable giving

What's wrong with that? Those donations are used to run shelters and soup kitchens. That's not charitable?

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.

But for South Korea, a more immediate danger may be North Korea's artillery.

The capital Seoul, only 60 km (37 miles) south of the heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone that has divided the peninsula since the end of the Korean War in 1953, has long been within range of one of the world's most powerful artillery batteries.

South Korea's Defense Ministry said the North had amassed more than 13,000 pieces of artillery and multiple rocket launchers, much of it aimed at Seoul.

Jane's International Defense Review estimates that if North Korea launched an all-out barrage, it could achieve an initial fire rate of 300,000 to 500,000 shells per hour into the Seoul area -- home to about half the country's 48.5 million people.

The biggest are 170-mm self-propelled artillery guns and 240-mm multiple rocket launchers. It also has hundreds of Scud missiles that could hit any part of South Korea.

"We have reason to believe that the chemical weapons are with the forward artillery units that are targeting Seoul. If we don't get those early, we end up with chemicals on Seoul." North Korea: The War Game

When negotiators were hammering out the 1994 accord - over similar concerns about North Korea's nuclear intentions - Pyongyang also warned that it would turn the South Korean capital of Seoul into a "sea of fire".

SEOUL, South Korea -- In an unusually explicit threat to its neighbor yesterday, North Korea warned that Japan would be immersed in a "nuclear sea of fire" if the United States were to attack the North.

Speaking to the BBC's Mike Thompson in Pyongyang, Mr Ri said his government was becoming increasingly alarmed at signs that Washington planned to send more aircraft carriers, bombers and troops to the region.

He said such actions would mean that the US was either planning to invade the North or launch attacks against it.

In response, he insisted, Pyongyang would not just sit and wait, and might decide to strike first if necessary.

The country currently has a standing army of more than one million soldiers. The US has about 37,000 troops based in South Korea.

-- But does that mean that in the 300 years between Newton and Einsten everyone should have dismissed Newton because at some point a more refined theory is going to come along? No, of course not

Phlogiston. Ylem. Lamarckism. Hilbert's program, which was the possibly the noblest and most rigorous formulation of Pythagoreanism. The fact that Newton was mostly right doesn't negate the fact that whole realms of once-respected scientific thought have been completely tossed out because a new and fundamentally different theory came along.

You're also working from an implicitly linear notion of science.. the idea that we can carve out a general theory which will continue to remain valid as we fill in the fine details. It follows from linear mathematics, where the size of a change in the initial conditions is proportional to the change in the final result. Linear systems are nice because you can always define a value of 'small' for which small variations in the initial conditions can be safely ignored.

Nonlinear systems (like the weather) don't work that way. There's no safe definition of a 'small' change, nor is a change that's safely small at position X guaranteed to be safely small at position Y.

-- Who is "the other side"? It's certainly not climate scientists, the people actually studying it.

Apparently you missed the bet between the English climatologist who supports the CO2-based model of global warming and the Russian who supports the increased-solar-activity model. Or any of the articles by Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at MIT. There's significantly more debate over the importance of global warming, its mechanism, and the impact of human behavior on global warming than Al Gore would have you believe.

-- Which variable exactly is it you are disputing?

How about the causes of natural variation in global temperatures from one decade, century, or millenium to the next?

How about the exact contribution of CO2's infrared absorption on global mean temperature?

How about our measurement of global mean temperature itself? Different mechanisms give different results. Our long historical records only account for surface temperature, and we have practically no record for temperatures in the upper atmosphere.

How about the standard deviation of the global mean temperature over the historical record? If we take a simple deviation, the increase observed over the last century pretty much disappears in the 3-sigma (95% confidence) range of natural variation. GW advocates prefer to measure sigma on the 'moving range' of the sample, which cuts sigma roughly in half, thus leaving about half a degree of change outside the 3-sigma range and therefore definable as an anomaly.

How about the exact conditions necessary to say with 95% certainty that X degrees of global mean temperature change over the last century can only be attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and not to natural climactic variation, variation in solar activity, data error, or any other cause?

-- Precisely which part of this are you disputing?

The part where you show specific, evidentiary corrleation between anthropogenic CO2 levels and global mean temperature. For all the data you've cited, you still do a handwave by saying "it's obvious" at that point. Let me illustrate with an analogy:

Let's say we drop water balloons from a 100' tower and measure the spread of the splash pattern. It is scientifically indisputable that the size of the splash is related to the speed of the balloon at the moment of impact, and that the speed is directly related to

"Desertification comes to mind..."

"Not really. It says the Executive has to enforce laws passed by Congress, including the 1978 law that regulates eavesdropping on foreign communications."

However, we both agree that all acts of Congress are not constitutional. President Carter's AG claimed FISA violated the Constitution. Clinton's Administration submitted to FISA while simultaneously stating that the President had inherent authority to monitor.

Additionally, "section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance 'without a court order.'" The Authorization of Use of Military Force is an authorization of war. Therefore, we are at war and the President has full use of his war powers under the Constitution.

But, don't take my word for it, here's the word of an expert on the subject: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ml?id=110007734

I'm sure I'll be modded down for supporting the President's legitimate use of his authority by the guy who can't come up with a reasoned response.

The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

WP - the arguments

So WP itself is not a chemical weapon and therefore not illegal. However, used in a certain way, it might become one. Not that "a certain way" can easily be defined, if at all.

The US can say therefore that this is not a chemical weapon and further, it argues that it is not the toxic properties but the heat from WP which causes the damage. And, this argument goes, since incendiary weapons are not covered by the CWC, therefore the use of WP against combatants is not prohibited.

White phosphorous is no more of a "chemical weapon", as normally understood, than napalm. Or course, flame weapons have been subject to controversy of their own.

As for Noam Chomsky he has been documenting U.S. war crimes in places from Nicaragua to Vietnam for 40 years now. He is an American hero and if the MSM dared to give him a voice and people were made aware of the level of violence the U.S.government has committed against the world we might see new leadership in the U.S. and live in a much more ethical country. Of course we will never see that because it would threaten the corporate bottom line.

There are other views about Chomsky. And it isn't the corporate bottom line I would worry so much about....

Left-Wing Monster: Pol Pot

While Pol Pot was carrying out his genocide, numerous American leftists functioned as his apologists. Notable among these was the American-hating MIT professor Noam Chomsky, who viewed Pol Pot as a revolutionary hero. When news of the "killing fields" became increasingly publicized, Chomsky's faith in Pol Pot could not be shaken. He initially tried to minimize the magnitude of Pol Pot's atrocities (saying that he had killed only "a few thousand people at most").[64] He suggested that the forced expulsion of the population from Phnom Penh was most likely necessitated by the failure of the 1976 rice crop. Wrote Chomsky, "the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives."[65] In a 1977 article in The Nation, Chomsky attacked those witnesses and writers who were shedding ever-brighter rays of light on Pol Pot's holocaust; he accused them of trying to spread anti-communist propaganda. In 1980, when it was indisputable that a huge proportion of Cambodia's population had died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, Chomsky again blamed an unfortunate failure of the rice c