Homeland Security Liars

All the cable so-called news networks are incessantly and obsessively talking about the astronaut turned stalker. What a blockbuster novel that will make when the woman is tried, convicted for something, serves a minimum sentence, possibly serving no time in jail, and released on parole.

Fox News Network is tagging the situation Lust in Space! Really, and they want to be taken seriously for serious reporting. They just lost viewers for their morning and afternoon coverage, ok, except for the weather (and debates on global warming).

We'll have to see if John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly allow Lust in Space to remain the headliner on their programs. It's expected Hannity and Colmes will pack their program tonight with psychoanalists and the like who will pick apart every detail from every angle of the woman's life.

CNN reporting throughout the day the accused astronaut is to receive medical and psych evaluation today. NASA Love Scandal. Really, who cares. She'll likely get the evaluations at taxpayers' expense, go into rehab at taxpayers's expense, and then be taken back into the exclusive fold. She'll then take a sabbatical and write her book.

How'd the government miss a whacko given all the rigorous testing of their mental capabilities?

Meanwhile, what are the networks missing?

Homeland security's role in the case of the border agents Ramos and Compean - that's what they're ignoring. Details of their refusal initially to provide legislators with documentation are just coming to light.

President Bush has indicated he will not pardon the border agents, he's still reviewing the "government's case" against them.

that takes time, there's a process...

It's no wonder the Homeland Security Department Agency didn't want to release documents in the case of the prosecution of the two men.

Now that they have, they are shown to be nothing more than liars.

John Gibson gives some attention to the border patrol agents and asks Judge Napolitano about the case. The Judge says they were right to be prosecuted since they shot a man running away in the back.

Gibson failed to set the record straight, guess he just didn't know and doesn't read World Net Daily or Net the Truth Online, nor did he bother to have anybody on who was familiar with the entirety of the case at this time.

Meanwhile Lou Dobbs Tonight is coverning the matter in depth, and heatedly.

Dobbs says the men were prosecuted before the end of the investigation. Casey Wian reports. Culberson is interviewed!

Get the transcript...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ldt.html

Aired February 7, 2007 - 18:00 ET

Also tonight, the Department of Homeland Security now admits it lied in the case of two U.S. Border Patrol agents sent to prison for doing their jobs. One of those agents severely beaten in prison. Leading members of Congress are furious.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/07/ldt.01.html

Thanks Lou..

Dobbs Poll for the night results in a first time ever agreement of 100 percent that the Department of Homeland Security should be held accountable for lying about Ramos and Compean (border patrol agents)

Glenn Beck

Government Lies about Border Agent Shooting; Author Fears for Life from Islamic Extremists Aired February 7, 2007
GLENN BECK, HOST: I am sorry to report, but our government has been lying to us about the border. Wait until you hear the new details...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/07/gb.01.html

Process...

Justice reviewing border agents' transcripts
Snow says that's one step in process of evaluating pardon eligibility

The White House says that there are procedures to follow in considering any request or suggestion for a presidential pardon, and that's what is going on right now in the case involving Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, two U.S. Border Patrol agents sentenced to prison for shooting at a fleeing drug smuggler.

The comments came in response to questions from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, about the case following a beating Ramos suffered allegedly at the hands of illegal aliens being held in the same prison where he is.

"The Fort Worth Star Telegraph quotes President Bush of Fox TV network as saying that he is bound by strict federal guidelines on pardons, and cannot immediately grant a pardon to Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean because, quote, 'there is a series of steps that are analyzed in order for the Justice Department to make a recommendation as to whether or not a president grants a pardon,'" Kinsolving said...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54127

Government admits lying about jailed border agents
Inspector confronted on Capitol Hill, says promised 'proof' does not exist
Posted: February 6, 2007
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

A Department of Homeland Security official admitted today the agency misled Congress when it contended it possessed investigative reports proving Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean confessed guilt and declared they "wanted to shoot some Mexicans" prior to the incident that led to their imprisonment.

The admission came during the testimony of DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, according to Michael Green, press secretary for Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas.

Culberson was questioning Skinner about a meeting DHS officials had Sept. 26 with him and three other Republican congressman from Texas, Reps. Ted Poe, Michael McCaul and Kenny Marchant.

WND previously reported that at that meeting the DHS Inspector General's office asserted it had documentary evidence Ramos and Compean:


confessed to knowingly shooting at an unarmed suspect;

stated during the interrogation they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting;

stated that day they "wanted to shoot a Mexican";

were belligerent to investigators;

destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.
Under questioning by Culberson, Skinner admitted DHS did not in fact have investigative reports to back up the claims: "The person who told you that misinformed you," Skinner reportedly replied.

This prompted a startled and angry response from Culberson, who charged Skinner's office with lying to the Texas congressmen and painting Ramos and Compean as dirty cops.

Ramos and Compean began prison sentences last month after their actions in the shooting of a drug smuggler who was granted immunity to testify against them.

Responding to Skinner's testimony yesterday, Poe said it "explains why DHS has been stonewalling Congress."

"DHS didn't turn over the reports to us to back up their September 26 accusations for one simple reason – the reports never existed," the Texas congressman said.

"Why did it take DHS four months to admit their error?" he asked. "I wonder how much more has DHS told the public and Congress about Ramos and Compean that simply isn't true?"

Poe said he's determined to get to the bottom of DHS's claim.

"I expect this new revelation will lead to a lot more questions before we're done," he said.

Andy Ramirez, who has been involved with the case as chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol, told WND the DHS's actions "represent obstruction of justice, and they should be held in contempt of Congress, and, if possible, prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54132
Congress gets reports on jailed border patrol agents
By Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 02/01/2007 12:00:00 AM PST

clip

After five months of delays, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General delivered the documents pertaining to the case of former Border Patrol agents Ignacio "Nacho" Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who were convicted last March of the nonfatal shooting of a Mexican drug smuggler.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said last week that Homeland Security Inspector General Richard Skinner refused to deliver what he had promised House members since September.

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_5132071

Officials urged to resign for lie about border agents
Congressman calls for ouster of DHS deputies after IG admits agency gave false information
Posted: February 7, 2007

A Republican congressman is calling for the resignation of Department of Homeland Security officials who he says lied about the case of two Border Patrol agents imprisoned for their actions in the shooting of a drug smuggler.

As WND reported, at a congressional hearing yesterday, Rep. John Culberson of Texas confronted DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner about his agency's claim it had documentary proof of the guilt of former agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

"Richard Skinner admitted yesterday under oath that his top deputies gave members of Congress false information painting Border Patrol agents as rogue cops who were not in fear for their lives and who were 'out to shoot Mexicans,'" Culberson said in a statement.

Culberson said he believes false information was given to congressmen to "throw us off the scent and cover up what appears to be an unjust criminal prosecution of two U.S. law enforcement officers whose job was protecting our country's borders from criminals and terrorists."

The admission came during Skinner's testimony before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. Culberson was asking questions about a meeting DHS officials had Sept. 26 with him and three other Republican congressman from Texas, Reps. Ted Poe, Michael McCaul and Kenny Marchant.

WND previously reported that at that meeting Skinner's office asserted it had documentary evidence Ramos and Compean:


confessed to knowingly shooting at an unarmed suspect;

stated during the interrogation they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting;

stated that day they "wanted to shoot a Mexican";

were belligerent to investigators;

destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.
Ramos and Compean began prison sentences last month of 11 and 12 years respectively.

Yesterday, under questioning by Culberson, Skinner admitted DHS did not in fact have investigative reports to back up its claims.

"The person who told you that misinformed you," Skinner reportedly replied.

This prompted a startled and angry response from Culberson, who charged Skinner's office with lying to the Texas congressmen and painting Ramos and Compean as dirty cops.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54142

Memo casts doubt on agency's assertions
Homeland Security won't release papers on border agents' case
By Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 01/29/2007 12:00:00 AM PST

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_5108915

Jan. 19, 2007, 12:24PM
Legislators want report on ex-agents
Its release could clear doubts about border shooting case, some say
By MICHELLE MITTELSTADT
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4481939.html

Another view

Report: Agents in Border Shooting Lied
Feb 7, 9:27 PM (ET)
By ALICIA A. CALDWELL and SUZANNE GAMBOA

EL PASO, Texas (AP) - A federal report released Wednesday on the shooting of a suspected drug smuggler by Border Patrol agents concurs with prosecutors that the men failed to report the shooting, destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.

Some members of Congress have criticized the case against Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who were fired after their obstruction of justice convictions and have each been sentenced to more than a decade in federal prison.

Congressional critics, who say the men were doing their jobs when they injured Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila in 2005 near El Paso, had sought the release of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security report.

The report "has just emboldened our position because there is nothing in there that indicates these agents were not justified in shooting this individual," said Tara Setmayer, a spokeswoman for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. "This finally sheds some light on what these agents were thinking."

She pointed to a written statement by Compean in which she said reflects that he "clearly believed the drug smuggler had a weapon and feared for his life."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., agreed Wednesday to allow Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to hold a hearing on the case, as she requested.

"I strongly believe that the sentences in this case are too extreme, given the criminal nature of the defendant and his possession of large quantities of drugs," Feinstein said in a statement. "These men were given sentences that some individuals who are convicted of murder wouldn't receive."

The heavily redacted, 77-page report, drafted last year, offers few new details. It primarily outlines what Aldrete said happened on Feb. 17, 2005, as he tried to run from Border Patrol agents after trying to elude them in a van loaded with marijuana.

According to the report, Aldrete, who was given immunity and has filed a multimillion-dollar claim against the federal government, told investigators he was unarmed and was shot as he ran from Compean and other agents. He said he tried to surrender and ran again after Compean slipped while trying to hit him with the butt of a shotgun.

The report also notes that other agents on the scene that day could not confirm whether Aldrete was armed and initially lied about whether they were aware of the shooting. They later cooperated with authorities. Those agents, whose names were removed from the report, were not prosecuted.

In a statement issued Wednesday afternoon, Rep. John Culberson, a Texas Democrat, said Ramos and Compean "may not have followed proper procedure following the shooting, which at most should have resulted in their suspension from the force, but not criminal procedure."

A spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, whose office prosecuted the case and who has been widely criticized for pursing the agents and not the drug dealer shot, declined to comment...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070208/D8N58LF00.html

Border Patrol supervisors implicated by agency memo
DHS document says none of 9 officers present officially reported incident
Posted: February 6, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

A Department of Homeland Security internal memo discloses seven Border Patrol agents and two supervisors were at the scene of the shooting for which officers Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are imprisoned.

The previously unpublished report's indication that supervisors were on the scene could explain why Ramos and Compean did not file a report of the Feb. 17, 2005, shooting incident on the Texas border with Mexico, about 40 miles east of El Paso. Moreover, the DHS document says all who were on location, including the supervisors, were "as guilty as those who committed the offense" because of their failure to report misconduct.

The second full paragraph of the DHS memo filed by DHS Special Agent Christopher Sanchez April 12, 2005, states:


Investigation disclosed that the following BP agents were at the location of the shooting incident, assisted in destroying evidence of the shooting, and/or knew/heard about the shooting: Oscar Juarez; Arturo Vasquez; Jose Mendoza; David Jacquez; Lance Medrano; Lorenzo Yrigoyen; Rene Mendez; Robert Arnold; and Jonathan Richards.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54103

Lou Dobbs Tonight
Aired February 6, 2007

DOBBS: Outrage tonight over the beating of former Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos. Ramos was assaulted in federal prison Saturday evening by a group of men. His family is simply devastated. Lawmakers are angry and outraged, and the Bush administration is ignoring please for justice.

Casey Wian reports...

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: It's dangerous to be a law enforcement official in prison. That's something everyone knows. Unfortunately, they have some experience with that. But the prisoners themselves have a difficult decision to make, because do they take the risk in general population, or do they live segregated, which is a very difficult existence in and of itself?

DOBBS: Well, let's go to a number of other issues, because we had a number of congressmen warning that precisely this would happen. It has happened. We have got at this point a tepid response, at best, from the administration.

Let's go to some of the facts.

One, because White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said we're waiting for full transcripts so that we'll all be armed with the facts, I'm sure that if Mr. Snow would be so kind, he could watch this broadcast and learn a lot of the facts. And by the way, that prosecution was made by the executive branch's Justice Department. So if he wanted facts, the president could have them instantaneously.

Why in the world are we waiting on a transcript nearly a year after the end of the trial?

TOOBIN: This is bizarre. Perhaps not a phrase we want to use today, but it is not rocket science to produce transcripts. Every trial has a court reporter.

DOBBS: Right.

TOOBIN: You can't have an appeal before you have the full transcript. I mean, it's simply inexcusable not to have transcripts this late after a trial.

DOBBS: Ten months later, an appeal is being held up, the effectiveness of it. The fact is that the public doesn't have access to that. We don't have access to it. We can't even get it through Freedom of Information or any other way because this idiotic system will not give us the transcript of a trial that is so controversial.

TOOBIN: Well, and -- you know, the justice system stops in its tracks, because an appeals court can't evaluate a trial until they can read what happened. So it is totally unexpected. I've never seen this long for a transcript.

DOBBS: Well, let's go to a couple of other issues...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/06/ldt.01.html

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why...

...Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?.

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com..

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Real ID Chip Invasion of Privacy

On Fox 'n Friends Kilmeade and Doocy interview James Guest about a national identification card called Real ID.

Guest is opposed to national id with chip in it for state driver's license, as that allows tracking of freedom-loving Americans... federal govertnment doesn't need to set up a database... that's an intrusion of our privacy...

Steyn on Global Warming

Mark Steyn article about global warming hype discussed on John Gibson with author

http://www.marksteyn.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=21

What's so hot about fickle science?

February 4, 2007
BY MARK STEYN Sun-Times Columnist
From the "Environmental News Network": "Science Is Solid on Climate Change, Congress Told." "The science is solid," says Louise Frechette, deputy secretary-general of the United Nations.
"The science is solid," says Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

"The science is really solid," says TV meteorologist Heidi Cullen. "The science is very solid."

And at that point, on "Larry King Live" last week, Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, remarked: "Heidi says the science is solid and I can't criticize her because she never says what science she's talking about."

Indeed. If the science is so solid, maybe they could drag it out to the Arctic for the poor polar bears to live on now that the ice is melting faster than a coed's heart at an Al Gore lecture.

Alas, the science isn't so solid


http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/241518,CST-EDT-STEYN04.article

Brrrr, The Coldest February in 30 Years

Yep, had these headlines appeared Friday Feb. 2, 2007 coinciding with the realease of the UN report on global warming instead of Tornado tears through Florida the report would have been laughed at amid sneezing from developing colds.

Below-zero temps hit Plains, Northeast
A bone-chilling Arctic cold wave with temperatures as low as 38 below zero shut down schools for thousands of youngsters Monday, halted some Amtrak service and put car batteries on the disabled list from the northern Plains across the Great Lakes.

Brrrr, The Coldest February in 30 Years
February kicks off with bone-chilling weather across much of the country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070205/ap_on_re_us/arctic_blast

Chirac calls for beefed-up UN Environment Agency
Sat Feb 3, 7:13 AM ET
PARIS (AFP) - A day after United Nations scientists delivered their bluntest warning yet over global warming, French President Jacques Chirac has called for a powerful UN environmental agency to reinforce international control over the planet.

Closing a two-day conference in Paris, Chirac said the proposal to replace the existing UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has the support of some 40 countries.

"We call for the transformation of the UNEP into a genuine international organisation to which all countries belong, along the lines of the World Health Organisation," Chirac said Saturday.

"This UN agency for the environment will be a strong and recognised voice in the world," he said.

"It will be an instrument for evaluating ecological damage and how to remedy it ... for promoting those technologies and behaviour patterns most respectful of eco-systems ... and for supporting the implementation of environmental decisions across the planet," he said.

The Nairobi-based UNEP was set up in 1972 to promote environmental protection. But Chirac shares the belief of many experts that its capacities are insufficient to cope with the growing problems linked to global warming and habitat destruction.

However his call for a fully-fledged UN agency has not received unanimous backing. The US, Brazil, China and Russia are all opposed and many non-governmental organisations question whether another expensive supranational body is the answer to the world's problems.

Chirac's "Citizens of the Earth" summit took place just three months before he is expected to leave office after 12 years as president. It was widely interpreted as a bid to leave an environmental legacy by which he will be remembered...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070203/sc_afp/environmentfrancechiracun_070203121307

Global warming: Nations call for new environmental body
Paris, Feb. 4 (AP): Forty-five nations joined France in calling for a new environmental body to slow global warming and protect the planet, a body that potentially could have policing powers to punish violators.

Absent were the world's heavyweight polluter, the United States, and booming nations on the same path as the U.S., China and India.

Saturday's effort, led by French President Jacques Chirac, came a day after the release of an authoritative, and disturbingly grim, scientific report saying that global warming is ``very likely'' caused by mankind, and that climate change will continue for centuries even if heat-trapping gases are reduced. It the strongest language ever used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose last report was issued in 2001.

The document, a collaboration of hundreds of scientists and government officials, was approved by 113 nations, including the United States...

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200702041123.htm



http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=france+chirac+environmental+global+commission&btnG=Search

Arctic Cold

Not a favorite topic among the we're all global warmers, now crowd...

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif

Harsh Cold Expected to Linger in Midwest
Feb 4, 9:01 AM (ET)
By PATRICK CONDON

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070204/D8N2UEU80.html

Former global warmer no longer

The real deal?
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming...


The series

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I

Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II

The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III

Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV

The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V

The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI

Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII

The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX

Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X


Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."




Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0

Libby On Trial for neglecting his Ginko Biloboa

Interesting at times... gee whiz, can we remember everybody we spoke to about a rumor and from whom we first heard the rumor? I don't think so...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

Scientists Define Very Likely Objectively or Subjectively?

The UN Report on Climate Change uses the term "very likely..." Last time we checked very likely doesn't mean definitely, absolutely, for real...

Scientists: Humans 'very likely' cause global warming
POSTED: 12:55 a.m. EST, February 3, 2007

CNN) -- Global warming is here and humans are "very likely" the blame, an international group of scientists meeting in Paris, France, announced Friday.

"The evidence for warming having happened on the planet is unequivocal," said U.S. government scientist Susan Solomon, who also is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"We can see that in rising air temperatures, we can see it in changes in snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. We can see it in global sea rise. It's unequivocal," she said. (Watch scientist Susan Solomon deliver the grim news on global warming )

In a 21-page report for policymakers, the group of climate experts unanimously linked -- with "90 percent" certainty -- the increase of average global temperatures since the mid-20th century to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Fossil fuels like methane and carbon dioxide trap heat near the surface, a process known as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon, but human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, can pour enormous volumes of these gases into the atmosphere, raising the planet's temperature and destabilizing the climate. (Watch what happens to our planet when manmade emissions get trapped in the atmosphere )

The report found it was "likely" -- "more likely than not" in some cases -- that manmade greenhouse gases have contributed to hotter days and nights, and more of them, more killer heat waves than before, heavier rainfall more often, major droughts in more regions, stronger and more frequent cyclones and "increased incidence" of extremely high sea levels.

The report noted that 11 of the last 12 years have ranked among the 12 warmest years on record with the oceans absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat added to the climate system. Add in the melt-off of glaciers and sea ice and sea levels are rising.

The IPCC predicted global temperature increases of 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius (3.2 to 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 and sea levels to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 58 centimeters) by the end of the century. (Watch how rising sea levels could affect San Francisco )

"An additional 3.9-7.8 inches (10-20 centimeters) are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues," the report stated.

The group will meet again in April to discuss the socioeconomic impact of climate change.

Defining 'likely'
The IPCC was established in 1988 to study climate change information. The group doesn't do independent research but instead reviews scientific literature from around the world.

The United Nations-sanctioned group was formed by the World Meteorological Organization and U.N. Environment Program.

The group's goal is to produce "a balanced reporting of existing viewpoints" on the causes of global warming, according to its Web site.

The panel's reports are influential references for policymakers, scientists and other climate change experts.

Friday's release is the beginning of the panel's first major report since 2001. The rest of the report is due out later this year.

The 2001 report found that the 1990s were "very likely" the warmest decade on record. It also said that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years was "likely due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities."

The authors defined "likely" as between 66 percent to 90 percent probable, and "very likely" as a 90 to 99 percent...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.change.report/index.html

Lawmakers square off on climate report
POSTED: 6:16 p.m. EST, February 2, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Despite a strongly worded global warming report from the world's top climate scientists, the Bush administration expressed continued opposition Friday to mandatory reductions in heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman warned against "unintended consequences" -- including job losses -- that he said might result if the government requires economy-wide caps on carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

He and other administration officials at a news conference praised the report Friday by a United Nations-sponsored panel of top climate scientists who said there is little doubt the planet is warming as a result of man-made emissions. (Full story)

But Bodman said technology advancements that will cut the amount of carbon emissions, promote energy conservation, and hasten development of non-fossil fuels can address the problem.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/02/us.climate.reax.ap/index.html

Planet TV on global warming

http://www.dailyplanettv.net/2006/06/09/editorial-on-global-climate-change/

George W. Bush: a Common Goaler

George W. Bush must have said a common goal is over half a dozen times in his speech to the House Democrats... Government must do everything in its power to protect people... common goal is immigration... we need a guest worker program to bring in workers who want the jobs Americans DON'T WANT!

we have other equities we have to address

OOPS That should've been INEQUITIES... we can hear the silent laughs from the Dems, another Bushism for the next book in the serious...

oops series...

Saturday, February 3, 2007 · Last updated 6:57 a.m. PT
House Democrats to hear from Bush today
By LAURIE KELLMAN

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_House_Democrats.html?source=mypi

Bush to Speak at House Democrats' Retreat

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/01/bush-to-speak-at-house-democrats.html

Natural Tornado Coincides with Global Warming Report's Release

Does anyone else find it odd and suspicious that the Florida tornado came out of the blue, unexpectedly, to coincide with the Friday, February 2, 2007 release of the United Nation's Report on Global Warming?

Did anyone else catch one of the storm's victims who said ... somebody should look into global warming...

Maybe American Morning had that report... or more likely Anderson Cooper, I'll bet that's where I heard the man being interviewed say somebody should look at global warming...

Throughout watching SciFi's Interdiction?

CNN Coverage

Saturday Morning News

Deadly Florida Storms; Britain Confirms Lethal H5N1 Bird Flu Strain on Turkey Farm in Suffolk
Aired February 3, 2007 - 07:59 ET

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/03/smn.02.html

Cooper's program lengthy...

COOPER: Officials say killer tornadoes swept across central Florida, cutting a path of destruction across Sumter, Lake, Seminole and Volusia counties.

GOV. CHARLIE CRIST (R), FLORIDA: Early this morning, we had a significant weather event. The state emergency operations center obviously is in full mode.

COOPER (on camera): The storms arrived in the dead of night, around 3:00 a.m. Most of the people around here were asleep. The National Weather Center says that warnings were issued about an approaching storm, but that came as news to many of the residents here, who said they had no idea what was about to hit.

IRENE MARTIN, RESIDENT OF FLORIDA: It seemed, like all of a sudden, it got very, very windy. And, then, for even a minute there, it just got -- it seemed like not even a minute, maybe a second -- and it got very, very quiet, and, then, all of a sudden, bam, just a big, big explosion...

FIVE TORNADOS MENTION OF EL NINO

Perhaps you have been noticing the information that we have been showing at the bottom of the screen, numbers to call if you would like to help the people down here. You can also find a complete list on our blog. The address is CNN.com/360blog. Again, that's CNN.com/360blog.

The power of even the smallest tornado is staggering. We are going to take a look at that now, as well as the forces that drive them.

For that, let's turn to CNN's Reynolds Wolf in the Weather Center -- Reynolds.

REYNOLDS WOLF, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Hey, Anderson.

This -- what we have been seeing here is very consistent with an El Nino pattern. And to -- to give you a better explainer of that, let's talk about El Nino very quickly.

And what that is, is basically an unusual warming of the ocean's water in the Pacific. And, when you have that buildup of warm water, it can wreak havoc with the southern and northern branch of the jet stream. The northern branch of the jet stream will keep a lot of that cold air to the north.

But the subtropical jet stream, well, what that can do is, that can enhance storms. On any given situation, when you have a cold front move through parts of Florida, with a lot of that moist air, you have a good chance of strong storms, a good chance of a lot of thunderstorm activity.

But, when you have the strong jet aloft, what that will do is, that will enhance lift. That's going to give it more energy, more of a boost to produce some of these strong storms. And this scenario is precisely what we saw around 3:00 this morning.

Take a look at this Google Map animation that we have for you, then also kind of lays out the path of this storm. It took nearly a 70-mile jog across parts of central Florida, the counties of Sumter, Lake, Seminole, even Volusia County.

Now, unlike the storms that you often see in parts of the Central Plains that's almost like a giant wrecking ball that will roll through the Plains, this storm was a little bit different. It kind of -- it made a touchdown. Then, it kind of hopped, skipped, and jumped through the area. You can see some of the widespread devastation on one corner of the screen -- and, again, very, very fortunate.

It's awful -- awful -- that 19 people lost their lives. But, with very little warning -- or no warning whatsoever -- it's a miracle that there weren't more fatalities -- Anderson.

COOPER: Reynolds, at this point, do we know how many tornadoes were involved in this storm?

WOLF: That's the million-dollar question. The National Weather Service, out of Melbourne, Florida, definitely thinks there were at least five tornadoes, maybe more. It is so hard to say right now.

We did have this one big tornadic system, this one large cell that really began to develop, began to rotate, say, around 3:00 this morning. It really made landfall near -- not landfall -- but made a touchdown near Lady Lake, that community, around -- I think around 3:30 this morning.

Very tough to say, but I would say at least five -- at least five

...


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/02/acd.01.html

just happenstance a major tornado unexpectedly pummels Florida to coincide with the release of the United Nation's report on global warming... hmmm...

clips from American Morning notice storm, tornado, global warming report one after the other...

American Morning
Global Warming Report
Aired February 2, 2007 - 06:00 ET

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking news. Destructive storms and possible tornados are rolling through central Florida early this morning.

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Hot off the presses. A report released overnight says our planet is heating up, seas are expanding and rising, and it's all our fault...

...Now to Paris and an urgent call to action from some of the smartest minds on the planet. This morning they're weighing in with an unequivocal report on global warming. That it is real, the consequences are potentially catastrophic and that our addition to fossil fuels is to blame. The report released just a few hours ago, authored by scientists from 113 countries. It estimates global temperatures will rise somewhere between three and seven degrees in this century. Sea levels are expected to rise seven to 23 inches in this century. And they're calling this report a milestone moment. When the focus shifts from whether it is happening and who or what it is blame to what we should do about it. CNN's Jim Bittermann was there for the briefing in Paris. John Vause is in Beijing, on its way to surpassing the U.S. as the biggest greenhouse gas emitter. We'll get to him in a moment. Let's begin with Jim.

Jim, hello.

JIM BITTERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Miles.

In fact, environmental campaigners are calling this an alarm bell, another alarm bell and a series of alarm bells about the dangers of rising greenhouse gases and rising temperatures around the globe. The report leaves little question. This group of 2,500 scientists coming to the conclusion that humans are responsible. Here's the way Susan Solomon put it this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN SOLOMON, NOAA SENIOR SCIENTIST: When we look at this dramatic rise that is so different from the behavior in thousands of years, there can be no question that the increases is these gases, these greenhouse gases, are dominated by human activity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BITTERMANN: And, in fact, the implication of that is, Miles, that is human activity is responsible, then maybe humans can still do something to change things by cutting back on the amount of greenhouse gases that they create around the planet.

Now as kind of a demonstration of what humans can do last night that was a very small demonstration. A demonstration none the less. All across France last night at about five minutes to 8:00 p.m. local time, people turned off their lights. The electric company says about 1 percent of electrically -- there was about a 1 percent drop in the amount of electricity being used. Didn't really change things dramatically for the planet, but, nonetheless, a kind of a demonstration that there is some support out there for the kind of thing that's being expressed in this report this morning.

Miles.

M. O'BRIEN: Aside from that symbolism, did the scientists talk about what individuals can do?

BITTERMANN: No. This is not the report that does that. This is simply to gather all the scientific data that is out there, put it in one place and come to an agreement on it. There will be reports -- in another three months there's one coming out in Brussels and then later in the year elsewhere that will describe what policy-makers should consider, what the options are for policy-makers. And those will be the actionable reports that policy-makers should probably take a notice of.

Miles.

M. O'BRIEN: Jim Bittermann in Paris, thank you very much.

Nowhere are they watching news of this report more closely than in China. The economy there is booming and it is fueled in large part by the biggest greenhouse gas producer of all, coal. CNN's John Vause joining us live now from Beijing with more...

excerpts continued for effect

S. O'BRIEN: Welcome back, everybody.

Breaking weather news for you. Powerful storms, possible tornados moving across central Florida this morning.

M. O'BRIEN: Hot zone. A new report on global warning released just hours ago. The planet's heating up, the seas are rising, and it's our fault. So now what?...

excerpts continued for effect

S. O'BRIEN: Welcome back, everybody.

An update now on that severe weather in central Florida. A band of storms going right through, major damage we've been telling you about. Some reports say up to 100 homes absolutely destroyed. It's looking more and more likely that it was a tornado, and we've got some coverage from our affiliate WESH in live -- live for us in central Florida.

Let's dip in for a moment, listen to their coverage for a second.

AMANDA OBER, REPORTER, WESH 2 NEWS: But the woman who was in the car said she had been friends with that young girl, approximately 17- year-old who was killed, and she was extremely distraught, teary-eyed, said that she had walked to the bus stop with that girl every day.

Again, I need to keep stressing that we haven't had that specific death confirmed by the Lake County sheriff's office, but we do know there are several fatalities here, and are led to believe that that indeed is one of them. Live in Lady Lake in Lake County, Amanda Ober reporting, WESH 2 news.

S. O'BRIEN: The National Weather Service is reporting that as well, one fatality there, that report on the 17-year-old girl who was killed in her sleep.

The Lake County Sheriff's Office has now called in all of its officers.

There are reports, Chad, too, about a mobile home that was destroyed, a church completely distorted. Really a mess there.

CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Yes.

(WEATHER REPORT)

M. O'BRIEN: "Melting Point" now. In Paris, just a few hours ago, an urgent call to action from some of the smartest minds on the planet.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

M. O'BRIEN (voice over): It is a smoking tailpipe report. The world's leading scientists are no longer mincing words. The planet is warming, the consequences are potentially catastrophic, and our addiction to fossil fuels is to blame.

JERRY MAHLMAN, UNIV. CTR. FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH: I think it's going to be a wakeup call that is more effective than all of the other wakeup calls that have been released over the last few decades, OK? This is a no-brainer right now.

M. O'BRIEN (on camera): The scientific debate is over?

JAMES HANSEN, NASA GODDARD INST. FOR SPACE STUDIES: The debate that was occurring a decade or so ago, is this real and is it caused by humans, that's over.

M. O'BRIEN (voice over): Researchers from 113 countries are now 90 percent certain humans are to blame for rising global temperatures. Much more definitive than five years ago when they issued their last report.

ROBERT CORELL, AUTHOR, "ARCTIC CLIMATE IMPACT": Right now, we have put in since the industrial period began, predominantly from our fossil fuels, more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have seen for over 500,000 years.

M. O'BRIEN: A lot more CO2 -- a two to threefold increase since the industrial revolution. And because it lets the sun's energy in but then traps the heat, carbon dioxide and some other greenhouse gases are steadily cranking up our global thermostat, already one degree warmer over the last 30 years, somewhere between 3.75 and 7 degrees more in the next 100 years.

(on camera): Help us understand why we should be worried about a single degree Fahrenheit.

HANSEN: The effect on critical parts of the climate system is very important for changes of even a few degrees. And the most -- perhaps the most important one is the ice sheets and the eventual sea level rise.

M. O'BRIEN: The ice sheets are melting away at an alarming rate, the equivalent of a four-mile-high and four-mile-wide ice cube gone from Greenland and Antarctica every year. The big melt is just part of the sea level problem, because as the oceans warm they expand. The report predicts sea levels will rise between 7 and 23 inches in the next century.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So we're likely to see hundreds of millions of what we'll call environmental refugees, people who no longer can live where they had lived for maybe thousands of years.

M. O'BRIEN: The report paints a dire picture if we do nothing -- mass extinctions; the polar bears perhaps on the thinnest ice; changes in migratory patterns and disease trajectories; huge shifts in productive land for farming; dry areas drier; wet areas wetter; the oceans acidic; and huge killer storms common.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I call climate change kind of a super tanker. And you've got to put the brakes on it as soon as you can because it will drift, it will move forward on these kinds of time scales, 10, 20, 30 years.

M. O'BRIEN (on camera): So is now the point at which action must be taken?

HANSEN: I think that's exactly right. I think we are now at the tipping point. Either we get on a different path now or it's going to be too late to prevent large climate changes.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

M. O'BRIEN: In fact, the report said no matter how much we do right now to curb our production of greenhouse gas emissions, some of the warming will continue. The climate just doesn't turn on a dime -- Soledad.

S. O'BRIEN: All right.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/02/ltm.01.html

Glenn Beck Show Global Warming Report Downgrades Man's Impact

CNN 's Glenn Beck introduces the topic of the UN's report on global warming by stating the report includes details that show "man's impact on the climate is on the decline..."

Beck interviews guest Senator James Inhofe

U.N. Warns of Global Warming
Aired February 2, 2007 - 19:00:00 ET

Anyway, I am really sick of saying this, but here goes. I agree that the earth`s climate is changing, but I`m not convinced that man is responsible. At least not yet, anyway. But that could be about to change.

Today, U.N.`s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out with their new report that many will point to as the definitive smoking gun that man is responsible for global warming, despite some details that shows man`s impact on the climate is on the decline. Hmm. That seems like an inconvenient truth.

You`re not going to hear that on very many places. Well, you`re going to hear it from my next guest a lot. Republican senator from Oklahoma, James Inhofe.

Senator, the report, fact or fiction?

SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: Oh, it`s all fiction. Here`s the big day, Friday, you know. Here we are with the report, that fourth assessment of the IPCC.

But I want to make sure that your viewers out there are aware that it`s the United Nations that started this whole mess and almost every bad thing that gets started gets started by the United Nations. They`re the ones ten years ago who brought this thing in, and now that the scientists are leaving their side and saying, "No, it`s not man-made gases that are causing this," they`re starting to panic.

So they`re getting even -- but I`d like to say this one thing about today`s report. This is not the report. This is the fourth assessment, and this is the summary for policymakers. And this is not scientists. Keep in mind, these are just the ones who want to propagandize this thing.

Can I read something real quick?

BECK: Yes.

INHOFE: This is found on page four of today`s report. It says, "Changes in scientific work to ensure consistent see with this summary where policymakers will occur."

What they`re saying is, it doesn`t matter what the scientists say, because they`ve already made up their minds. And they`re going to have in this report things that scientists didn`t say but things they want to you believe.

BECK: OK. So they`ve changed some things and downgraded, as I see it, for instance. The sea level.

INHOFE: They have. I`ll tell you what`s funny about that is that, well, the sea level, yes, they`ve cut the reduction or lowering of the sea level in half. But they also have downgraded man`s contribution by 25 percent.

You won`t hear that from Barbara Boxer and all the liberals on the left and out there in California. But they have downgraded that.

They`ve also come up with other things in the report that are actually fairly accurate. But they never talk about those things.

BECK: So wait a minute, I don`t understand this. How can they say they`re now -- they were 66 percent sure. Now they`re 90 percent sure man is the cause of all of this stuff, yet, they downgraded man`s contribution by 25 percent. Can you make...

INHOFE: Glenn, the math isn`t right. And my wife, we used to be a math teacher, and she`s trying to figure that out, now, too.

BECK: So, why is it, George Bush, just this last week, was with the State of the Union, he says global warming is happening and we need to find out -- we need to reduce and reuse and recycle and all of this stuff. Why is he jumping on the bandwagon? Does he believe it or is this politics?

INHOFE: First of all, I don`t think that`s an exact quote, because what he said -- and I was very careful to listen to this -- he never talked about capping trade. He never talked about reducing CO2 to reduce man-made gases.

What he did do is say recognizing global warming. That`s probably the most benign statement he could make to make a few people happy. I don`t think he should have done it because I know what his true belief is.

BECK: Yes, but if you look at what the U.N. has said, they said a lot of the U.S. was very, very helpful on this report. Why is it we`re very helpful? If we don`t buy it, why are we helpful? Are we just playing politics?

INHOFE: Well, if you look at the individuals on this report, the ones -- again, the policymakers, not the scientists, they`ve come out with things that are totally contradictory. We`ve already talked about a couple of them.

But it`s also the U.N. that came out just last week and said that gases coming from livestock are contributing more to the CO2 than man -- all the automobiles, SUVs, the trucks and other man-made gases. So again, that`s another contradiction. But it`s one that you won`t hear them talking about.

BECK: Stephen Harper has come out in Canada, the prime minister, and said, this is -- this just a giant shift of wealth. You agree with that?

INHOFE: Well, here`s the -- let`s talk about him. He`s the prime minister up there in Canada. He was the one, in -- remember, the 60 scientists who had advised him to sign on to Kyoto ten years ago? They are now saying, and this is their quote, that if we had known then what we know today about the science, we would not have signed on to Kyoto and we would not be a part of it. And they are now trying to get the prime minister to withdraw from this or the next Kyoto.

BECK: OK. Senator, thank you very much for joining us. We`ll be back in a minute.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/02/gb.01.html


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/02/gb.01.html

We're Not All Global Warmers Now

We're Not all global warmers now. Among leading skeptical experts Robert Eisenhigh.

http://engineering.osu.edu/news/experts/environmental.php

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p339.htm

The lengthy listing of global warming skeptics reveals contrary to Reason Magazine's Ron Bailey's August 11, 2005 article We're all global warmers now, we're not.

More

Letter from Frederick Seitz
Research Review of Global Warming Evidence

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Science, Politics, and Death
The New American - June 14, 2004 - Vol. 20, No. 12
by Arthur B. Robinson & Jane M. Orient

Environmental extremism kills. Millions die annually because of restrictions on DDT, and imposing the "Kyoto" regulations would kill many more.

Dr. Arthur B. Robinson, a professor of chemistry, is the founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and editor of the newsletter Access to Energy. Dr. Jane Orient, a specialist in internal medicine, has a private practice and is the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons...

The real culprit in "global climate change" is the sun: Long-term studies document that fluctuations in the intensity of solar radiation are closely correlated with warming and cooling trends in the Earth's temperature. These facts are scrupulously ignored by those determined to use the "global warming" myth to destroy industrial civilization.

http://www.sitewave.net/news/

More

The New American
Vol. 16, No. 03
January 31, 2000
Hot Topics, Cold Truth
Dr. S. Fred Singer interviewed by John F. McManus

A leading atmospheric physicist brings some cool-headed reasoning to the hot topics of global warming, the ozone hole, and other environmental issues.

Dr. S. Fred Singer is an atmospheric physicist who leads the Washington-based Science and Environmental Policy Project. He is also a distinguished research professor at George Mason University in Virginia and the Institute for Space Science and Technology in Florida. He was the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now a branch of the Department of Commerce. He is the author of numerous books, the latest of which is Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/01-31-2000/vo16no03_environment.htm

More finds

June 04, 2006
Al Gore: Planetary Triage? or Essenhigh: False Alarm?
Walter Derzko

...Gore makes use of the famous Vostok ice core sample graph (above) that compares CO2 variability and temperature variability over the 1000's of years on earth.

Everyone seems to be making the assumption that it is CO2 or other greenhouse gases that is causing temperature spikes. I'm not entirely convinced. Other scientists question this too and offer other explanations. There are detractors who present a strong scientific case such as Robert H. Essenhigh of Ohio state who supports this different view. In a Ohio State Press Release called Global Warming is Natural and that it may end within 20 Years he cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change...

http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/5031687

http://smarteconomy.typepad.com/smart_economy/2006/06/al_gore_planeta.html

Comment on smarteconomy site

Peiser admits to making a mistake
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: March 22, 2006 10:45 AM, by Tim Lambert

http://smarteconomy.typepad.com/smart_economy/2006/06/al_gore_planeta.html

Newshounds critiques Fox News for presenting two skeptics on global warming. Guess they don't watch Heidi Cullen's one-sided weather channel monologues...

Global Warming Debate, FOX News Style: Two Questionable Guests With The Same Opinion
Reported by Ellen - January 31, 2007

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/31/global_warming_debate_fox_news_style_two_questionable_guests_with_the_same_opinion.php

Don't forget to keep checking Net the Truth Online using the search feature located at the top left corner of the site.

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming

Does CO2 really drive global warming?

(Robert H. Essenhigh is the E. G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ohio State University, 206 W. 18th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210; 614-292-0403; essenhigh.1@osu.edu.)

I don’t believe that it does.

To the contrary, if you apply the IFF test—if-and-only-if or necessary-and-sufficient—the outcome would appear to be exactly the reverse. Rather than the rising levels of carbon dioxide driving up the temperature, the logical conclusion is that it is the rising temperature that is driving up the CO2 level. Of course, this raises a raft of questions, but they are all answerable. What is particularly critical is distinguishing between the observed phenomenon, or the “what”, from the governing mechanism, or the “why”. Confusion between these two would appear to be the source of much of the noise in the global warming debate.

In applying the IFF test, we can start with the clear correlation between the global CO2 profile and the corresponding temperature signature. There is now in the literature the report of a 400,000-year sequence clearly showing, as a phenomenon, that they go up—and down—together (1). The correlation is clear and accepted. But the causation, the mechanism, is something else: Which is driving which?

Logically, there are four possible explanations, but only two need serious consideration, unless they both fail.

Case 1: CO2 drives the temperature, as is currently most frequently asserted; and
Case 2: Temperature drives the level of CO2.
Both appear at first to be possible, but both then generate crucial origin and supplementary questions. For Case 1, the origin question is: What is the independent source of CO2 that drives the CO2 level both up and down, and which in turn, somehow, is presumed to drive the temperature up and down? For Case 2, it is: What drives the temperature, and if this then drives the CO2, where does the CO2 come from? For Case 2, the questions are answerable; but for Case 1, they are not.

Consider Case 2. This directly introduces global warming behavior. Is global warming, as a separate and independent phenomenon, in progress? The answer, as I heard it in geology class 50 years ago, was “yes”, and I have seen nothing since then to contradict that position. To the contrary, as further support, there is now documentation (that was only fragmentary 50 years ago) of an 850,000-year global-temperature sequence, showing that the temperature is oscillating with a period of 100,000 years, and with an amplitude that has risen, in that time, from about 5 °F at the start to about 10 °F “today” (meaning the latest 100,000-year period) (2). We are currently in a rise that started 25,000 years ago and, reasonably, can be expected to peak “very shortly”.

On the shorter timescales of 1000 years and 100 years, further temperature oscillations can be seen, but of much smaller amplitude, down to 1 and 0.5 °F in those two cases. Nevertheless, the overall trend is clearly up, even through the Little Ice Age (~1350–1900) following the Medieval Warm Period. So the global warming phenomenon is here, with a very long history, and we are in it. But what is the driver?

Arctic Ocean model
The postulated driver, or mechanism, developed some 30 years ago to account for the “million-year” temperature oscillations, is best known as the “Arctic Ocean” model (2). According to this model, the temperature variations are driven by an oscillating ice cap in the northern polar regions. The crucial element in the conceptual formulation of this mechanism was the realization that such a massive ice cap could not have developed, and then continued to expand through that development, unless there was a major source of moisture close by to supply, maintain, and extend the cap. The only possible moisture source was then identified as the Arctic Ocean, which, therefore, had to be open—not frozen over—during the development of the ice ages. It then closed again, interrupting the moisture supply by freezing over.

So the model we now have is that if the Arctic Ocean is frozen over, as is the case today, the existing ice cap is not being replenished and must shrink, as it is doing today. As it does so, the Earth can absorb more of the Sun’s radiation and therefore will heat up—global warming—as it is doing today, so long as the Arctic Ocean is closed. When it is warm enough for the ocean to open, which oceanographic (and media) reports say is evidently happening right now, then the ice cap can begin to re-form.

As it expands, the ice increasingly reflects the incoming (shorter-wave) radiation from the sun, so that the atmosphere cools at first. But then, the expanding ice cap reduces the radiative (longer-wave) loss from the Earth, acting as an insulator, so that the Earth below cools more slowly and can keep the ocean open as the ice cap expands. This generates “out-of-sync” oscillations between atmosphere and Earth. The Arctic Ocean “trip” behavior at the temperature extremes, allowing essentially discontinuous change in direction of the temperature, is identified as a bifurcation system with potential for analysis as such. The suggested trip times for the change are interesting: They were originally estimated at about 500 years, then reduced to 50 years and, most recently, down to 5 years (2). So, if the ocean is opening right now, we could possibly start to see the temperature reversal under way in about 10 years.

What we have here is a sufficient mechanistic explanation for the dominant temperature fluctuations and, particularly, for the current global warming rise—without the need for CO2 as a driver. Given that pattern, the observed CO2 variations then follow, as a driven outcome, mainly as the result of change in the dynamic equilibrium between the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and its solution in the sea. The numbers are instructive. In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data on the carbon balance showed ~90 gigatons (Gt) of carbon in annual quasi-equilibrium exchange between sea and atmosphere, and an additional 60-Gt exchange between vegetation and atmosphere, giving a total of ~150 Gt (3). This interpretation of the sea as the major source is also in line with the famous Mauna Loa CO2 profile for the past 40 years, which shows the consistent season-dependent variation of 5–6 ppm, up and down, throughout the year—when the average global rise is only 1 ppm/year.

In the literature, this oscillation is attributed to seasonal growing behavior on the “mainland” (4), which is mostly China, >2000 mi away, but no such profile with that amplitude is known to have been reported at any mainland location. Also, the amplitude would have to fall because of turbulent diffusive exchange during transport over the 2000 mi from the mainland to Hawaii, but again there is lack of evidence for such behavior. The fluctuation can, however, be explained simply from study of solution equilibria of CO2 in water as due to emission of CO2 from and return to the sea around Hawaii governed by a ±10 °F seasonal variation in the sea temperature.

Impact of industrialization
The next matter is the impact of fossil fuel combustion. Returning to the IPCC data and putting a rational variation as noise of ~5 Gt on those numbers, this float is on the order of the additional—almost trivial (<5%)—annual contribution of 5–6 Gt from combustion of fossil fuels. This means that fossil fuel combustion cannot be expected to have any significant influence on the system unless, to introduce the next point of focus, the radiative balance is at some extreme or bifurcation point that can be tripped by “small” concentration changes in the radiation-absorbing–emitting gases in the atmosphere. Can that include CO2?

This now starts to address the necessity or “only-if” elements of the problem. The question focuses on whether CO2 in the atmosphere can be a dominant, or “only-if” radiative-balance gas, and the answer to that is rather clearly “no”. The detailed support for that statement takes the argument into some largely esoteric areas of radiative behavior, including the analytical solution of the Schuster–Schwarzschild Integral Equation of Transfer that governs radiative exchange (5–7), but the outcome is clear.

The central point is that the major absorbing gas in the atmosphere is water, not CO2, and although CO2 is the only other significant atmospheric absorbing gas, it is still only a minor contributor because of its relatively low concentration. The radiative absorption “cross sections” for water and CO2 are so similar that their relative influence depends primarily on their relative concentrations. Indeed, although water actually absorbs more strongly, for many engineering calculations the concentrations of the two gases are added, and the mixture is treated as a single gas.

In the atmosphere, the molar concentration of CO2 is in the range of 350–400 ppm. Water, on the other hand, has a very large variation but, using the “60/60” (60% relative humidity [RH] at 60 °F) value as an average, then from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers standard psychrometric chart, the weight ratio of water to (dry) air is ~0.0065, or roughly 10,500 ppm. Compared with CO2, this puts water, on average, at 25–30 times the (molar) concentration of the CO2, but it can range from a 1:1 ratio to >100:1.

Even closer focus on water is given by solution of the Schuster–Schwarzschild equation applied to the U.S. Standard Atmosphere profiles for the variation of temperature, pressure, and air density with elevation (8). The results show that the average absorption coefficient obtained for the atmosphere closely corresponds to that for the 5.6–7.6-µm water radiation band, when water is in the concentration range 60–80% RH—on target for atmospheric conditions. The absorption coefficient is 1–2 orders of magnitude higher than the coefficient values for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm. This would seem to eliminate CO2 and thus provide closure to that argument.

This overall position can be summarized by saying that water accounts, on average, for >95% of the radiative absorption. And, because of the variation in the absorption due to water variation, anything future increases in CO2 might do, water will already have done. The common objection to this argument is that the wide fluctuations in water concentration make an averaging (for some reason) impermissible. Yet such averaging is applied without objection to global temperatures, when the actual temperature variation across the Earth from poles to equator is roughly –100 to +100 °F, and a change on the average of ±1 °F is considered major and significant. If this averaging procedure can be applied to the atmospheric temperature, it can be applied to the atmospheric water content; and if it is denied for water, it must, likewise, be denied for temperature—in that case we don’t have an identified problem!

What the evidence shows
So what we have on the best current evidence is that

global temperatures are currently rising;
the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;
the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;
the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;
if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;
the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;
water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;
determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-µm water band in the 60–80% RH range; and
the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.
The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers.

References

Sigman, M.; Boyle, E. A. Nature 2000, 407, 859–869.
Calder, N. The Weather Machine; Viking Press: New York, 1974.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change; Houghton, J. T., Meira Filho, L. G., Callender, B. A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A., Maskell, K., Eds.; Cam bridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K., 1996.
Hileman, B. Chem. Eng. News 1992, 70 (17), 7–19.
Schuster, A. Astrophysics J. 1905, 21, 1–22.
Schwarzschild, K. Gesell. Wiss. Gottingen; Nachr. Math.–Phys. Klasse 1906, 41.
Schwarzschild, K. Berliner Ber. Math. Phys. Klasse 1914, 1183.
Essenhigh, R. H. On Radiative Transfer in Solids. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Thermophysics Specialist Conference, New Orleans, April 17–20, 1967; Paper 67-287; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston, VA, 1967.


Robert H. Essenhigh is the E. G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ohio State University, 206 W. 18th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210; 614-292-0403; essenhigh.1@osu.edu.

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html

Dobbs: Clear Concensus on Global Warming

CNN Lou Dobbs presents a report on the global warming issue and at least includes a video clip of Dr. William Gray.

Get the transcript (Feb. 2, 2007)

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/02/ldt.01.html

Unfortunately, Dobbs doesn't listen to Gray, ignores any debate on the report, and says he wonders how the policy will move forward now that there is a clear concensus on global warming.

Dobbs obviously just doesn't keep up - there isn't a clear concensus.

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming


Lou Dobbs tonight
U.N. Report Warns of Global Warming

Aired February 2, 2007

...And an alarming new report on global warming finds the damage could last for centuries. Is any of it reversible? What should we do? We'll have that special report...

A dire warning tonight from hundreds of the world's top scientists. They say mankind is responsible for global warming. Urgent action is needed to prevent catastrophe that could last for centuries. The warning comes in a long-awaited United Nations report.

Lisa Sylvester has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): European tourist attractions turned off the lights for five minutes to highlight the release of a new report on global warming. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said human activity is directly responsible for global warming.

ROBERT WATSON, CHIEF SCIENTIST, WORLD BANK: When we run our cars on gasoline, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and it spreads around the globe and it acts like a blanket, and it causes the earth to warm up.

SYLVESTER: Polarized sheets are melting at a rate of nearly 10 percent every decade. The most significant loss has occurred in last four years. The IPCC report estimates sea levels could rise by as much as two feet, as the climate warms by 3 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit this century. Hundreds of experts from 40 countries contributed to the report. Still, there are skeptics who say the results are overblown.

WILLIAM GRAY, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY: If these models were so good, they would be predicting next season. The reason they don't, because they don't have skill at that range. But they tell us what's going to happen 50, 100 years from now.

SYLVESTER: The Bush White House opposes mandatory carbon dioxide caps, and in 2001 pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol regulating emissions. Critics criticize the administration at acting at the behest of large oil companies.

ALDEN MEYER, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS: The principle source of global warming pollution is oil and coal that we burn in our power plants and use in our cars, and those companies stand to lose a lot of money if we use energy more efficiently and switch to cleaner sources.

SYLVESTER: The average American is responsible for twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as the average European, 20 times more than the average Indian.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SYLVESTER: The Bush administration downplayed this new report and said a U.S. program to cut emissions could hurt the U.S. economy and send businesses overseas. But a growing number of Capitol Hill lawmakers say this report is a wake-up call for policymakers who ignore this issue -- Lou.

DOBBS: Yes, it's hard to imagine anybody is ignoring this issue, after the climate of recent years has, one year after another, establishing new records for a warmer climate in this country. It's -- it's going to be fascinating to see what policy adjustments are made as we go forward, with now a clear consensus on global warming.

SYLVESTER: And we have a Democratic Congress, and this is a big issue for Democrats, Lou.

DOBBS: Absolutely. As it should be just for all of us, irrespective of political party. Thanks, Lisa. Lisa Sylvester

.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/02/ldt.01.html

Patriot Watchdog Necessary

PatriotWatchdog IS ON THE AIR!
Guest-hosting Patricia Saye's "Have Your Say" time slot: Thursday nights at 8:00pm PST / 11:00pm EST
at Republic Radio, streaming talk radio. (Click banner above for link)

DOWNLOAD the Feb 01,,2007(1 hour, 8min. 27.8 Meg)FEBRUARY 01, 2007 "Outside the Box" with PatriotWatchdog
Mr. Bob Baker of WFIR, Washintonians for Immigration Reform returns to follow-up on OBC, and to discuss initiatives WFIR is launching in Washington State.

DOWNLOAD the Jan 25,2007(2hours, 2 minutes, 48.7 Meg)JANUARY 25, 2007 "Outside the Box" with PatriotWatchdog
Danny Smith, Co-founder of American Freedom Riders returns after the Ramos & Compean rallies to talk about what's next. Also, there's a complete reading of the FIRE Coalition's response to the 2007 State of the Union Address, titled: "BACKFIRE, A SOUR OUTLOOK." (SOUR being "State of the Union Response")
There's also a BONUS 40 minutes "Inside the Box" with PatriotWatchdog at the end of the regular program.

DOWNLOAD the Jan 18,2007(57 minute, 23.1 Meg)JANUARY 18, 2007 "Outside the Box" with PatriotWatchdog

JAN 13, 2007 PHOENIX RALLY FOR BP AGENTS RAMOS & COMPEAN:LIVE BROADCAST BY PATRICIA SAYE

http://www.patriotwatchdog.com/

Americans for legal immigration

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=52289

Misleading Bush Pardons of Border Agents continues

Bush never indicated he would pardon pardon border agents Ramos and Compean

See Net the Truth Online search for border agents...

Bush won't pardon agents immediately By DAVE MONTGOMERY
Star-Telegram Washington Bureau
Posted on Thu, Feb. 01, 2007

In an interview on the Fox television network Wednesday, Bush again said he is bound by strict federal guidelines on pardons and cannot immediately grant a pardon to the two agents.

Bush explained that "there is a series of steps that are analyzed in order for the Justice Department to make a recommendation as to whether or not a president grants a pardon."

And, Bush added, "We're not at that stage yet."...


http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/16595462.htm

'Your World' Exclusive: President George Bush
Thursday, February 01, 2007

This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto," January 31, 2007, that may be update:

CAVUTO: Let me ask you, sir, about the ex-Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, both serving time in jail for shooting a runaway Mexican drug dealer.

Would you pardon them?

BUSH: You know, I get asked about pardons on a lot of different cases. And there's a procedure in place. And what I told members of Congress who have written me or called was to just look at the case, look at the facts in the case.

And people need to understand why these folks were sent to trial and why a jury of their peers convicted them. And that's, of course, what a president does on any pardon request.

CAVUTO: So, what are you saying?

BUSH: I'm saying, I would look at all the facts. And — but there is a process in any case for a president to make a pardon decision. In other words, there is a series of steps that are followed, so that the pardon process is, you know, a rational process.

CAVUTO: Well, they're in jail now. They're not going anywhere.

BUSH: Right. That's right.

CAVUTO: So...

BUSH: So...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: ... as things stand now, they will stay in jail.

BUSH: As things stand now, they will serve their sentence, right.

CAVUTO: Unless you interfere.

BUSH: Right. But what I'm trying to tell you is, is that it is — there is a series of steps that are analyzed in order for the Justice Department to make a recommendation as to whether or not a president grants a pardon.

CAVUTO: And we're not at that yet?

BUSH: No, we're not at that stage yet.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249439,00.html

Minutemanproject Petition to Pardon border patrol agents to no avail President Turns his back

with link to Lou Dobbs video Border Betrayal

http://www.minutemanproject.com/default.asp?contentID=99

Net the Truth Online

Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Confirmed: Presidential Pardon Border Agents a Myth
We exposed days ago in our piece Myth of Border Agents Presidential Pardon that President Bush never said during a KFOX TV interview Thursday, January 18, 2007 that he was considering a possible pardon for border patrol agents Ramos and Compean.

It was never even being considered by President Bush to pardon the agents a day after they reported to federal prison (Wednesday, January 17, 2007) to begin their 11 and 12 year prison sentences, nor at this time.

Had anyone in the news business bothered to view the actual KFOX-TV videotape of Alison Burns interview of President George Bush, this story would never had had any legs and worldwide hype.

We're still waiting to learn whether it's true the Ramos and Compean families were promised a phone call from President Bush...

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/01/confirmed-presidential-pardon-border.html

Partial Birth Abortion and Presidential Candidates

Partial Birth Abortion is a character-defining issue and will be central in the contention for President of the United States.

What Is Partial-Birth Abortion?

http://www.euthanasia.com/abortion.html

Friday, November 03, 2006
US Supreme Court 'partial-birth' abortion cases briefing [ACS]

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/monitor/2006/11/us-supreme-court-partial-birth.php

Supreme Court Partial Birth Abortion Ban Oral Arguments
Product ID: 195290-1
Format: Judicial Proceeding
Last Airing: 2006-11-12
Event Date: 2006-11-08
Length: 2 hours, 3 minutes
Location: Washington, District of Columbia

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/videolibrary/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&cPath=18_19&products_id=195290-1&tID=5

Lies exposed by photos and videos
2/6/2006 - noon PM PST
By Barbara Kralis
February 6, 2006
©Barbara Kralis 2006
www.catholic.org

http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=2977§ion=Featured+Today


You Tube listings

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=partial+birth+abortion&search=Search

Partial Birth Abortion video dramatization

http://www.dyinglight.com/index.php/07-12-2006/partial-birth-abortion-video/

Friday, January 12, 2007
What they're fighting for: partial birth abortion

http://bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-theyre-fighting-for-partial-birth.html

http://bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/search/label/late-term%20abortion

Barrack Hussein Obama defends partial-birth abortion by Donna Schoenrock

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/77500/barack_hussein_obama_jr_defends_partialbirth.html

June 9, 2003, 8:45 a.m.
Kucinich’s Continued Evolution
What exactly is the presidential candidate’s abortion position?
By David Enrich

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat who is seeking his party's presidential nomination, is the first to admit that his views on abortion have evolved...

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich060903.asp

January 10, 2007
The Democrats' Newest Snake Oil Scheme: Clinton, Carter Tempt Baptists Away from Biblical Values
This brief Associated Press story reveals yet another example of the left's new tactic in dealing with "values voters"; namely, the distortion of biblical theology (while using religious symbol, rhetoric and association) to tempt Christians into aligning with the Democrat Party.

In this same approach recently, we've witnessed the surge in the MSM's coverage of "progressive evangelicalism," the cave-in of several Protestant leaders to the unscientific ballyhoo of global warming, and the sidling up of ardent abortion promoters like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to preachers like Bill Hybels and Rick Warren.

http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2007/01/the_democrats_n.php

Del. global warming skeptic stands pat
State climatologist on opposite side of governor in court case
By JEFF MONTGOMERY, The News Journal

Posted Thursday, February 1, 2007
Delaware's state climatologist has found himself in the middle of a political squall after taking skeptical stands on global warming and climate change -- in one case directly contradicting the state's own policy.

David R. Legates, a University of Delaware geography professor, co-wrote a "friend of the court" brief that opposed Delaware's position in a multi-state U.S. Supreme Court case.

In the appeal, state regulators argued that carbon dioxide from new cars should be regulated because of evidence the gas was contributing to rising global temperatures, climate shifts and changes in the environment. The Bush administration and industry critics opposed the demand, saying the dire warnings are unproven.

Enter Legates, a Ph.D. climatologist who received the title of state climatologist in 2005 from Daniel Leathers, now the head of the University of Delaware's geography department.

Legates joined a group of scientists late last year in urging the court to reject the state claims, in a brief filed by the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute.

"It is simply impossible to conclude that the net effect of greenhouse gases endangers human health and welfare," the brief said.

The institute has sued the government in the past to block some fuel economy standards for automobiles.

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070201/NEWS/702010363/1006/NEWS

For more information on the topic of global warming, use the search feature on this site located top left corner.

Results

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming

Gov. Crist: Paper Ballots for Florida

Crist wants touch-screen voting machines gone
By STEVE BOSQUET
Published January 31, 2007
TALLAHASSEE — Eager to end six troublesome years of touch screen voting in Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist wants every county to switch to paper ballots by 2008.

Crist will ask the Legislature to spend more than $30-million to replace touch screens with an optical scan system that allows a voter to mark an oval next to a candidate’s name before slipping a ballot into an electronic reader — the same way absentee ballots are cast.

The change would affect a majority of the state’s voters living in 15 mostly urban counties, including Pinellas, Hillsborough and Pasco.

Crist will travel today to Palm Beach County, home of the disgraced “butterfly ballot” that in 2000 became a symbol of electoral ineptitude.

Accompanied by Secretary of State Kurt Browning and U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, a Democrat and a vocal critic of touch screen voting, Crist will endorse the change in voting systems while offering the money to pay for it.

“I think it’s important to make sure people have confidence in our voting system,” Crist said Wednesday. “If there’s a need for a recount, I think it’s important that we have something to recount.”

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/31/State/Crist_wants_touch_scr.shtml

On Monday, Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, plans to introduce a bill in Congress that would require all voting machines nationwide to produce paper records through which voters can verify that their ballots were recorded correctly. A majority of House members have endorsed the proposal, and the changes have strong support among Senate Democrats. Mr. Holt’s bill would also substantially toughen the requirements for the touch-screen machines that have printers, and experts say this could give even more impetus to the shift toward the optical scanning systems.

...Mr. Holt said his bill would require the return to paper ballots by next year’s presidential primaries, and it would authorize $300 million in federal money to upgrade the machines. Some state and county election officials say it could be difficult to make such sweeping changes by then.

February 2, 2007
Florida to Shift Voting System With Paper Trail
By ABBY GOODNOUGH and CHRISTOPHER DREW

DELRAY BEACH, Fla., Feb. 1 ­ Gov. Charlie Crist announced plans on Thursday to abandon the touch-screen voting machines that many of Florida’s counties installed after the disputed 2000 presidential election. The state will instead adopt a system of casting paper ballots counted by scanning machines in time for the 2008 presidential election.

Voting experts said Florida’s move, coupled with new federal voting legislation expected to pass this year, could be the death knell for the paperless electronic touch-screen machines. If as expected the Florida Legislature approves the $32.5 million cost of the change, it would be the nation’s biggest repudiation yet of touch-screen voting, which was widely embraced after the 2000 recount as a state-of-the-art means of restoring confidence that every vote would count.

Several counties around the country, including Cuyahoga in Ohio and Sarasota in Florida, are moving toward exchanging touch-screen machines for ones that provide a paper trail. But Florida could become the first state that invested heavily in the recent rush to touch screens to reject them so sweepingly.

“Florida is like a synonym for election problems; it’s the Bermuda Triangle of elections,” said Warren Stewart, policy director of VoteTrust USA, a nonprofit group that says optical scanners are more reliable than touch screens. “For Florida to be clearly contemplating moving away from touch screens to the greatest extent possible is truly significant.”...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/us/02voting.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fD%2fDrew%2c%20Christopher&oref=slogin

Dobbs:

Guests

Robert Zimmerman, Democratic Strategist
James Taranto, Opinion Journal editor
Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News

Metabolism Boosts Sugar Filled?

E.D. Hill interviewing Dr. Manny Alvarez on foods to boost your metabolism... a trio of products is displayed while Dr. Manny reviews their healthful properties... right, Dr. Manny, how much sugar content?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249138,00.html

John Hagee Interviews Walid Shoebat

Fox News E.D. Hill interviews Walid Phares

who is funding Muslim youth turning to hardline Islam...West needs to understand there is an ideology that came long before what we're evidencing today...

Radical Islam: Terror in its own Words
Saturday 9 PM

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2006-40%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=Walid+phares&btnG=Search

John Hagee Ministries discussing Obsession and more with Walid Shoebat

http://www.google.com/search?q=Walid+Shoebat&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en

Hubna in the Middle East it's not a Peace Treaty, it's a Hubna Treaty, says Shoebat.

The new documentary, "Obsession: The Threat of Radical Islam," goes inside the world of Muslim extremists.

This documentary is sure to provoke many questions, and the filmmakers want to hear from you!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227393,00.html

More

http://www.shoebat.com/news.php

Shoebat's response to Moshe Katz
Reader comment on blog entry: Walid Shoebat: "Palestinian turns from radical Muslim to true Zionist"
in response to reader comment: Walid Shoebat - hero or snakeoil salesman?
Submitted by Walid Shoebat, Nov 8, 2005 at 15:12

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/20912

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/27999

More

Who's the liar... Muslims or Christians?

http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/7438810

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walid_Shoebat