For a few years now, there’s been a lot of talk about how Global Warming is destroying the Earth, how it has already gone beyond worst-case scenario.  Obviously it’s not beyond the worst-case scenario.  And recent scientific measurements have shown that the Earth is cooling, and some places are having record snowfalls and some glaciers are accumulating ice.  So it might become difficult to convince people that Global Warming is imminent and everything possible must be done to stop it.  The leaders of the crusade don’t want to lose their power, because a lot of powerful legislation is being pushed through with little debate, for the sake of the world.  So now the term Global Warming is being replaced by Climate Change.  This way, no one can argue with them, because the climate changes all the time.

Can I prove that their agenda has changed?  Perhaps not yet.  But keep this in mind when you listen to the news, to see if this is really happening.  Decide for yourself.

Along these same lines, I recently found an article explaining why the temperature measurements used may not be accurate and reliable.  Here’s an excerpt that you may not know about:

After temperatures are collected from the various stations, a series of adjustments is performed on the data. This is absolutely necessary, and it definitely does not mean that people are playing tricks with the data. They have to correct for time of observation, changes in station equipment, station history and urban warming. But while the data collected for U.S. stations is available for examination, the dataset used by the IPCC is not. The numbers they use come out of a ‘black box,’ and there’s a story behind that which I won’t go into today. The global measurements for the three teams analyzing the same data is not very different, but the fact that global warming as measured to date is almost exactly equal to the adjustments performed to the data makes some sensible people queasy…

The article also links to a detailed report from an effort to photograph and classify all surface temperature measurement stations.   So far the group has surveyed 80% of the 1,221 places, and only 11% meet government specifications.  Some of the stations are next to air-conditioning units, and some are on pavement, which goes against specifications (for obvious reasons).   Here’s the article: Does global warming diminish with accurate temperature measurements?

Before anyone gets irate with me, let me say that I’m not trying to completely discredit the notion of Global Warming.  It happens naturally, and we do pollute the atmosphere more than we should.  But I am somewhat suspicious of some of the claims made by Al Gore and the IPCC, which blames it almost completely on man.  I wonder if we are being told the whole story.  Why would they lie about it?  Well, these high-priority scare tactics do allow legislation to move through quicker than normal, with less debate.  So it goes give a degree of power.  But who knows what is really going on?  My point is that we should look at both sides seriously, because there is credible data on each side of the debate.  We can’t trust the mainstream news media to tell us all the facts without bias and agenda.

I really wonder about our politicians in Washington sometimes.  I know there are different points-of-view on issues, and sometimes compromises must be made to accomplish some things, but shouldn’t there be an ethical line somewhere?

Here’s the story from the Washington Times that inspired this rant:

When House Democratic leaders were rounding up votes Friday for the massive climate-change bill, they paid special attention to their colleagues from Ohio who remained stubbornly undecided.

They finally secured the vote of one Ohioan, veteran Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Toledo, the old-fashioned way. They gave her what she wanted – a new federal power authority, similar to Washington state’s Bonneville Power Administration, stocked with up to $3.5 billion in taxpayer money available for lending to renewable energy and economic development projects in Ohio and other Midwestern states.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, included the Kaptur project in a 310-page amendment to the legislation unveiled at 3 a.m. Friday, just hours before the bill was to be debated on the House floor. The amendment was packed with other vote-getting provisions, both large and small, that had been sought by dozens of wavering Democrats.

The wheeling and dealing proved successful. Mr. Waxman and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, backed by the personal lobbying of President Obama, won over enough lawmakers to pass the bill narrowly Friday evening, 219-212.

There’s more to the story, which you can read at the link, and I will summarize some with my rant.  Miss Kaptur pushed for this — it wasn’t all Waxman’s doing.  Kaptur pointed out on her website that other areas of the country already have such programs, and she said, “It’s our turn.”   Her spokesman said Kaptur modeled the fund after Obama’s stimulus package (which contained a record-amount of pork projects).  Her spokesman also said that the inclusion of the program in the legislation “made it possible for her to entertain voting for the bill.”

So basically she was against the bill until she got money for projects back home.   Is that how the process should work?   I don’t think so.  I know, it’s how the current political system runs in Washington, but the whole thing needs to be rebuilt (based on how it used to be).  This representative disagreed with a bill that affects everyone, but voted for it anyway because she was bought by the extra concessions for her own state.  To me, that’s corrupt.

Another thing I really dislike about this whole process is that a 310-page amendment can be made just a few hours before the vote, which means not everyone will have time to read it.  How can our representatives vote for a bill they haven’t read? Isn’t that just opening the door for corruption and government waste?  (I’ve already ranted about this, so I won’t continue; you can read about it here.)

There’s a blog post by a Russian writer that has been getting a lot of attention, and for good reason.  He claims American capitalism is gone and Americans hardly put up a fight.  Obviously it’s not completely gone, but we do appear to be on that path.   I still cling to the hope that the current trend is reversible, and that our country’s leaders will choose to reverse it.

Before I get started on all that, here’s the article:

American Capitalism Gone With a Whimper

By linking to that, I’m not saying I completely agree with everything he said.  There are generalizations which certainly don’t apply to everyone.  And I’m not sure how right he is about all his claims and predictions.  But he does make some good points, and it is something to think about.

I wonder if the members of Congress are fully aware of the direction our country is headed and support that.   There’s no way for us to know, because most of them won’t give a clear answer to a question like that — they talk about doing what is necessary for our country.  But the question is, what do they think is best for our country?  Do they support socialism or Marxism or communism?  I’ve heard that some do.

I also wonder what the American people want.  We are the people who elected most of these officials.  We should be making our voice heard through the voting process and by writing and calling our representatives.  But then I wonder about something said in that article: “Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas than the drama in DC that directly affects their lives.” Is that true?  I sure hope not, but I’m somewhat scared of the answer.  I’m reminded of a quote by Homer Simpson (who of course is a cartoon, yet that show sometimes makes some points through satire): “The reason we have elected officials is so we don’t have to think!”  (By the way, the irony of that last reference is not lost on me.)

The point is, if we don’t like the direction our country is headed, we need to speak up.   Contact your representatives; you may think they won’t listen, but what’s important to them is getting re-elected.  If enough people call them, they’ll listen, because they need your vote.   And we need to study the issues and how the candidates vote, before the next election.  If we vote for someone just because of their party affiliation or just because they talk the smoothest, then we have to share some of the blame for our elected officials and the mess they’re making of our country.

It seems like a lot of analysts are comparing tennis great Roger Federer to golf great Tiger Woods.   They both excel at their respective sport, and they both have won 14 majors.   They both might be considered the greatest of all-time in their sport.   But that’s where the comparison should end.  Federer has tied the all-time record, but Tiger has not.  And there just is no comparison between tennis and golf.  That’s not to put either down.  I realize golf is really difficult to excel at.  But it isn’t as difficult as tennis.   And a major difference is that you don’t have someone who is trying to exploit your weaknesses to defeat you.  In golf, it’s you against the course — no one can make you play worse.  In tennis, your opponent has the opportunity to make you lose.  (I could go on…)

Let me show you something Tiger Woods said a few years ago about Federer’s accomplishments:

What [Federer] has done in tennis, I think, is far greater than what I’ve done in golf. ~ Tiger Woods, about Roger Federer, after being named 2006 Athlete of the Year by the Associated Press

Maybe Tiger was just taking the high-road, but I agree with his assessment.  Anyway, my point is that the two sports shouldn’t be compared.  If your discussion stays within the realm of one sport, then you don’t have this situation.

While I’m ranting, what’s up with the producers at NBC?  Let me explain.   Recently Federer won the French Open, completing his career Grand Slam and tying Pete Sampras’ all-time record of Grand Slams won.  It was historic.  Federer said it was his biggest win, except perhaps his first Grand Slam.  So it was huge.   And his chief rival, Rafael Nadal, didn’t make it to the final, despite his usual dominance on clay.  Clearly, this day was all about Federer and what this win means to him and to tennis.  So can anyone explain why after the match, NBC was showing the 2008 Wimbledon final, which was one of the most painful losses Federer ever had to endure?   Were they trying to ruin the moment for Federer’s fans?  I don’t get it…   I realize that was arguably the greatest match of all-time, but that’s not the time to show it.

If you listen to any conservative talk radio, you’ve probably heard someone mentioning how some of the “Far Left” in the mainstream media treat President Barack Obama like a god.  I’ve heard that, although it was usually somewhat of a stretch to put that notion behind their words.  Well, someone has finally just said it.

Last week Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said Obama was like a god, that he is above the country and above the world, bringing all different sides together.  Watch and listen for yourselves:

Can you believe that?!?