Previous facebook thread:
http://www.facebook.com/davonwf/posts/316086365118604?notif_t=share_comment

My response:

[Davon, you keep missing the point because you’re thinking
like someone who believes that this country - this world - is all there is.  If that were true, and this is as good as it
gets, then you would be right, but you know Christianity (which happens to be
one of the building blocks this country was founded on) teaches otherwise. You
do what you can here (meaning you vote an informed conscience – and
unfortunately, or fortunately depending on who you are, according to
Christianity financial position isn’t above protecting life), striving as best
as you can to practice your beliefs, and then leave it in God’s hands. This
includes voting.]

Wow.  That’s pretty
presumptuous.  I’m glad you know how I’m
thinking.  How about you try actually
reading the links I posted and responding to my arguments instead of lecturing
me.  But I’ll respond to your points, as
usual, although I expect another dismissive response.   You always do this in political discussions.

Whatever happened to
the Christian responsibility to be good stewards in the world we live in?  To leave it better off for our children – or at
least not worse off?  Of course, this
includes working to uphold the dignity of other persons, which is directly
influenced by the Entitlement State.  It’s
not just a financial position!  Look
around the world.  If the US economy
collapses, the next superpower is likely China or Russia, both of which would
undermine basic human dignities.  China,
especially, pushes the 1 child policy.  The
very human life and dignity that you place above a mere “financial position” is
in danger due to wars and hunger (which are getting worse due to the silly idea
that food should be used as a fuel).  Lack
of work is a human rights issue according to the Church.  My position, despite your claim that voting
for the traditional values candidate is the epitome of our responsibility and
then leaving it to the hands of God, is based on voting my conscience by taking
in the big picture.  And according to the
USCCB, I’m not in the wrong for thinking this way!

According to the USCCB:

“At the
same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil
to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues
involving human life and dignity…

“Catholic
voters should use the framework of Catholic teaching to examine candidates’
positions on issues affecting human life and dignity as well as issues of
justice and peace, and they should consider candidates’ integrity, philosophy, and
performance. It is important for all citizens “to see beyond party politics, to
analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders
according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest” (Living
the Gospel of Life, no. 33).

“As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a
single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a
candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as
support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a
voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.”

(http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf)

Among the issues the USCCB
lists that are of grave importance, along with abortion, the redefinition of
marriage, and violations of freedom of religion is the economic and debt
crisis.  You
keep trying to convince me that they’re connected, yet you’re the one trying to
disconnect them!  The fiscal issues drive
social issues just as much as social drives fiscal.  You can’t stop the collapse of traditional
marriage without taking away the financial and legal incentives put into place
to remain single or the financial burdens that make two income households a
necessity.

[Now, we’re talking about the
candidates left in the running, and you keep acting like some savior perfect
fiscal/social conservative candidate is still going to appear and save the day.
We have to work with what we have.]

No, I’ve pretty much given up hope on that, thus why I
support the imaginary Sweet Meteor of Death.
Now, I’m doing what a significant number of fiscal conservatives are
doing: waiting to see who wins the primaries.
Most of us will end up voting against Obama, which means by default the
Republican.  My position is that it’s a
hopeless vote and unless we can take solid control of the Senate, the Democrats
effectively win.  If Obamacare is not
overturned, it doesn’t matter who wins the election.  The contraception mandate is just the tip of
the iceberg, and the Progressives know it.
Santorum or Romney will roll back as much as they want by EO, but eventually
a Democrat wins again — especially when Medicare collapses under their
watch.  Next thing you know, the mandate
covers surgical abortions.    Don’t say it won’t happen.  Conservatives have predicted this intrusion
under Obamacare all along.  Eventually,
private insurance markets collapse and the Democrats use it as an excuse to go
single payer.  Then comes euthanasia and
restricting treatments based on social class and age.  FISCAL IS SOCIAL!!!

[By your own
admission all candidates R or D have expanded government, but I think it’s safe
to say none as egregiously as Obama. Once you admit that, then you’re left with
imperfect candidates.]

I’ve admitted that all along.  But whether we’re driving off a cliff at 100
miles an hour or 60 miles an hours, we’re still going off the cliff.  Only three candidates (Perry, Gingrich, and
Ron Paul) have made any arguments that the bus needs to be turned around.  The rest just want to slow it down.

[Again, is Santorum
all he should be by conservative standards? No.]

His views on government are in opposition to Reagan.   He’s not a conservative.  He’s a Pro-life Statist as Erik Erickson
described (see links above).  What you
and his supporters don’t realize is the very mechanisms he wants to enact to
legislate and social engineer morality are the very same mechanisms that Obama
are using.  Sorry, I’m not a hypocrite.  I won’t rail against Obama dictating moral
issues while applauding Santorum simply because I agree with some of his.

[Is he someone that is a man of convictions and true to his
beliefs? Yes.]

Again, see the clip above where he explains why “taking one
for the team” is more important than being true to his convictions.  The clip is in regard to NCLB, which Obama is
using dictate education policy and collect massive amounts of information on children
around the country. Gee, thanks, Rick, for voting with Ted Kennedy – for the
team!

[ More trustworthy to be held accountable than the
candidates left in the running? Yes.]

More trustworthy than…who?
Obama?  Romney?  Well, yea.
That’s not saying much.  I trust
the drug dealer down the street to be more honest with me.   But what do I trust Rick Santorum to
do?  All of a sudden stick with his newly
found “limited government” promises when his voting record (again, see above)
says otherwise?  Do I trust that he won’t
take one for the team again?  No, I don’t.  And you shouldn’t either.  He believes in Big Government.  Why would he work to shrink government and
not do what other Establishment Repubs have done?

[ You keep talking like there’s going to be a candidate
that’s just going to appear and do away with big government and everything will
be great. That candidate doesn’t exist. In fact, if you’re a person of faith,
you know that the only person perfect enough to bring us back in line will
never be a political candidate ]

When Jesus runs for office, let me know.  Until then, I will support the candidates
that I think will do the best job.  Newt
is currently still in the race.  I
support him.  If/when he drops out, I’ll
make a decision on who to vote for.  I
will NEVER support Santorum or Romney until and only if they prove that they
will shrink the government.  That also
means not pushing for the federal government to intrude on our lives.  SOCIAL is FISCAL and vice versa.  Santorum has already promised to do make sure
that the Feds DO interfere with any aspect of our life that he doesn’t agree
with.  The burden is on HIM to win my
support, not on me to support him simply because he’s pro-life (although he voted
for a pro-choice judges – see links above), Catholic, and not Obama.  He and Romney both continue to show me every
single day why they shouldn’t be the nominee.   Again, the burden is on THEM to win my
support, not me to promote them.

[I know you’re entitled to your opinion, but when it comes
to the Catholic/Christian faith, you know there’s more than opinion involved;
there is a list of non-negotiables that we must abide by. We are only fooling
ourselves if we think fixing the financial mess is “more important” than fixing
our social problem.]

Again, stop lecturing me on the morality of my position
AGAINST Santorum.  There is no “non-negotiable”
that says I need to support a candidate simply because he is pro-life or
against gay marriage.  Read the document
by the USCCB.   And Romney is, according to his current
position, pro-life and against gay marriage.
Why can’t I support him over Santorum?
Ron Paul is pro-life.  The
write-in candidate that I may choose is pro-life.  Shouldn’t I also vote for the candidate who I
believe will do the most to prevent pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and
anti-religion politicians from being able to force people into participating in
intrinsic evil?  If that’s the case, then
I need to vote for the one who will shrink the power of government the
most.  That’s not Santorum.

[And I’m not saying
big government has to do this for us – in fact the Church calls us to do it for
ourselves.]

Yes, but the problem is that Santorum believes – by his own
admission – that the government has a role to play in social engineering and
dictating morality.  The Church herself
calls on us to change hearts and minds, not brain wash or force individuals to
step in line.  That’s a key component of
Marxism which the Church is against.
Statism is evil: the end does not justify the means.

[Again, it’s a matter of where priorities lie.]

I would argue it’s about long-term and medium term
strategy.  The USCCB  says that working towards incremental change
is a legitimate strategy.  Since no
president can overturn Roe vs Wade, but an all intrusive government can force
Catholics to pay for abortion (and we currently are), that MUST take
priority.  Santorum will not eliminate
the intrusive government.

[ Santorum is still there because despite your big
government concerns, he is the candidate that resonates truth and authenticity
and there will always be an attraction to that.]

No, he’s still there because he’s “not Romney.”  The more people find out about his positions,
the less they support him.  He is being
propped up by social conservatives who don’t understand just how close to the
abyss we’re at.  They’re about to find
out.

[But seriously,
what’s next? Will you be joining the liberals calling people of faith
delusional and bitter because we vote for life issues first and fiscal issues
second?]

Sam, that’s a bitchy thing to say.  Really.
And guess, what, that’s exactly what liberals say about social AND fiscal
conservatives.  So, you went there
first.

Ironically, though, you cannot vote for long term change in
life issues while also voting for a bigger government.  When the Nanny State takes over, as Santorum
is helping it to do, at some point, life will become – and it has already
started – just a number, devoid of dignity.
You’re working against your own self interests.

[ Our biggest problem is that we strayed from our core
beliefs, and now that we’re striving to get our house back in order, you want to
criticize that we are one-issue voters and “pro life statists”? It’s not about
voting for one issue, it’s about having an order of priorities when you’re
voting - life being at the top of that list. It’s all about the big picture
dude.]

Santorum IS a pro-life statist, like it or not.  I did not say that all of his supporters
are.  But if you agree that the
government has a role to play in determining what activities are permitted in
your sex life, whether or not a condom can be used (not an abortion inducing
drug), whether or not you can watch an “obscene” movie as an adult, whether the
federal government should mandate education curriculum, or the unions should be
able to keep you from working in your state, then you’re a pro-life statist as
well.  The government cannot legislate –
or nowadays by executive order dictate – morality when half the population is
of a differing opinion.  For that, the
answer is to shrink the government to prevent it from forcing the contrary
opinion.

You’re forgetting our core beliefs calls for maximizing
liberty and minimizing government.  The
whole point of the Constitution was to prevent the government from growing to
this size.  We cannot return to “core
beliefs” without shrinking government.   How do you propose getting the house back in
order?  Half the population disagrees
with the pro-life position.  A growing percent
of the population wants gay marriage.
Traditional families are falling below 20% of the population.  You cannot turn that around without getting
the government to STOP intruding on speech, religion, and individual
rights.

Again, being a single issue voter means that you’re ignoring
that the fact that you cannot separate fiscal and social issues.  Paul Ryan, Mark Steyn, and every other
serious conservative thinker knows that.
Santorum is a serious thinking; he’s just not a real conservative.

My thoughts on the other candidates:

Ron Paul!!!!  He’s like the kid who tells you that he loves his kitten.  You kind of go  “awww” and agree that the kitten is nice and that the kid is sweet.  Then, before you know it, the kid throws the kitten in the microwave and turns it on.  Ron Paul is that kid, and the kitten is common sense. 

Santorum impressed me the least.  I didn’t like too many of his answers, and I don’t remember the ones I did like.  He doesn’t come off as a commanding presence.

Neither Bachman nor Cain impressed me as much as I thought they would.  I’m sorry, but Backman has not shown any effective leadership that makes me believe she can run the country.  She doesn’t show any statesmanship that I can see.  She sounds more like a politician pandering to the tea party than someone having any real ideas about enacting her policies.  I agree with her positions on most of the issues, but I’m not seeing effective leadership from her.  Maybe if she had actually accomplished anything in Congress…

Cain sounds more like he’d fit in as a Cabinet Secretary than a politician.  I think he would be more effective there, get some political experience, and maybe be in a position for president in the future.  Right not, he still sounds unprepared for politics.

Huntsman is a RINO and true career politician.  We might as well have McCain up there again.  I get the impression that he doesn’t really believe half the things he says, but feels the need to say them. 

Speaking of RINOs, Romney is sounding pretty good, but he always “sounds” good.  Then he defends RomneyCare – which is basically Obamacare - while claiming that the latter needs to be repealed.  He then says stupid things about Social Security.  Sorry, but Perry is right.  Social Security is a ponzi scheme.  Again, we might as well have McCain running.

Finally, Newt Gingrich impressed me with his responses.  He’s a thinker.  Unfortunately, I get the impression that he’s too invested in the establishment to take risks…I wonder how I got that impression…

I wish Santorum, Huntsman, and Paul would go ahead and drop out.  I’d include Bachman, Cain, and Gingrich in that list, but frankly, I like the impact they have on the national dialog.  Maybe we can get those three to moderate a debate…

In any case, Perry’s entrance is definitely a plus.  I’ll have some comments in the near future concerning the politicization of science, which came up the debate.  There’s been some interesting developments with global warming the last few months that deserve some attention, mainly because of the drama between researchers.

Here’s a question: What is our responsibility to future generations of Americans or even the world?  Imagine you were given a choice: live comfortably and leisurely knowing that your actions, lack of actions, or lifestyle condemns future generations to a life of hardship.  Would you choose that option or do you believe that your children or grandchildren deserve better?  (Afterall, isn’t that one of the arguments for protecting the environment?)

I believe we all have an obligation to future generations.

For the last few years (at least that’s how long I’ve been aware of the problem), many of us who have been paying attention to the budgetary numbers coming from Washington have been absolutely shocked.  (The numbers are at the end of the post.)  This isn’t a partisan issue and it’s not one that will only become a problem for some distant future generation.   It’s an existential issue that has already become a crisis.  The existential part is not an exaggeration!  Just ask Greece and other European nations who are in danger of losing their sovereignty.  The problem is with Entitlements and is now.  Medicare will run out of funds within the next 10-15 years or sooner.  At that point, services automatically gets cut (by law). 

The issue is very much linked to the economy (again, see the previously linked video).  The high unemployment numbers seem to be structural, not temporary.  Job growth has been halted since Obamacare passed, except, apparently, in red states who have initiated pro-jobs reforms (the numbers from TX are amazing), shrinking the size of government and limiting Union power.  Meanwhile, Administrative officials keep saying stupid things because, frankly, they have nothing more to offer. 

The current Republican field of candidates is very lacking on their ability and leadership when it comes to the debt, deficit, and Entitlement reform.  They want to avoid the scare-mongering of the Democrats and the media.  Maybe that’s good politics.  But is it responsible citizenship?

So that brings me to Paul Ryan.  The blogosphere has been abuzz all day on the possibility of Paul Ryan jumping into the race for president, just days after Rick Perry’s official announcement completely changed the Republican primary race.  Ed Morrisey at Hot Air, who seems to be excited about the Perry run, is not so enthusiastic over a Paul Ryan candidacy.  Others, seem to disagree.  Count me in with the latter group. 

The previous links have already made the case for Paul Ryan’s candidacy.  He has stated over and over that he doesn’t want to run, especially for the sake of his family.  So why would he reconsider this late in the game?  I like this analogy:

“With Paul, it’s more about obligation than opportunity,” says another Wisconsin Republican. “He is determined to have the 2012 election be about the big things. If that means he has to run, he’s open to it.”
…
One Ryan confidante used an analogy to make the point. Ryan sees running for president like taking a swan dive off a cliff. In the early stages of the race, when he started getting calls urging him to run, Ryan began walking away from the cliff at a brisk pace. Then, when Daniels announced that he was passing on a bid, Ryan stopped in place and turned around. In the weeks since, he’s slowly made his way back to the cliff and he’s now peering over the side trying to decide if he makes the leap.

The cliff is not just for the presidency.  Paul Ryan is determined to make that cliff about the future path of this country.  Are we going to go follow Europe down the path of decline as a direct result of an affordable, dehumanizing, cradle-to-grave Social nanny state?  Or do we turn the ship around and again follow the rockier, but more prosperous path of liberty? 

Here’s my question question to Paul Ryan (not like he will see it): if you don’t make the first leap, then who will and when? 

I think – or at least hope – that there are a lot of people behind Paul on that cliff.  If he makes the leap, a lot of us will follow.   The challenge will be to convincing the rest of the public to come, too.  And the public might actually be ready to have the right conversations.

Many people, like me, spend way too much time posting links on facebook and bitching about the problems.   I guess that’s got to change.  The crisis is here, and how we can expect our reluctant leaders to do what is right when we’re unwilling to provide the support that is needed.

The numbers:

The official national debt is $14.6 trillion, or over 98% of the US GDP, or $130,578 per taxpayer.  Well, that’s OK, right?  We just pay it off over many decades like a normal citizen would any debt.  According to some economists, deficit spending during a recession is good, right?  The problem isn’t that we have deficit spending over a few years, it’s that’s 98% debt to GDP number that keeps going up.  We’re borrowing $2 for every $5 we spend.  The effects are not good for the economy or the West, or the world.

The long term numbers are even more terrifying: the US has $115 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities (some sources place the numbers higher).  That means we are passing on to future generations over a million dollars per taxpayer.  We are essentially borrowing money and placing the burden on US citizens that haven’t even been born yet.  The US currently has a total of $76 trillion in assets (not GDP, assets).  That’s a lot of wealth creation that cannot happen with a barely growing economy.

A few points:

1) My issue with this is on tactics and not on whether the girl should be allowed to go to the prom with the date of her choice.  I think that’s an issue for the parents within the community to decide.  This is about kids, not adults, and even their freedom is limited until they are 18 (and even at 18, if they are attending a school function).

2) The ACLU is known to use these bullying tactics to push their agenda.  Instead of working for social change by dialog and other forms of speech, they push a lawsuit.  The school district, whether you agree with their reaction or not, was responding to the bullying when they canceled the prom.  The girl said that she didn’t think the school would react the way it did, which I find amusing.

3) Now since the ACLU didn’t get their way, they are pressing another lawsuit to force the school to hold the prom.  More bullying.  This would be like the government passing a law that you cannot discriminate against gay couples for adoption and then forcing the Catholic adoption agencies to stay open instead of closing due to moral obligations.

4) The original lawsuit was not claiming discrimination.  As Ed at Hot Air points out:

It’s interesting to me mainly as a legal matter: Per the ACLU’s complaint, this is not a discrimination claim. It’s a First Amendment claim, alleging that McMillen would essentially be engaged in a form of speech (“communicative content”) about her orientation in wearing a tuxedo and bringing a girl to the prom. That’s weak — she’s not going to prom to make a statement, she’s going because she wants to dance and have fun with her girlfriend — but because the Equal Protection Clause has never been held to apply to sexual orientation, the ACLU really has no choice but to try the speech argument. Not sure it’ll work, but then the point isn’t to win the suit. It’s to turn up the heat on the school district until the bad publicity makes them cave or, at the very least, scares other districts that might do this into thinking twice. Working like a charm so far.

The bottom line is this:  Coercing people to do what you want even if they don’t does NOT bring about good will and social change.  It puts people on the defensive, and actually hurts whatever progress you are trying to make.

Science relies on open debate.   When I first saw the story, my instinct was to give the scientists the benefit of the doubt: many discussions within a scientific research group, if taken out of context and without a thorough understanding of the mathematical and scientific issues involved, could sound to a lay person as “scientific misconduct” especially when people read into them what they want to.  However, the more I read these emails, that doesn’t seem to be the case.  The public is surely blowing some out of context, but with so many of the emails pointing to the same forms of scientific misconduct, there seems to be a very worrisome pattern.  If these emails truly are evidence of what they seem to be, it hurts the scientific community as a whole by degrading public trust.   I keep waiting for someone to put them in perspective from the point of view of CRU, but they seem to be more suspiciously silent than I would expect…

If you haven’t been following the news, basically one of the leading climate change research institutions, the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, or CRU, had their email servers hacked.  The anonymous hackers posted a large file containing emails and some scientific data that they took from the server.  CRU has confirmed the hacking and that the emails appear to be genuine.  There are many news sites and bloggers covering the story, with the previous link being to the Herald Sun, and Australian newspaper.   Ace of Spades HQ picked up the story (twice, lol), which is where I learned about it. 

Let’s put this story into some context, and I’ll be as neutral as I can.  First of all, contrary to what the news media may have led you to believe, the scientific discussion for or against global warming is not a cut-and-dry, black-or-white one.  Even within the community of scientists that believe in anthropogenic (man-made) global  warming climate change (AGW), there is a debate over the details.  There are questions over how sensitive the climate is to additional CO2, whether or not some (if not all) of the warming can be attributed to solar activity, and there is many discussions over just how to analyze – and interpret - the data.  The details of all of this is for a different post.  The important thng to note is this: different ways of analyzing the data can lead to drastically different interpretations nad results, especially when dealing with a politically heated topic as this.   Steve McIntyre, one of the major players in this story/debate - isn’t a climatologist.  However, he has been researching this topic for quite some time, and his arguments have been quite compelling.  He runs the site Climate Audit (which is suffering from major server overload since this story broke), and has been attacking the “Hockey Stick” graph for quite some time, along with the methodology of the authors of the graph, Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes.   The emails that were hacked are correspondence between Mann and other authors at CRU.

Because Climate Audit is running so slowly right now, I suggest reading the story at Watts Up With That (WUWT), who mirried Climate Audit’s post.  WUWT has a good selection of damning emails here. 

  Here are a couple of selections (below the fold):

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich

Taken by itself, I wouldn’t say that this was evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.  As a scientist, we are always processing our data in ways that we believe justifiable in order to demonstrate what we believe the trend to actually be.  However, manipulating your data in order to cover up unwanted results and support a hypothesis that the data doesn’t support is evidence of scientific misconduct.  Throwing out a data point because you believe the instrument malfunctioned or you have dirt on a sensor is one thing, but changes to “hide a decline” seems to be pushing it.  The question I have is whether Jones was being careless in how he phrased his data processing, or if this is part of a larger pattern. 

Other emails seem to point to the later:

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

In the above email, “CA” is referring to the previously mentioned website Climate Audit.  Now,  McIntyre have been trying to get his hands on the raw, unprocessed data from Mann, et al in order to try to reproduce their analysis.  This is actually part of the scientific process – scientific data is supposed to be open to peer review.  Mann, et al, have been resisting calls to release their data – even claiming it was lost.  There was even a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed (and here), and emails would’ve been subject to such a request…

A couple of months ago, by the way, McIntyre, with the help of some scientific journal editors, did manage to get the raw data.  I’ll find the link and post it later, but what McIntyre found was an intentional manipulation of the data to produce the Hockey Stick.  When he averaged the data in a way that made a bit more sense (the authors of the study would disagree of course), he found that it completely wiped out global warming trends…

And by the way, speaking of lack of global warming, how about this email:

 

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

Emphasis added by Bolt at the Herald Sun, who I’m copying and pasting from.  There’s more at the links. 

Exit question: Hacker or whistleblower?

So I watched dancing with the stars last night for the first time. Some of the ball room dance instructors seemed fake and manipulative of their celebrity students…I suppose that’s because they were on tv and dealing with celebrities. They couldn’t possibly be like that in real life, right? (And yes, I know not all ballroom instructors are like that, so don’t get all pissy…)

I did enjoy the dancing, though, Aaron carter is an idiot. I hope he gets voted off. That snowboarder is an idiot, too, but his teacher is hot. So he should get to stay.

I think I found the gay area of Vancouver, but I can’t be sure without further observations that I don’t really feel necessary.

And Sam, I have some cash on me. :-p

I’m at a different restaurant, but I’m eating lasagna again tonight. The waitress said people like it better than the chicken.

This part of the city literally has a coffee shop on every block. Sometimes more. I’ve seen starbucks on opposite sides of the street right across from each other. Draw your own conclusions.

Coffee is one of those things that really highlight the differences between liberals and conservatives.

To a liberal, the brandname on the cup of coffee you are carrying aroud is a status symbol. It tells a lot. Is the coffee from a local shop? Or a chain? Where did the bean come from? A country or company conscious of it’s social responsibilities? And the most important two factors: does it impress the right people and did it cost a lot?

To a conservative, coffee is simple. Whereas the above list are items of conversation to liberals in a coffeeshop, a conservative would have a conversation like this: “dammit, my machine is broken. Just pour me a cup so I can get to work. What? What the hell is a venti? Flavor? No black please Fine whatever. I need to get to work. How much?! Are you out your mind? This would cost a $1 at the gas station. Whatever, I need to get to work. Here. Thanks.”

The lasagna was lacking and the bread tasted funny. But the tiramisu (sp?) was wonderful. Now for a drink…

And later…

Sweet. I made it back to the hotel in time to catch the end of dancing with the stars! It’s a dance off! So louie (the snowboarder) has the hotter pro partner, Chelsea, but I like Michael Irvin better. His partner is pretty too, of course, and doesn’t seem as big of a…nm.

Oh wait, we’re supposed to decide based on dancing. Louie, dancing a jive, messed up on a pivot, which I can relate to, and Michael was struggling with his samba technique. This is a tough choice. Overall, I felt michael’s was cleaner. I vote for them…and the judges say…they agree!

Bye Chelsea. Sorry I had to go with Michael and anna. Call me?

Ok time for another drink…

Wtf is Canadian food? So far all I’ve seen is non-Canadian themed restaurants and upscale places.

I feel lost without my iPhone internet but data roaming is expensive. To me this is justiication for invading Canada and creating a new US territory. AT&T should lobby for it.

Judging all canadians stricly by this one small upscale, touristy area of Vancouver, I have come to the conclusion that Canadians have a lot in common with San Diegoans.

That was intended as an insult to one of the superior city.

The cream puff cake is simply a white cake with a literal cream puff baked inside.

At the info desk of the airport sunday, the girl behind the encounter I found quite pretty…except for the mustache. Though it was a bit of a feminine French mustache. Not the manly American mustache.

I really hope my credit card works…

There is a Scottish couple sitting at the table next to me. Just FYI.

I really hope my credit card works…

Sweet! It worked. Ok going to find some trouble to get into…

At a joint press conference with Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran, ElBaradei brought Israel under spotlight and said that the Tel Aviv regime has refused to allow inspections into its nuclear installations for 30years, the report said.

“Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses,” ElBaradei was quoted as saying.

Chalk this up to one more reason the UN has no credibility. They are in Tehran for talks concerning Iran’s recently revealed secret nuclear site. They’ve given them two weeks to let them inspect the site – which is pleny of time for iran to hide anything they want to hide. Iran has repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction. Yet Israel is the bigger nuclear threat on the middle east? And to make matters worst, this announcement was made in Tehran.

I think Saudi Arabia would disagree since they’ve agreed to allow Israel to use their air space for any future strikes on Iran. Israel better hurry. The West seems hellbent on allowing Iran to build a bomb.

“I’m convinced that today the majority of Americans want what those first Americans wanted: A better life for themselves and their children; a minimum of government authority. Very simply, they want to be left alone in peace and safety to take care of the family by earning an honest dollar and putting away some savings. This may not sound too exciting, but there is something magnificent about it.”

Lori Roman is founder of RegularFolksUnited.com, the bully pulpit for regular folks.

From the Washington Examiner via Hot Air.

This morning I was thinking about my daughter’s new Easter dress.  Yesterday, when my daughter put on her bright white dress with pink flowers, I could see her smile just light up the room.  I could tell she felt beautiful.  People complimented her and smiled as she walked by in church – I felt like my prized jewel was on display.  

It’s funny how a dress can make you feel special and beautiful and confident.  It’s happened to me before.  Even when every other day of the year I loathe some part of my body, all it takes is the right dress to make me feel beautiful.  The right dress that you’re not only comfortable in, but that you know compliments you in just the right places.  When that dress is on, you can’t help but think that everyone can see the beauty they may have overlooked before.   

Knowing how good my daughter felt when people complimented her, I made it a point to compliment other little girls yesterday.  It worked every time – the girls would raise their chins a little higher and the smiles would go from ear-to-ear.  

I think we all need to hear compliments from time to time – it’s a reminder of the good in us.  The RCIA instructor at my parish (Elaine) says 99% of us is gold and 1% is shadow, but most of the time we focus on the negative 1% and forget about how good and beautiful we actually are. I agree.  We should all be more accepting of the good in us, and be better about recognizing it in those around us.