Is this senior Al Qaeda theologian marking the beginning of the end?

Senior Qaeda Theologian Urges His Followers To End Their Jihad

It almost seems too much to hope for, although it's hard to see how Al Qaeda terrorists could be pleased with events since 9/11. After being defeated in Iraq and hunted down and killed or arrested throughout the world, what have they gained? Sure, they had a victory in Spain, and they have pulled off other significant attacks (London). And, to give the devil his due, radical Islamists have intimidated weak-kneed multi-culturists in various weak-kneed countries.

Still, as the days, weeks, months, and years pass, Al Qaeda appears less and less of an immediate terrorist threat. Unless, I am wrong, and that's the rub. How do we know they aren't sneaking across the leaky border and plotting another major attack? We don't. Yet, as time passes, it seems more and more unlikely.

Now, the demographic picture is another story. Mohammed is now the second most popular boy's name in Britain. Not just London. All of Britain. Nevertheless, if the senior Al Qaeda theologian sways minds, then we might just have a little less to fear from the Muslim population explosion. Here's hoping.

I haven't posted in awhile, but not because I haven't had anything to say. Rather the opposite: there have been so many crazy events that I sometimes think the world has gone insane.

If it's not 10,000 people traveling by jet to Bali for a global warming conference, it's CNN's utterly embarrassing attempt to host a Republican presidential debate. If it's not the Dem's antics over what appears more and more to be victory in Iraq, it's the reaction to the NIE report about Iran, as though good news about Iran is bad news for Bush (if only the report could be trusted!).

If it's not the madness associated with the college football BCS system (if this year doesn't show the need for a playoff system, nothing ever will), it's insane Islamists calling for imprisonment/lashes/death for an English teacher over a teddy bear. If it's not the welcome surprise of Chavez being denied dictator-for-life status by his own people, it's the significant and growing (and therefore disappointing) flaws in all the presidential candidates.

I will post again with more substance soon, but in the meantime, I'm shaking my head.

"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained."
- Mark Twain

Rich Lowry of National Review wrote "Quiet Victory," a piece that dovetails nicely with my last post on Iraq. He points out another reason that the victory will be a quiet one: the media and the rest of the left will never acknowledge it. It goes against their "Iraq is lost and it's Bush's fault" narrative.

It's over. We've won. More importantly, the Iraqi people have won... and Al Qaeda has lost.

At least, that's the way it looks to me, and I'm not alone. I've seen numerous stories over the past several weeks about Iraq (rarely in the mainstream media, of course), all of them indicating the same thing: victory. Violence is down dramatically, the Iraqis have banded together against Al Qaeda, the Bush administration and the U.S. military are on the right track with the surge, and there are hopeful signs everywhere.

Sure, there will still be violence and setbacks, but I am convinced it's over. The naysayers, peaceniks, and defeatists said it couldn't and shouldn't be done. But it's done.

Yes, we've paid a heavy cost in lives and dollars, but the benefits are enormous: the madman and terrorism supporter Saddam Hussein and his monster sons, who had previously used WMDs, killed hundreds of thousands, and operated torture chambers, have been eliminated; democracy has gained a desperate foothold in the heart of the Middle East; and Al Qaeda has been defeated. The war on terrorism continues around the globe, but Iraq was Al Qaeda's focal point.

Unfortunately, I don't think there will ever be a singular victory moment, a day where all of America (and the rest of the civilized world, for that matter) can celebrate the return home of our military heroes with ticker-tape parades and grand speeches. This isn't a conventional war where the enemy is finally forced to formally and unconditionally surrender at a court house or upon the deck of a battleship.

So, it's unlikely we'll have that catharsis when the nation collectively rejoices and declares victory. That's okay. If victory gently sinks in, and loved ones return home, and we find ourselves smiling a little more and feeling more secure, it's victory nevertheless.

On November 6, Sarasota County voters will vote on the "penny" tax. I support the tax (well, at least projects for which the money is targeted), but I find offensive the deceptive term "penny" tax. It's not a penny, it's a 1% sales tax on top of the 6% collected by the State of Florida. By my rough, back-of-an-envelope (and certainly flawed) calculation, it will cost the average family of four, directly or indirectly, about $800 a year, every year. That's not a penny. A penny doesn't raise $1,400,000,000 as this tax will (over 15 years).

I am also bothered by the extensive marketing campaign being conducted by Sarasota County and school system in favor of the 1% tax. Since when do governments get involved in campaigning? I'm not talking about an individual commissioner or school board member expressing his or her support, I'm talking about government employees marketing/campaigning as part of their jobs. It's not right. Advocacy is a job for citizens and advocacy groups.

Again, I support the tax, but I am considering voting against it due to the very disturbing and deceptive way it is being presented to the voters.

That's my two pennies worth.

An old southern country preacher had a teenage son, and it was getting time the boy should give some thought to choosing a profession. Like many young men, the boy didn't really know what he wanted to do, and he didn't seem too concerned about it.

One day, while the boy was away at school, his father decided to try an experiment. He went into the boy's room and placed on his study table four objects:

- a Bible,

- a silver dollar,

- a bottle of whiskey and

- a Playboy magazine

"I'll just hide behind the door," the old preacher said to himself, "and when he comes home from school this afternoon, I'll see which object he picks up. If it's the Bible, he's going to be a preacher like me, and what a blessing that would be! If he picks up the dollar, he's going to be a businessman, and that would be okay, too. But if he picks up the bottle, he's going to be a no-good drunkard, and, Lord, what a shame that would be. And worst of all, if he picks up that magazine, he's gonna be a skirt-chasin' bum."

The old man waited anxiously, and soon heard his son's footsteps as he entered the house whistling and headed for his room. The boy tossed his books on the bed, and as he turned to leave the room he spotted the objects on the table. With curiosity in his eye, he walked over to inspect them.
Finally, he picked up the Bible and placed it under his arm. He picked up the silver dollar and dropped it into his pocket. He uncorked the bottle and took a big drink while he admired this month's Centerfold.

"Lord have mercy," the old preacher disgustedly whispered, "he's gonna be a Congressman!"

Tony Blankley has written an very amusing piece for RealClear Politics on the Goracle: Gore Wins; Facts Lose.

As I read the piece, I couldn't help but recall a recent headline in the local Sarasota Herald-Tribune: "Gore Vindicated". The SH-T has become increasingly liberal over the years, especially since they were bought by the Mother Ship, the New York Times. They used to have a single conservative editorial writer (Rod Thomson) among their liberal throng, but he left (or was asked to leave, I don't know which) and now they have no conservative writers at all.

Blankley shreds the notion that Gore was in any way vindicated, and so did Dr. William Gray, the famed meteorologist in a story carried by the Sydney Morning Herald, in which he says Gore winning a share of the Nobel Peace Prize is "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works". Other highlights from the article:

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

..."We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

..."The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

..."It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

What's interesting is that the SH-T hangs on Dr. Gray's every word when he makes his hurricane predictions for the upcoming season or revises his predictions as the season progresses. But they, along with almost all of the mainstream media, did not carry a story on Dr. Gray's comments at all, even though they took place the day after Gore was given his prize. Did the SH-T think that its Florida readers would not be interested in the renowned hurricane forecaster's viewpoint concerning Gore's doomsday predictions?

I guess Dr. Gray's comments were too inconvenient for the liberals at the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

It's sad to see what's become of the Nobel Peace Prize over the years. PowerLine has a good summary:

When did the Nobel Peace Prize go off the tracks? Today's award to Al Gore and the IPCC "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" fits in with a subset of cosmopolitan frauds, fakers, murderers, thieves, and no-accounts going back about twenty years:

2005: MOHAMED ELBARADEI (joint winner). He's done such a nice job with Iran.

2002: JIMMY CARTER JR., former President of the United States of America. A true cosmopolitan, he has undermined the foreign policy of his own country and vouched for the bona fides of tyrants and murderers all over the world.

2001: UNITED NATIONS, New York, NY, USA. KOFI ANNAN, United Nations Secretary General. Among other things, respectively served as the vehicle for, and presided over, one of the biggest scams in history.

1994: YASSER ARAFAT (joint winner), Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, President of the Palestinian National Authority for his efforts to create peace in the Middle East. A cold-blooded murderer before and after receiving the award.

1992: RIGOBERTA MENCHU TUM, Guatemala. Faker and author, sort of, of I, Rigoberta Menchu.

1988: THE UNITED NATIONS PEACE-KEEPING FORCES New York, NY, U.S.A. Notwithstanding rapes and sex abuse committed by the team in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea and the Congo, still doing fine work all over the world.

Jay Richards, on National Review Online, notes how Al Gore is dropping all pretense that his global warming crusade has anything to do with hard science:

Keeping to the trend of politicized awards, the Nobel Peace Prize has been given jointly to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In his initial statement, however, Gore explains that global warming isn't a political issue at all: "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level."

Glad he cleared that up. I had been thinking it had something to do with science.

Of course, Gore winning the Nobel Liberal Prize comes right on the heels of a UK judge ruling about the many inconvenient inaccuracies in Gore's alarmist propaganda film:

Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children.

...In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia.

...Mr Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen.

The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.

The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was “far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability”.

The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.

What's so amazing about the Al Gore phenomenon is that his followers view him, and he views himself, as some sort of quasi-religious figure. This is part, I think, of a larger movement, especially among liberals, but not exclusively, to fill a spiritual void in their lives, a void caused by, among other things, the rejection of any kind of traditional religion, or belief in God, and the fantastic standard of living most in the West have achieved.

Hmmm, sounds like a post for another day.

Barack Obama spoke at a church on Sunday and said, "I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God." And he also stated, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

Now, I have no problem with Obama expressing his religious faith and vision. Just stop for a moment, though, and consider: what would be the reaction of Obama supporters to those words, if President Bush had said them, say at his inauguration? The Obama folks would be screaming, "Bush wants to turn the U.S. into a theocracy!" and warning about crazy and dangerious Christians. There would be pledges to leave the country for Canada or France.

Think I am overreacting? Nope, because those on the left made precisely those kinds of comments when Bush won election and took office, even though he never said anything like wanting to be an instrument of God or wanting to create a Kingdom right here on Earth. I remember reading dozens of panicky entries on Democratic Underground, one of the nutty hard left blog sites.

However, look at the comments at the bottom of the CNN story I linked to, and you'll see lots of lefties praising Obama's comments. Do they have any idea how hypocritical they are?

Dr. Howard D. Greyber wrote a letter to the (liberal) International Herald Tribune that is probably the best, very short summary of the global warming issue that I've seen. Here it is:

"When Thomas Friedman touts carbon dioxide as the cause of global warming in his column 'Doha and Dalian' (Sept. 20), I respond as a physicist that he cannot comprehend that it is still not proven that carbon dioxide emissions actually are causing global warming. Correlation does not prove Causation.

The Earth's climate changes all the time. Did carbon dioxide emissions cause the Medieval Warm Period, when Vikings raised crops on Greenland's coast? What caused the cold climate from 1700 to 1850? In 1975, articles were published predicting we were entering a New Ice Age.

Reputable scientists oppose this unwarranted alarmist hysteria. If fanatic leftists who hate America's progressive capitalistic system had not opposed the building of nuclear power plants by wild allegations and interminable lawsuits, the United States could have built dozens of safe, modern reactors. These provide plentiful, reliable energy and, incidentally, emit zero carbon dioxide.

Understanding climate change is an extremely difficult scientific problem. Giant computers generating climate models cannot be trusted so far. As any computer person knows, garbage in means garbage out. If research suggests subtle variations in our Sun's radiation reaching Earth are causing global climate change, what would Friedman recommend?"

Brilliant.

Now this is the kind of news I like on a Monday morning: the number of soldiers killed in Iraq in September plunged to the lowest level in 14 months. Perhaps even more impressive is that the death toll has dropped four straight months.

So, not only is the surge putting Al Qaeda on the ropes, it is reducing our own fatalities.

"The trend is certainly in the right direction," US military spokesman Rear Admiral Mark Fox told a press conference in Baghdad.

"The surge unquestionably is what has been the catalyst that has created the opportunity to have more forces operating in more places at the same time and to deny Al-Qaeda and the extremists safe-haven and to take away sanctuaries."

Great news.

I missed President Bush's speech last night, but having read it over this morning, I think he nailed it, in particular this part:

"The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is 'return on success.' The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. ...

... Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.

The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together."

He's right, of course. Everybody wants the troops to come home, and his way, "return on success," does make it possible for the right and left to come together. What's missing from his proposal is a simple truth: those on the extreme left do not want success, they want defeat. Returning after success means that Bush has won the war, a totally unacceptable outcome for the left, both politically and, perhaps more interestingly, psychologically.

I don't believe the hard left can mentally handle victory in Iraq. They are so invested in defeat that a successful outcome would completely crash their world view, in which not only the war is wrong, but Bush is wrong, and all his decisions are wrong. They can't allow it. Therefore, they absolutely will not come together with the rest of the nation in embracing "return on success." The only outcome they will embrace is "return on defeat."

Thankfully, despite the mistakes President Bush and his administration have made in tackling the brutally tough situation in Iraq, he, General Petraeus, and Iraq are on the right track. Most of us are pleased.

Ugh.

The Rays managed to finally rough up the Red Sox' Tim Wakefield, only to lose anyway. Then, yesterday, they blow a one-run lead in the bottom of the ninth as David Ortiz hit a walk-off two-run homer.

For the Rays to break their meager record of 70 wins in a season, the now need to win 10 of the remaining 16 games. Ain't gonna happen. So anyway, about those Gators...

It's very tempting to write about General Petraeus' report to Congress, the real progress in Iraq, the biased media coverage, the dems pathetic spin, the shameful MoveOn.org ad, etc. And it's tempting to write about Hillary Clinton and the Hsu fundraising scandal.

Today, though, I am not in the mood for world affairs. Today, I'm thinking sports. Not my beloved Gators or the Bucs, but the lowly Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

To say the Rays have performed poorly since their 1998 debut would be an understatement. I don't believe even the Bucs dreadful start in 1976, losing 26 straight games, can quite compare. Consider: in their nine years of existence, the Rays have finished in last place in the American League East every year, except 2004, when they finished fourth out of five teams. They have never won more than 70 games (out of 162 in a season), and have lost 91 or more every season. They are the only team in baseball to have never made the playoffs.

Yet, there's hope this year. The Rays have won 61 games and lost 83, with 18 games remaining, but more importantly, they are on a prolonged hot streak. They have won 13 out of their last 17 games, narrowing the margin to fourth place Baltimore to one game. If they can win 10 of the 18 remaining games, not out of the question given the current streak, they will set a franchise mark for wins in a season and will likely climb out of last place for only the second time.

Unfortunately, today's game against Boston's Tim Wakefield provides a stiff test. Not only is Boston in first place, but Wakefield has dominated the Rays. In games against Tampa Bay, he's 6-1 since 2006 and has allowed only one run in the last 21 innings. Wow.

It doesn't get any easier. The Ray have another series remaining against Boston, one against the Yankees, one against the AL West leading Angels, and one against the second place Mariners. Only six of the remaining 18 games are at home.

OK, so it doesn't look good. But I'll be rooting for them anyway. Go Rays, Go!

After President Bush fell off a Segway on his first ride, Piers Morgan, editor of the Daily Mirror, ran the headline "You'd have to be an idiot to fall off, wouldn't you Mr President." He added: "If anyone can make a pig's ear of riding a sophisticated, self-balancing machine like this, Dubya can."

As Powerline reminds us, "The wheels of justice grind slowly, it is said, but they grind exceedingly fine." So what happened when Morgan finally had his first ride on a Segway? He fell off, cracking three ribs.

I hate to see anybody get injured, but I sure don't mind seeing a Bush-hater get his comeuppance.

Miss Teen South Carolina attempts to answer a question.

Wow.

This is a big deal.

A gentleman named Steve McIntyre discovered that the methodology used by NASA to determine the temperature of each year in the U.S. was flawed. NASA, to its credit, corrected its methodology and released updated data. As a result, the hottest year on record is no longer 1998, but 1934. That's right, all this panic about global warming, and we still haven't beat the temperature set in 1934. Here are the warmest years on record:

1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939

Three out of the top five warmest years occurred prior to 1935. Six of the top ten occurred before 1954. If that doesn't give one pause about global warming hysteria, nothing will.

Here's a link to Mr. McIntyre's web page, although as of this writing, it's partially inoperative due to, apparently, denial-of-service attacks. Yup, some of the alarmists are so upset about the corrected data, it appears they attacked Mr. McIntyre's web site.

So, go to this page instead for a rundown of the new data. And beware of false prophets of doom.

I love it. A guy makes a racist website, but tries to fool people into thinking it's Fred Thompson's. Too bad he's too dumb (and he's an attorney!) to cover his tracks. It's safe to say the conservative blogosphere is smarter than this guy. The blog Captain's Quarters nailed him, and uncovered his contributions to MoveOn, the DNC, and John Kerry. Beautiful.

Power Line is covering the outrageous actions by House Democrats to subvert democracy. They reportedly called an end to an important vote, which the Republicans won, only to then allow more of their own people to vote, thus changing the legal result.

And then what happened? I can't quite believe it, but the Dems then expunged the entire episode from House record!

See Eric Cantor's blog (the Chief Deputy Republican Whip) for more. What an absolutely disgusting outrage. I didn't think it was possible for the Dems to sink that low, but they have. Oh wait, I'm forgetting about the comment on the liberal Wonkette site, about Chief Justice John Robert's recent seizure:

"Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his summer home in Maine. No, not really, but we know you have your fingers crossed."

Nothing is beneath these people.

Now, let me very clear here. I know, and am friends with, many Democrats. By and large they are sensible, honest, good people, and I respect them. The Dems I'm talking about are not the rank and file out in the heartland. I'm talking about the hard-left. Unfortunately, the Democrat leadership has an abundance those types, and they put political gain above absolutely everything else, including the rule of law, defeating our enemies, and even simple decency.

Update: See the great response to this debacle by Roy Blunt, Republican Whip, on YouTube.

First, an op-ed in the the New York Times, written by two liberals with the Brookings Institution, declaring:

"Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms."

"We were surprised by the gains we saw..."

"Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference."

There's a lot more, and it matches what other, less liberal media sources like Fox News have been reporting about the significant, substantial improvements in Iraq. However, the big question remains: Will the Democrats, who are completely invested in the idea of defeat in Iraq, embrace the progress or continue their efforts to undermine it? Those Dems have consistently put political gain ahead of, well, everything, so I have my doubts.

The second article I thought I'd never see is this one in the British paper, The Sun. It quotes Prime Minister Gordon Brown:

"America has shown by the resilience and bravery of its people from September 11 that while buildings can be destroyed, values are indestructable."

"We acknowledge the debt the world owes to the US for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism."

"I have always been an Atlanticist and a great admirer of the American spirit of enterprise and national purpose and commitment to opportunity to all."

"And as Prime Minister I want to do more to strengthen even further our relationship with the US."

Wow, that's great to hear.

It must be a terrible day for the defeatists and blame-America crowd, but it's a great day for the rest of us.

A private forecaster, WSI Corp, downgraded its prediction of the number of named storms that will form in the Atlantic. The reason for the downgrade? Cooler than expected water temperatures:

"Because the ocean temperatures have not yet rebounded from the significant drop in late spring, we have decided to reduce our forecast numbers slightly," said Todd Crawford, a WSI seasonal forecaster.

Regardless of whether WSI's forecast ends up being correct, the fact that the Atlantic is cooler than expected is interesting information for global warming skeptics.

I couldn't resist. I tried to, for awhile, but it didn't work. The siren song of Apple's iPhone was just too much to withstand.

So how is it? Well, have you ever bought a product, or seen a movie, or read a book, and it was so good that when asked about it, you hesitate before gushing, because you wonder if other people will share your enthusiasm? The iPhone is even better than that, because it is so freaking cool that if someone else doesn't agree, then I know it's their problem, not mine.

It's easily the most amazing product I have ever held in my hand. Apple seems to have cornered the market on excellent product designers, user interface specialists, and programmers. It's inconceivable, unfortunately, for any other company in the world to have developed the iPhone. Apple is red-hot right now.

Is it perfect? No, there are niggles here and there. No product is perfect, but here's the difference: Apple will be issuing software updates for the iPhone on a regular basis, so it will only get better, and better, and better, especially since it isn't locked into a bunch of hardware buttons.

I love it.

My family, friends, and I have been up on Lake Glenville in North Carolina. We all seem to enter a type of dream state up there. I don't know if it's the cool weather (highs mostly in the 70's), the lake view, the crisp lake water, the remote location (relatively speaking), something else, or all those things put together, but it feels like we're a million miles from the world of worries.

Perhaps it's the lack of a daily paper, or cell phone calls, or the constant drum beat of typically negative news on television that keeps the spirits high. Yes, we'll get a USA Today or put on the news occasionally, but the serious sections of the paper are normally left unread and the news checking is, at least for me, brief and just a way to make sure nothing big has happened. "Big" means actual, substantial news, not some celebrity getting out of jail or politics as usual.

I love seeing the kids in this setting -- they are outdoors so much (difficult in Florida in the middle of summer), putting aside the GameBoys in favor of playing in the water, exploring the creek, playing kickball, or just inventing an activity on the spot. Of course, as a family we do other outdoor activities like going on hikes, visiting waterfalls, and going on boat rides.

Oh sure, there will be a bump or scrape, a meltdown (rarer each year, thankfully), or some boredom on a rainy day, but those things are overcome, and the dream state settles back in. Summers on a lake are wonderful.

... and having a great time, but I'll be back posting shortly!

The article Read the Sunspots, by R. Timothy Patterson, professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, for Canada's Financial Post, is a crusher for the warming alarmists. Professor Patterson shares his belief, based on years of research, including the "highest-quality climate records available anywhere today," that the variations in solar activity is driving climate change, and has been doing so for thousands of years.

I think he's right. Based on the articles I've read (many of which I've previously linked to), the sun's role in affecting our climate is greatly underestimated. I am still open to new information and new studies, but I'd be willing to wager that when we finally have a firm handle on climate change, the most complex system science has every grappled with, we'll find that the sun is the dog wagging the our climate tail.

How's this for a wrap-up quote?

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world...

New Gallup data show confidence in Congress at all time low

Now, which party controls Congress again?

Roy Pearson, the judge who filed the world's most frivilous lawsuit: $67,000,000 over a pair of supposedly lost pants at a dry cleaner.

William Jefferson, corrupt Representative from Louisiana, filmed taking $100,000 cash as a bribe.

Mike Nifong, utterly disgraced District Attorney who is responsible for enabling the Duke rape hoax.

Hmmm, I wonder what political party they have in common...

They call this a consensus? OK, some of the content of this article is thought-provoking enough for me to post a longish quote. The "series" mentioned in the quote is here. It is an absolute fact that there is no consensus on global warming, no matter how much the alarmists want there to be.

"More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.

Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position."

The $8-billion global-warming swindle. Read it.

A Faithful Heretic. An enlighting Q&A with an absolute expert in climatology. Here's a juicy bit:

"A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage. Talk about a story you won't see in the MSM! This ought to send the hard-core enviromental types into conniptions.

Gore as religious figure. This is not satire, it's a real look at a spooky phenomenon.

Scientists Surprised by NASA Chief's Climate Comments. Suprised, evidently, by hearing common sense:

"I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.

To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

Global warming debunked. The meteorologist in this article thinks global warming "is a joke." I don't think I'd go that far, but he sure seems convinced.

Billy Donovan remains a Gator. The sun is a little brighter today, the sky a little clearer, and the world makes sense again.

Scientists invent wireless device that beams electricity through your home. When I was a kid, I used to dream about this kind of thing as I watched the Jetsons.

Rising immigration fuels 26-year fertility high (in the U.K.) and Mohammed is expected soon to be the most popular boy's name. Hmmm, I wonder what ethic group is having all those kids...

Jimmy Carter: Profile in Incompetence. A Ten Part Series on the Worst President in American History. Ten Part? Ouch!

Revolt Against Al Qaeda Spreading. I think the only way the Iraqis, and the allied forces, will find peace is if the revolt keeps spreading.

Finally, I know one thing this guy in Wyoming is not thinking, as he shovels snow on June 7:
"We need to tackle global warming!"

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune did not see fit to put the foiled JFK terrorism plot on the front page, nor did the indictment of Democrat Congressman William Jefferson for red-handed bribery make the front page. They will, however, put the news of Scooter Libby's sentencing on tomorrow's front page.

National Review has written a strong piece on why President Bush should put an end to the whole farcical/tragic/absurd CIA-leak affair by pardoning Mr. Libby. Unfortunately, I'll bet Bush won't do it. I hope I'm wrong.

Ugh, I had been sleeping so peacefully at night knowing my beloved Gators had locked up the two best college coaches in the country: Urban Meyer in football and Billy Donovan in basketball. After his second national championship, Billy spurned even Kentucky to stay with the Gators, talking about how important family and lifestyle are. He'll be a Gator forever! Or so I thought, willfully putting aside thousands of examples of athletes and coaches moving on, despite the wishes of their fans.

Now, in what seems like a wink of an eye, he's off to coach the Orlando Magic. I can't help feel that, like Spurrier before him, he's making a mistake by leaving a dream job for the brutal, anything-but-family-friendly world of professional sports. Billy's a wonderful college coach, but those talents don't necessarily translate to the NBA.

Sure, he'll still be close to his family in Gainesville, but his career will be worlds away from where it was.

Mark Twain said, "When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained." I suppose we are all, indeed, mad to to a greater or lesser extent, but thankfully most people can be safely classified in the "lesser" category.

Not so for the anti-Americans. They are mind-bogglingly irrational. Consider for a moment this statement: Among all the nations of the world, the United States of America is the greatest force for good in the history of the planet. Disagree? Please, tell me what country has done more for the cause of freedom than the USA? What country gives more money, works harder, or sacrifices more young soldiers in pursuit of great causes for the aid and benefit of complete strangers around the globe? (No, the United States isn't perfect. Like all countries, we have made, and will continue to make, mistakes, some of them grievous. But those mistakes are overwhelmed by the good we've done.)

Now look, if you're from, say, England, and think your country is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I think that's wonderful. It's great to be proud of your country. Americans aren't looking for people to praise them or declare that America is #1. Americans aren't even that concerned about whether or not the many recipients of its aid say thank you. But is it too much to ask not to be reviled?

Take Mexicans, for example. You would think that Mexicans would love the United States. For decades, we have allowed tens of millions of Mexicans, with a wink and a nod, to flood illegally into our country to live and work. Frankly, it's been an arrangement which has benefited both sides: the Mexicans make far more money than they could back in Mexico and get to live in a much more desirable country. We, on the other hand, benefit from the illegals (relatively) low wages and their hard work.

President Bush, much to the dismay of conservatives, is even leading the way in trying to give Mexican illegals amnesty and allow them to stay in this country permanently. You would think that Mexicans would be cheering the United States and the amnesty plans, and would attempt to remain on friendly terms with our country.

But no. Anti-Americanism runs so deeply that even a sweet girl from Tennessee is booed repeatedly by a Mexican audience. And that's just the latest example. Mexican crowds have (again, repeatedly) chanted "Osama! Osama!" during Mexico-USA soccer games and tossed bags of urine on the American players.

Rachael Smith, the Miss USA contestant, naturally responded to her incredibly poor treatment with dignity and class. Donald Trump, the event co-owner, showed once again why he's no gentleman when he refused to condemn the Mexicans' response to his fellow American. Michelle Malkin has a must-read piece on Mexican anti-Americanism (she's a far better writer than I am).

I realize that many anti-Americans around the world have been essentially brainwashed by their predictably left-wing media sources and their socialist leaders. And I realize that when those anti-Americans see hard-left America-haters, like Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and the MoveOn.org looneys, their beliefs are cemented. But you'd think that a tiny bit of rationality would creep in to temper those beliefs, or at the very least, a tiny bit of class would prevent those beliefs from turning into actions such as booing innocent women, chanting the name of a mass murderer, or throwing bags of urine. But no.

Unfortunately, the anti-Americans truly are mad.

Dr. Tawfik Hamid used to be a member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, and is now a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West. I read an article about him some time ago, then saw him on TV, and was heartened by his attitude toward radical Islam.

Here's a Muslim who gets it. He's not afraid to condemn the violence in the name of Islam, and he sees clearly the problems that Muslims themselves must own up to and face. He wrote an opinion piece for today's Wall Street Journal. I highly recommend it. If the majority of Muslims would adopt his attitude and embrace his solutions, Islamofascism would wither away.

I've been extremely busy lately, and continue to be, so I haven't had time to post in awhile. However, I was dumbfounded to hear that Jimmy Carter, of all people, said that the Bush administration was the worst in history. If there's one person who should keep quiet about worst presidencies, it's Jimmy Carter. Naturally, there are now numerous editorials and other opinion pieces shredding Carter's statement and, more importantly, recalling the disaster that was his presidency. Investor's Business Daily, for example, has a good one. Here's their clever opening quote:

We didn't think we'd see the day when a president-elect of France would be more appreciative of America's role in the world than one of our own former presidents.

And a closing one:

Jimmy Carter, the man who makes Neville Chamberlain look like Dirty Harry, made his remarks about President Bush while promoting his audiobook series of Bible lessons for children. Jimmy, thou shalt not bear false witness against your president and country. Haven't you done enough damage? If you want to see our worst ex-president, look in the mirror.

In tomorrow's IBD, we're promised "How Carter ran the world's greatest economy into the ground." Yikes. Well, he asked for it...

Some quick hits:

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics. Speaks for itself.

Facts About Sea Level Rise. After presenting the data, here's the author's key quote:

"From this article, we learn from the actual data that (a) sea level is generally rising, (b) the rate of rise decelerated during the 20th century, (c) the rate of sea level rise over the past two decades has been both positive and negative, (d) the rate of sea level rise has been quite small over the last few years, and (e) stations can witness an increase or decrease of sea level quite independently of one another."

Yes, you read correctly. Decelerated. Negative. Quite small over the last few years. Hmmm.

Global Warming Comes to Neptune. There is more and more evidence that the sun plays a major role in climate change.

Soil's Contribution to Global Warming. Don't forget that there are other, more potent greenhouse gases than CO2.

All these stories point to how little we understand about climate change. It's depressing and scary to see how quickly people are jumping on the doomsayers' bandwagon.

Finally, a hero: James Wanliss, a space physicist at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. He had the brilliant idea of presenting both sides of the global warming controversy to his students and letting them decide. What an concept! His quote:

"I fear that attempts are being made to purposefully subvert the public understanding of the nature of science in order to achieve political goals," he wrote in an e-mail. "Science is not about consensus, and to invoke this raises the hackles of scientists such as myself. The lure of politics and publicity is no doubt seductive, but it nevertheless amazes me that so many scientists have jumped on the bandwagon of consensus science, apparently forgetting or ignoring the sad history of consensus science."

He's one of the few candles in the darkness of today's liberal academia.

I sometimes think I was born in the wrong era. I love the 40's and 50's, or at least the image we see of it on old TV shows like Leave It to Beaver and Father Knows Best. However, this old Folgers commercial is also a reminder how far we've come (although the wife's mousiness is hilarious!).

The 2008 presidential candidates are an interesting group. Among the top tier (Obama and Hillary for the Democrats, Guiliani, Romney, McCain for the Republicans), there don't seem to be any clear favorites. Every one of them could conceivably become President.

I sense that may slowly be changing. Of course, the primaries are a long way away, and candidates will inevitably rise and fall, and new ones may emerge (Fred Thompson). Still, I think the Obama boomlet may be waning. He recently made two serious gaffes. The first, he said that 10,000 people died in that Kansas tornado, while the actual number was 12. Then, while chastising U.S. auto makers, he stated that Japan's lineup averages 45 MPG, while the actual number was the far less exciting 30 MPG. (Can you imagine the media frenzy if Bush had made those errors? Yikes.) Everybody has a slip-up every now and then, but I get the impression that Obama is similar to Al Gore. Not only are his views far-left, like Gore's, which most Americans don't yet realize, but he is showing a tendency to make false statements to make his point more dramatic or his speech more interesting. Perhaps he'll get his act together, but if he doesn't, the free pass he's getting from an adoring press will disappear eventually.

Hillary provokes a visceral reaction among conservatives (although that reaction is tame compared to the Bush Derangement Syndrome we see among the hard-left crowd), yet she appears to "get it" when it comes to the biggest issue of our times: Islamofascism and Iraq. Sure, she is leaning left now to appease primary voters and, sure, she's a lefty in most (all?) other areas, but in my book, she'd be preferable to Obama as President.

As for the Republicans, I like 'em all, but none is perfect. Guiliani is wonderful on security and is fiscally conservative. While his moderate-to-liberal social views don't bother me that much, his muddiness in articulating them does. His personal life might also be a distraction, and therefore a problem.

McCain is also wonderful on security, although his definition of detainee torture is, well, tortuous. Also, I'll never forgive him for McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform." I just have a hard time fully accepting McCain, although I'll admit he'd probably be a decent President.

Romney, in times of peace, would be an ideal President. Here's a true, successful businessman and a fiscal conservative. If I hear a strong, detailed foreign policy speech from Mitt, one that reassures me about his commitment to fighting Islamofascism, he might be my man. I really want to like Mitt, but he needs to get more detailed in his speeches. I'm rooting for him.

Fred Thompson? Frankly, most of what I know about him is what I've heard from others: he's a rock-solid conservative. I have read a couple of the articles he's written for National Review, and they're fine. Until he actually steps forward to run, there doesn't seem to much point in getting excited about him.

In Saturday's Sarasota Herald-Tribune, two stories appeared which, taken together, are a classic example of liberal bias.

First was a global warming story on the front page, above the fold (naturally, since the Herald-Tribune has drunk deeply from the vat of global warming alarmism Kool-Aid), entitled "Scientists claim relief effort on warming is affordable." The story talks about proposed "affordable" measures that would cost about the same as an increase in gas prices of one dollar a gallon. So, a dollar a gallon is affordable. OK, fine.

However, on the front page of the business section, above the fold, there was the headline "Counting every last penny." It's your standard economic doom-and-gloom story about the price of gasoline, etc. In this story, however, we are told about a consumer "cringing" when he fills up his truck with gas and other shoppers "counting every penny."

So, in the media's eyes, the equivalent of a dollar rise in gas is affordable when it supposedly combats global warming, but a less-than-a-dollar increase in a gallon of gas over the several months has a major impact on consumers. Hmmm, so which is it?

In Part 1 of my "Hard to Find Global Warming Stories," I pointed out some funny or ironic articles related to global warming. This entry covers more serious ground. As discussed in my entry on the broad themes of climate change, there are several basic questions that need to be answered by science. Only the first one is largely settled:

1. Is the Earth warming? Yes, it has warmed and cooled in cycles of varying lengths for millenia.
Interview - Dr. Fred Singer - super overview of the topic
Podcast discussing the book Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 Years

The other questions are unsettled, despite what warming alarmist want you to believe. Here are those questions, and a quick smattering of interesting articles which address them. The articles are often either ignored or buried by mainstream media.

2. Is man causing the recent warming? We do not know with certainty.
Scientist: Warming Not Caused By Humans
Cosmic Rays Blamed for Global Warming
Hotter-Burning Sun Warming the Planet - the sun clearly plays a role, which is why...
Climate Change Hits Mars - ... yes, Mars is warming too
Impact of Global Warming Looms on the Horizon - misleading headline, good article
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming
New Source of Global Warming Gas Found: Plants - shows how much there is yet to learn

3. Is carbon dioxide increase causing the warming, or is the warming causing the carbon dioxide increase?
A Climate Skeptic... - extremely interesting since it was written by a former believer. I'm seeing an increasing number of references to this crucial topic, and I'll keep my eye out for more. I know it is mentioned in this must-see videos:
The Great Global Warming Swindle
An Inconvenient Truth or Convenient Fiction?

4. Is the warming trend likely to continue?
Although I didn't bookmark them, there have been a number of predictions that a cooling trend may be coming -- either in a few years or in a few decades. The Climate Skeptic article above mentions the issue. Until we understand climate change better, any predictions must be taken with a grain of salt.

5. Is the warming trend a bad thing?
It's far, far from unclear. - I'll keep my eyes open for more on this topic.

6. If warming is bad, is there anything we can do about it now? The short answer: no.
Kyoto is Pointless, Say 60 Leading Scientists
Global Warming Progress? Not for All the Coal in China

Finally, regarding topic of Al Gore-style alarmism:
Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming
Global Warming Fears Overblown - nice overview of climate change
Doubting Doomsday
We're Not Going to Melt - another nice overview
No Scientific Basis for Global Warming Contention - how an anecdotal story can run amok
Not That Simple - on the complexity of climate change

Now that I've cleared out my saved links, in the future I can focus on shorter posts on individual articles.

Author unknown, but I love it.

Some Guinness was spilt on the bar-room floor
        Just around closing one night,
And a wee little mousie crept out of his hole
        And into the pale moonlight.
He lapped up all of that dark frothy brew
        And back on his haunches he sat,
And all the night long you could hear that mouse roar,
          "Bring on that god-damned cat!"

Victor Davis Hanson is one of my favorite columnists. He's one of those people that has a remarkable ability to cut through the chaff to show you the wheat that you didn't even know was there. One of his latest columns is about Iraq and the Middle East, specifically about on the growing feeling among Americans that, since our substantial efforts to help the Middle East, whether it's sacrificing American lives to end tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan, saving lives in Somalia or Kosovo, or contributing billions in aid to Egypt, Jordan, etc., go unappreciated, the effort just isn't worth it. At best we get back a shrug of the shoulders and expectation of continued help; at worst, more virulent anti-Americanism.

The situation is exacerbated by the obvious hypocrisy we see on television:

"A sense of imbalance is everywhere. Imams call Jews 'pigs and apes.' The Pope is threatened for his dry recitation of history. Cartoonists, novelists, filmmakers, and opera producers are all promised death or beheading, while the worst sort of racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian hatred is broadcast and published in state-run Arab media."

I believe the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban and the liberation of Iraq were the right moves. Given the events of 9/11, we simply couldn't allow a terrorist sanctuary to exist, or allow Saddam Hussein, who had developed and used WMDs in the past and who had supported terrorism, to remain in office. In fact, the liberation of both countries were tremendous military successes in the face of dire predictions of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of allied dead.

Yet, the restoration process has been far more difficult than expected due the reluctance of Middle Easterners themselves to embrace freedom and fight for it, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in neighboring countries. We get glimpses of hope in the form of Iraqi's purple fingers and occasional stories about Sunnis turning against Al Qaeda or a small Iraqi army success, but it's not enough to stop the slowing draining of American will to support "those people."

The reality is that Iraq is a stalemate. The terrorists in Iraq can never defeat us militarily, therefore we cannot lose in Iraq -- unless we decide to lose by pulling out. If that happens, I believe we will see a new definition of chaos and bloodshed, and Al Qaeda recruitment will skyrocket.

We can possibly win if we strengthen our military efforts (the "surge" is a good start) and, more importantly, receive increasing levels of cooperation from the Iraqis themselves. That's the hard part, complicated by Iraq heterogeneity. Iraqis, and the rest of the Middle East for that matter, say they want democracy, but the majority don't seem to understand the hard work, sacrifice, commitment, and bravery it demands from themselves.

I mentioned before that the threat posed by radical Islam is, I believe, the number one issue in the world today. By "threat," I don't just mean acts of terrorism, although those acts are certainly enough of a threat on their own. I also mean the rise of radical Islam as a dominant theology, one that is spreading rapidly, thanks to a confluence of two trends: demographics and appeasement. I'll discuss appeasement another time -- probably many times, since there are so many examples of it.

Demographics refers to the fact that Islamic women are having many more children than other women, particularly European women. Forget terrorism -- if current trends continue, and it's hard to see why they won't, Islamists (radical or not) will simply take over European countries by shear force of numbers. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact. The demographics are what they are. For a fact-based, eye-popping treatment of the situation, read the book America Alone, by Mark Steyn.

Here are a few of quickie statistics from the book. Every western woman in the EU is producing a mere 1.4 children, which does not even cover replacement of the father and mother -- the population is actually shrinking. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children. The most popular boy's name in Belgium, Amsterdam, and Malmo, Sweden? Mohammad. The trend has been going on for years, along with unchecked immigration. All those Muslim youths are why we see prolonged, violent riots in France periodically.

The European fertility rate is so low it will have amazing consequences. Consider this (quoting from the book now):

"By 2050, 60 percent of Italians will have no brothers, no sisters, no cousins, no aunts, no uncles. The big Italian family, with papa pouring the vino and mama spooning out the pasta down an endless table of grandparents and nieces and nephews, will be gone, no more..."

Years ago, I vaguely recall Turkey being referred to as a moderate Muslim country, a beacon of modernity, a possible member of the European Union. Lately, though, Turkey isn't referred to in those terms very often. The reason? Radical Islam is on the rise. I was delighted to see this story of a push back against that rise by Turkish citizens (and Pakastani too). It's a very rare example of moderate Muslims standing up to their radical counterparts. Hopefully, there's more, much more, where that came from.

There are all sorts of news stories concerning global warming that are buried by the mainstream media, including the local Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which, as far as I have noticed, carries only alarmist articles. Some of the hard-to-find stories are funny or ironic. Other are anecdotal "evidence" that, at a minimum, give one pause.

I've never quite understood why the alarmists would schedule events in northern latitudes the winter time. Over the years, I've seen many stories of such events being canceled due to snow or cold. This story is particularly funny since the event was cut short even though it was held in mid-April, for crying out loud: "Cold, Rain Cuts Short Global Warming Rally".

Similarly, an Earth Day event finds the weather a nuisance: "While snow piles up outside our windows, we may be hard-pressed to believe climate change is occurring..." Gee, really?

And let's not forget back in January: "California citrus growers face big losses as cold snap continues." The "cold-snap" was actually two nights of record cold temperatures which devastated the citrus crops.

Personally, this the coldest April I can recall. Now, any one event, whether it's one cold April, record cold in California, dozens of ice-storm deaths, or snow causing baseball game cancellations, doesn't mean that the planet isn't warming, but those stories, collectively, are interesting to note. Likewise, when we finally get the inevitable summer heat waves, it won't mean that the global warming doom-sayers are right either, despite the vast publicity they will get. Anecdotal evidence, on either side, is not statistically significant.

By the way, if you are are hard-core skeptic and are looking for a good, ongoing repository of article links and global warming skepticism, check out the site Global Warming Hyperbole.

Coming in "Hard to Find Global Warming Stories, Part 2" will be the more important missing stories -- those of scientists, research, and studies which challenge the so-called consensus.

I love good pun jokes. The best ones don't require lengthy setups. To wit:

Did you hear about the Buddhist who refused his dentist's Novocain during a root canal? He wanted to transcend dental medication.

Another:

A man wanted to invest in Irish real estate. He planned on Dublin his money.

Also, they have to be good enough to produces audible groans at end. A classic:

Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath. This made him a super-callused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.

Hahaha!

I previously noted that President Bush gets little credit for a strong economy. In today's Wall Street Journal, Brian S. Wesbury wrote an editorial called "Economic Showdown," which examines the economic records of both Presidents (article available on the web only to online subscribers). It's an interesting piece which very persuasively comes to the conclusion that the Bush economy is as good or better than the Clinton economy.

Here's an important distinction though: the Clinton economy was good despite Clinton's policies (such as raising taxes) due to factors beyond his control (handed a growing economy by his predecessor, very low oil prices, the internet boom, no thoughts about terrorism). On the other hand, the Bush economy is good despite factors beyond his control (handed a economy heading into recession, 9/11 and the continued threat of terrorism, high oil prices) due to his policies (such as lowering taxes).

President Bush is certainly worthy of criticism on several fronts. Economic performance is not one of them.

When I think about the most important issues in the world today, three spring immediately to mind. They are, in order of importance: the rise of radical Islam, media bias, and global warming hysteria. I'll eventually cover the first two, but global warming is on my mind today.

The many facets of climate change (science, politics, public perception, humor, economics) are too much to address in one entry, so I'd thought I'd start with an overview of, primarily, the science. In future installments, I'll cover other facets. I need to lay some science groundwork first.

I am very much open-minded about what, if anything, is happening to the Earth's climate and the reasons for change. I am disturbed by the arrogant (or is it ignorant?) "certainty" of the environmental doomsayers. Remember when the fear in the 1970's was global cooling? As new studies are completed and information is received, I will adjust my understanding and opinions accordingly. I'm not a scientist, but I've read a fair amount about climate change. No, I don't claim to have read, much less understand, all the science and various reports that have been issued over the last several decades. However, I am comfortable that I've learned enough to comment on the issue.

Let start with this inconvenient truth: the Earth's climate is the most complex, tangled, chaotic, difficult-to-understand system in science. Understanding climate change is made doubly difficult by the lack of accurate, widespread temperature measurements prior to the modern age of satellites and other precise equipment. Scientists use proxies (ice core samples, etc.) to estimate temperatures in the early 1900's or even thousands of years ago, but no one should pretend that the global temperature record over the last 1000 years is a settled matter. It isn't.

Computer models which attempt to forecast climate change for the next 100 years are noble, important efforts, but they should not be assumed accurate. Scientists have real difficulty accurately predicting the temperatures for next week, much less 100 years from now. There are huge unknowns and assumptions that must be plugged into those models. Not only is our understanding of the global climate in its infancy, but there are factors which dramatically complicate the issue:

- Changing energy technologies. Think back 100 years ago to 1907. Automobiles had just been introduced. The Wright brothers were still experimenting with their airplane. Plastics were virtually unknown. Computers, microwave ovens, cell phones, nuclear technology, MRI scans, and so on had not been invented. Life expectancy in the US was less than 50 years old! In short, it is absolutely stunning how far we have come in the last 100 years. Now, what technologies will be invented in the next 100 years? It is impossible to know, but we can say with near certainty that some of them will be astounding and will include more efficient, cleaner energy production. It will not be surprising at all if our petroleum-based economy shifts toward some other solution, purely as a result of capitalism (build a better mousetrap...).

- Changing economic conditions. Wealthier countries tend to be cleaner, more efficient countries. The United States is far more energy efficient than China. How will the world economic condition change? What impediments to growth will stand in the way?

- Solar energy cyles and cosmic radiation which not only have a direct impact (changes in warming energy reaching the Earth), but also indirect impacts like cloud formation and water vapor.

Scientists are working hard to understand our climate, but it will take many years until we understand it with anything approaching certainty. (Unfortunately, scientists know they can receive vast amounts of funding and publicity if they produce studies which show that global warming is perilous and man-made.) Making dramatic policy decisions (e.g. Kyoto) now is simply insane, especially since there is so much ignorance on the part of policy makers and the public.

Just for fun, answer the following questions:
A. Are greenhouse gases natural or man-made?

B. Are greenhouse gases bad?

C. What is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas?

Answers:
A. Only a tiny portion of greenhouse gases were produced by man. The rest are completely natural.

B. No, without them the Earth would be much, much colder and uninhabitable.

C. Not carbon dioxide. By a wide margin, the most important, abundant greenhouse gas is plain old water vapor.

There are several fundamental questions we need to answer. Unfortunately, uncertainty abounds:

1. Is the Earth warming? Yes, we are currently in a warming period; the global temperature has risen less than 1 degree celcius over the last 100 years. The planet has warmed and cooled, without any help from man, for millions of years. Mars, by the way, has also warmed recently, giving further support to the idea that the sun itself may be playing a larger role that we think.

2. Is man causing the recent warming? We do not know with certainty. The sun may play a large role. The Earth became warm during the Middle Ages without any SUVs around. It then cooled dramatically during a period known as the Little Ice Age. It warmed during the early part of the 20th century (without any apparent human cause), then cooled during the 1970's, when industrial production was booming. It is now warming again. Keep in mind the simple act of people and animals breathing produces carbon dioxide. Misanthropic environmentalist nirvana!

3. Is carbon dioxide increase causing the warming, or is the warming causing the carbon dioxide increase? We don't know for sure, but there are strong indications it may be the latter. We do know that the oceans retain huge quantities of carbon dioxide, and that they release carbon dioxide as they get warmer.

4. Is the warming trend likely to continue? It seems to me that most scientists think likely that the warming will continue for the next few decades, even if solar variation is the primary cause of warming. It is, however, interesting to note that a high temperature was reached in 1998, and has not been exceeded since. Last year, 2006, was cooler than all of the previous four years (2002 - 2005). A Russian scientist predicts a continued cooling trend.

5. Is the warming trend a bad thing? It's far, far from unclear. Is it bad that some previously frozen parts of Greenland can now be farmed? While the Earth has warmed over the last 100 years, it has also flourished economically (rising standards of living), medically (long life spans, less infant mortality), and socially (spread of democracy and freedom). Rising sea levels? It's hard to find examples where sea levels have risen over the last 100 years and had much of an impact. Even if sea levels rise, say, 18 inches over the next 100 years (Gore's alarmist predictions are nonsense), people and cities will have no trouble adapting over such a long period of time. Again, think about how much the world has changed over the last 100 years.

6. If warming is bad, is there anything we can do about it now? This is where global warming really becomes a political issue for some. Many scientists believe that policy prescriptions like Kyoto would do little or nothing to prevent climate change, yet the cost is enormous. It is entirely possible that if man is causing the warming, and if the warming is bad, that there is nothing we can do about it now without dismantling society around the world (eliminating cars and factories). Obviously, such drastic measures are unacceptable. It is much more reasonable to seek out new energy technologies (with the not-insubstantial benefit of ceasing to enrich Middle Eastern dictators), and simply adapt to whatever changes (slowly) occur. Human are extremely good at both of those tasks.

That's enough for today, yet I have barely scratched the surface. Check out this PBS interview with Dr. Fred Singer for answers to many common questions about global warming. Stay tuned for more, especially about political and social angles, and coverage of skeptical scientists, which we rarely see in the mainstream media.

Gary Kasparov, the former world chess champion and an outspoken critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, was arrested in Moscow while participating in a public rally against Putin. The peaceful rally had been banned by Putin's government, as has a similar rally planned for Sunday in St. Petersburg.

Kasparov was released after 10 hours of detention. He pointed out that the arrest now paves the way for imprisonment if he is arrested a second time. Kasparov has written several editorials for the Wall Street Journal and other publications about deteriorating democracy and freedom in Russia. By banning free speech in Russia, it's clear Putin has no intention of allowing dissenters a voice within Russia.

The episode reminds me of another place where free speech is often quashed: college campuses. At some colleges, conservative voices are routinely shouted down or disallowed. These campuses, once bastions of free speech, have become such strongholds of liberalism, and conservatism is not tolerated. Guest speakers are shouted down or even assaulted. Conservative flyers are torn down. Students are charged with "hate speech". Thankfully, a movie is being made about the phenomenon: Indoctrinate U. Check out the movie trailer. Hopefully, the movie will find wide distribution, but since the movie industry leans left, I'm not holding my breath.

A more subtle form of silencing opposition can be found in the global warming debate. Actually, debate is the wrong word since that implies two parties airing their views in an equal forum. In reality, only global warming believers get heard. The media, using words like "mainstream" and "consensus", favors the views of those who believe warming is man-made. Those who disagree are marginalized, if they are heard at all. Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" is given wide coverage and treated as scientific gospel, which a contrary film such as "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which features prominent scientists, in their own words, debunking Gore's film, is given scant attention.

What do these three subjects (Kasparov arrested, squashing conservative voices on campuses, and the one-sided global warming coverage) have in common? All three demonstrate insecurity. Putin can't allow opposition rallies since he knows he's guilty of disintegrating freedom. Liberals on (some) college campuses can't allow conservative voices to be heard since they know their positions on issues cannot stand up to rationale, logical debate (the same reason Air America floundered while conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck flourish). Global warming believers are scared of doubt being cast on their doom-saying, so opposition must be marginalized. In short, bad ideas cannot stand up to good ideas.

I believe that, eventually, freedom beats tyranny, truth beats falsehoods, and science beats fear mongering. "Eventually" can be a long time though, and it requires people to overcome intimidation and censorship to make sure their voices are heard.

I was cleaning up some old computer files and came across this picture. I can't remember where I got it. It had a caption that read something like, "OK, just one more round and then we'll go."

Most adults have noted a decline in public civility over the last twenty years or so. It manifest itself in various forms: the irritating (talking in a movie theater), the depressing (rude comments by talking heads on television and radio, the demonization of public figures, etc.), and the scary (road rage, intimidation tactics aimed at silencing political opponents, and so on). The internet, for all its wonderful usefulness, is a showcase of incivility, especially when it comes to political blogs, perhaps due to the relative anonymity of bloggers and folks who post in forums. When you aren't talking with somebody face to face, it increases the temptation, for some people, to say something rude, insulting, or simply false.

Thankfully, there are some hopeful signs that some measure of civil discourse might be regained, at least in some quarters. Daniel Henniger of the Wall Street Journal wrote an interesting op-ed about the phenomenon, primarily focused the potential impact of the "Blogger's Code of Conduct" by Bill O'Reilly. I hope it catches on.

OK, this is minutia, but I was getting irritated trying to sharpen some of the novelty pencils that my kids get as party favors or whatnot. The tips kept breaking. I don't know what those things are made of, but it isn't wood. What ever happened to good, old-fashioned wood pencils that sharpen easily?

The next time I was at Staples, I came across the Dixon Ticonderoga pencil, billing itself as the World's Best Pencil. Hyperbole, I thought. Well, I bought some, and it really is a good pencil, much better than those junky ones made in China.

The unemployment rate dropped to a paltry 4.4% in March while the country added 180,000 new jobs. The economy has been humming along like this since the President Bush's tax cuts ended the recession (handed to him by President Clinton) and helped the nation recover from 9/11. Since August 2004, 7.8 million jobs have been created. New jobs have been created for 43 straight months. Even over the last 12 months, when the housing market slowed and other indicators showed uncertainty, the Bush economy added about two million new jobs. Power Line has more:

Real after-tax income per person has risen by 10 percent since President Bush took office.

Real wages rose 1.8 percent over the past 12 months through February, which is substantially faster than the average rate of the late 1990s economy.

The economy has now experienced more than five years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 3.0 Percent a year since 2001.

Since the first quarter of 2001, productivity growth has averaged 2.8 percent, which is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.

Yet, poll after poll shows that only a minority of the American people approve of Bush's handling of the economy. Insanity? No. Ignorance caused by the media's refusal to tout good news? Partially. The biggest reason, I believe, is the carry-over effect of Bush's overall job approval rating. Given his overall job approval rating is low, some people will apply it to all facets of his performance, fairly or not.

Amazingly, according to Rasmussen Reports (probably the most accurate polling company out there), about 33% of the American people think the U.S. is in a recession. Now, that's plain ridiculous. Whether the country is in recession is not a matter of opinion; it's a clearly defined economic situation (two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, if I recall correctly). What's even more amazing is that the percentage (33%) has remained around that level for the last several years. Frankly, I don't believe economic ignorance alone can account for it. I think there is just a certain portion of respondents who will answer a poll question to hurt the President, even if they know they're lying, if the President has the opposite party affiliation.

The mainstream media, in its never-ending quest for defeat in Iraq, buried the results of a survey in which, by a margin of almost 2-to-1, Iraqis say that the life is better now in Iraq than under Saddam Hussein. Joel Mowbray covers it in a Washington Times editorial.

Hmmm, the survey goes against the established "consensus," doesn't it? Iraq has a long way to go, and plenty of mistakes have been made, but the decision to liberate the country was the right one. A successful conclusion to the liberation is made all the more difficult when the MSM only gives us, and the rest of the world, the bad news.

At American University campus, Karl Rove is assaulted:

Rove was on the campus to talk to the College Republicans, but when he got outside more than a dozen students began throwing things at him and at his car, an American University spokesperson said.

Remember when liberals had those bumper stickers on their Volvos that read "Hatred is not a family value."? Irony. Check out this Patterico's Pontifications page for many, many examples of liberal hatred. Yes, there are those on the right guilty of this kind of stuff too. But it's the left that, more often than not, gets away with it.

Three national championships (basketball, football, basketball again) in a span of 12 months. It's an unbelievable time to be a Gator. What makes it better is to see unselfish teamwork pay off.

I sure hope Florida can hold on to Billy Donovan. He and Urban Meyer, the football coach, are not only outstanding coaches, but good people and class individuals. They are both super ambassadors and representatives for the University of Florida.

What can you say about Ohio State? They put together an excellent football team and an excellent basketball team. They were better than every other team in the country... except the Gators.

The Gator's dominance won't last forever (there is almost no chance the basketball team will three-peat), so we Gator fans will just enjoy it while it lasts.

Yes, this is dated, but it's so funny I had to post it anyway. The Oracle Al Gore's phenomal energy usage at his mansion is well-documented. Some attribute the hypocrisy not to obliviousness, but to Narcisstic Personality Disorder. I don't buy that. I think he simply loves the spotlight and the adoration of his acolytes. He'd actually be a funny, harmless phenomenon if so many people weren't buying into his doomsaying. I post more on global warming later.

Can it really be true? Nancy Pelosi is blocking a resolution which would condemn Iran for taking those 15 British hostages? If so, it will go down as one of the most mind-blowing examples of the difference between the hard-core Dems and the rest of us. She is apparently putting politics ahead of supporting Britain. I can't put it any better than the Republican staffer who wrote to Power Line:

"It is simply staggering to me that Pelosi refuses to stand beside America's closest ally. I literally would not have thought this possible, until I saw it this week."

I don't expect this blog to garner much attention. Frankly, that's not its purpose. I simply needed a place to get some things off my chest. So, this web site is a sort of experimental journal for me. I don't have nearly the free time that some bloggers have, so my postings here will be sporadic.

If you enjoy this site, I'd be thrilled to hear about it. Use the Contact Me page to drop me a note.

Jim Getzen