Some Global Warming Skeptic Papers And Ann Coulter Looks At John McCain

Here are some good research papers regarding Global Warming and the (lack of) evidence thereof. For example, this first paper by Dr. John R. Christy looks at the economic impacts we would be risking in relation to conflicting data.

Dr. Christy notes that "We know, for example, because of continuous and accurate satellite monitoring since 1979, that in 2007 the Arctic sea ice area retreated to a record minimum, and curiously, that the Antarctic sea ice area expanded to a record maximum."

That's pretty conflicting. You can read the full 10 page paper on-line here:

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
John R. Christy
University of Alabama in Huntsville
November, 14 2007

Next is a paper from the Civil Society Coalition On Climate Change. This paper basically says that governments should reject calls for a post-Kyoto treaty (“Kyoto 2”) with binding limits on carbon emissions. The report says a better strategy would be to focus on removing barriers to adaptation, such as subsidies, taxes and regulations that hinder technological innovation and economic growth.

Civil Society Report On Climate Change
Civil Society Coalition
November 27, 2007

Then we have a letter to the U.N. signed by over 100 scientists stating that trying to influence climate change is futile and should not be undertaken. In this letter we learn that IPCC cherry picked the data rather than considering all of it together.

100 Scientists To The UN: Attempts To Control The Climate Are Futile
Various Scientists
December 13, 2007

And finally we have a nice little piece about Antarctic temperatures in which we learn that average the temperature at or near the south pole has been stable since 1970.



You can access this article on-line here:

Antarctic Temperatures: 1958-2002
Chapman, W.L. and Walsh, J.E.
December 19, 2007

Too bad Al Gore isn't a true scientist. He might find all of this data and these findings fascinating.

---

I've been following the Primary Elections with some interest, provided no one tries to promote anyone's viewpoint to the exclusion of others' viewpoints. I find such tactics boorish and tiresome. Instead, I like to make comparisons and see what the key differences are.

Sometimes, you have to look at a candidate all by himself and make comparisons over time. You'll be surprised at some of the stuff you find. Ann Coulter did just that when she looked at John McCain's campaign. Here is a little of what she found:

John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most "electable" Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn't lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk. Of course, I might lie constantly too, if I were seeking the Republican presidential nomination after enthusiastically promoting amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws. I might lie too, if I had opposed the Bush tax cuts, a marriage amendment to the Constitution, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in Alaska. And I might lie if I had called the ads of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "dishonest and dishonorable."

And his stance on amnesty for illegals is really going to hurt him:

McCain angrily denounces the suggestion that his "comprehensive immigration reform" constituted "amnesty" -- on the ludicrous grounds that it included a small fine. Even the guy who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the U.S. Naval Academy didn't fall for this a few years ago. In 2003, McCain told The Tucson Citizen that "amnesty has to be an important part" of any immigration reform. He also rolled out the old chestnut about America's need for illegals, who do "jobs that American workers simply won't do." McCain's amnesty bill would have immediately granted millions of newly legalized immigrants Social Security benefits. He even supported allowing work performed as an illegal to count toward Social Security benefits as recently as a vote in 2006 -- now adamantly denied by Mr. Straight Talk.

If John McCain does somehow get the GOP nod, I'm probably going to go ahead and vote for the Dem candidate. Why? Because out of the entire field of both Dem and GOP candidates, any of the Dems would be a disaster, but McCain is the only GOP candidate guaranteed to be a disaster. Given that choice, I'd fix it so the Dems take the blame.

You can access Ann's complete column on-line here:

'Straight Talk' Express Takes Scenic Route To Truth
Ann Coulter
Human Events Online
January 23, 2008

CNN's Dishonesty During GOP YouTube Debate

Okay. I saw about fifteen minutes of the GOP YouTube debate last night on Headline News. Fortunately, the programming switched over to Nancy Grace shortly thereafter but it would not have mattered. I was getting ready to turn it off anyway. Not because of what the candidates were saying, but because of how CNN was treating the candidates in general and how biased CNN was in it's coverage.

I happened to catch the part about gays in the military and was stunned by what I saw. The one guy that was responding admitted that he was a U.S. Army retiree and was gay. I thought, "How convenient is that?" Pretty convenient as it turns out.

CNN also had a live panel of "Registered Republicans" that were participating in a tracking poll during the debate. The CNN newsreader covering the panel just happened to pick one woman "at random" and asked who she would vote for. The woman responded, "John Edwards." At that point, the gay guy became too convenient and it was clear that this woman on the panel was also planted there by CNN.

There is no way a true Republican would choose a liberal like John Edwards over the entire field of GOP candidates. Further, if John Edwards were to their taste, the field of Dem candidates would certainly be more palatable than any in the GOP field. The woman was definitely a plant.

But about that gay guy.

Check this out from NewsBusters:

Like Rudy and Romney going after each other over immigration last night at the GOP debate, MSNBC was taking some jabs at rival CNN this morning on the issue of the gay questioner who turned out to be a member of Hillary Clinton's campaign. "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough scoffed at the notion that no one at CNN was aware of retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr's involvement with the Clinton campaign. JOE SCARBOROUGH: This is twice now in a couple of weeks that CNN has been ensnarled in a Clinton controversy. Before with James Carville sitting there giving his opinions despite the fact that he's contributed to Hillary Clinton, obviously worked for Bill Clinton, he sent out letters saying we really need to fight hard for Hillary Clinton. They didn't even mention it. And again, the damndest thing. And last night, not only do they have this guy delivering a YouTube video, they also had him there sitting in the audience, they had a shot with him [more than a shot. Anderson Cooper asked whether he was satisifed with the answers he had received and grilled Romney over his answer. Kerr himself made an extended comment from the floor]. It's Bill Bennett [who was a CNN post-debate panelist], it is up to Bill Bennett to explain to CNN, and don't tell me that CNN didn't know, that some people at CNN did not know, that he was part of the Clinton campaign. Don't lie to me. Maybe Anderson Cooper didn't know, but somebody at CNN that put this guy in the video knew that.

Somehow, I knew my suspiscions from last night were correct. It was too convenient.

CNN needs to acquire some integrity and admit that they are in reality pro-Dem and anti-Republican. At least then, they won't look like such complete idiots when they pull a ridiculous, irresponsible stunt like this.

You can access the NewsBusters article on-line here:

Scarborough: 'Total Crap' CNN Didn't Know Gay Questioner Is Hillary Campaigner
Mark Finkelstein
NewsBusters.org
November 29, 2007

The Washington Times has this:

Clinton Plant Infiltrates CNN Debate
The Washington Times
November 28, 2007

It is yet another reason why fewer rationally thinking people trust Old Media anymore.

---

And Michelle Malkin has more about the plants at the debate:

Concerned Undecided Gay Military Retiree Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr = Hillary/Kerry supporter and anti-”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” activist Keith H. Kerr Concerned Undecided Mom LeeAnn Anderson = Activist for the John Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers union LeeAnn Anderson Concerned Undecided Log Cabin Republican supporter David Cercone = Obama supporter David Cercone Concerned Young Undecided Person “Journey” = John Edwards supporter “Journey”

How many others could there be? Maybe CNN would like to come forward and admit to engineering this whole farce, that is if they learned anything at all from Dan Ra^ther's fakery.

You can access Michelle's complete article (with photographic evidence) on-line here:

Digging Out More CNN/YouTube Plants
Michelle Malkin
MichelleMalkin.com
November 29, 2007

Be sure to check back at Michelle's site for updates. I'm sure more plants will come to light.