Gore vs Gore - Warm vs Cool Which is it Al?

Norman E. Hooben - 1 March 2008
This is not exactly a repeat of my story Global Warming…Bah humbug which was originally posted during the Christmas season after the story with the same name, but you may want to repeat what Marley’s partner, Mr. Scrooge, said to his nephew, “Bah” followed by the word, “Humbug”. “Bah” to Mr. Al Gore and “Humbug!” to all his theories concerning global warming. Let’s back track just a little to see exactly what I stated previously.
Global Warming...Bah humbug!
This global warming thing is getting old and me with it. Sometime ago, maybe I should say, a long time ago, when I was yet a child somewhere between the age of eight and ten, I first learned of this potential threat. The reason I put the spread on my age was the fact that it was during the time President Harry Truman was in the White House. Yes, we had alarmist back then, but they did not play politics with Mother Nature and carbon footprints were never mentioned.Although I cannot remember the precise date nor the exact source I can boil it down to either the Fall River Herald News or some popular magazine of the era; Time, Look, Life, etc. My friend Frankie also read the piece as we talked about it afterwards.The article proclaimed that the sun was going to explode and during the years leading up to such a catastrophe the earth would experience higher temperatures. Based on the scientific calculations at the time, this event was to take place several million years in the future. With that said, I clearly remember Frankie stating, "Well if President Truman is not worried about it why should we."So there you have it. The global warming buck did not stop at Harry Truman's desk!Al Gore, "Get over it!"

Now I was around nine or ten years of age when I figured out this global warming issue and that over time it became obvious that the issue was no issue at all; just a political bump in the road put out there by people who had no idea what they were doing. Today the issue is global warming. Why? Because I said so! And my name is Al Gore! And because my name is Al Gore, you must believe me! After all, I have the backing of the most corrupt organization in the world…the United Nations! If the corrupt people of the world honor me with the Nobel Peace Prize, everything I say must be taken as fact! And don’t you forget it!
So there you have it. (Here we go again.) Now we have Al Gore confessing he was wrong about global warming. What he meant to say was, “global cooling”. Or at least that’s what we’re hearing from people in the know; that can be found here: Gore Renounces Global Warming. (partial quote:Two cheers for Al Gore on his about-face on man-made Global Warming, says SOLO Principal, Lindsay Perigo.) (Does this all sound familiar? I voted for it before I voted against it.)
Then we have another headline from someone obviously not a politician that may have been more ‘noble’ in his research than Al Gore was with his ‘prize’.

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

World Temperatures according to the
Hadley Center for Climate Prediction.
Note the steep drop over the last year.

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warmingOver the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.
Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news. Update 2/27: The graph for HadCRUT (above), as well as the linked graphs for RSS and UAH are generated month-to-month; the temperature declines span a full 12 months of data. The linked GISS graph was graphed for the months of January only, due to a limitation in the plotting program. Anthony Watts, who kindly provided the graphics, otherwise has no connection with the column. The views and comments are those of the author only.

As mentioned earlier, this thing is getting old and me with it. I just had my 17th birthday (times 4…it’s leap year in case you’ve forgotten) and I say we remove all these bumps in the road and let’s get some new pavement in the halls of congress! And that removal includes the other know- nothings like Hillary and Obama…the biggest road bumps in history. Only they will be Socialists road bumps and we’ll each have a share.

____

Don't forget to check here: Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age

More SPP/NAU...Texas now! Who's next?

WAKE UP AMERICA...This is another wake-up call! The trans-Texas corridor was not voted upon by the people, is not wanted by the people, but will be paid for by the people...and this means you! This so-called corridor is specifically designed as an integral part of the North American Union. Politicians will deny it. Politicians will make excuses for it. Politicians will tell you its for something it's not. And that's what politicians do! It's time for YOU to act! N.E.Hooben

Trans-Texas corridor stirs controversy Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 2/26/2008 4:00:00 AM The debate in Texas over a proposed 4,000-mile network of toll roads that will parallel the state's existing highway system is heating up More than 10,000 people have attended public hearings across Texas to discuss the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor, which has also been dubbed the "NAFTA superhighway." It is a project that is expected to cost an estimated $183 billion over 50 years. (hear audio report) Terry Hall with the group Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom warns the project will create widespread eminent domain abuse and involve foreign control of public infrastructure. "They're taking huge swaths of land, up to a million acres of private Texas farm and ranch land," warns Hall. "Some of it is prime agriculture land ... and they're going to take that land and hand it over to private entities for commercial gain." Hall accuses Congress of pulling a "bait and switch" when they promised Texas taxpayers a free interstate. "They designated this corridor route an international trade corridor back in 1995," argues Hall. "So for Governor Perry, or any of those folks who are trying to push toll roads here in Texas, to try and say that this road stops at the Texas border ... that it's not a NAFTA superhighway ... it is an international corridor and it has been designated as such." Hall alleges that Governor Perry is "representing the interest of private industry over the public good," noting he has accepted more than $1 million worth of campaign contributions from road contractors and the "road lobby." But the Republican governor is dismissing the concerns of some state residents who are upset the proposed 4,000-mile Trans-Texas Corridor running from Laredo to Canada will turn operation of the public highway system over to private, if not foreign companies. (hear part two of audio report) Critics of the proposed highway project claim it was never approved by voters, and Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), CNN's Lou Dobbs, and others call the project a "NAFTA superhighway" and warn it will be part of a "North American Union" between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. Governor Perry calls critics of the Trans-Texas Corridor "unenlightened." "Here's what's more important rather than all of the black helicopter ... conspiracy theories," argues Perry. "We have many, many multi-national groups that run various things ... in the United States as we do in other countries, and nobody is going to roll up our highways and carry them back to Spain." According to Perry, there is a reason CEO Magazine selected Texas as the number-one state to do business. "... [U]nderstand you have to have a transportation infrastructure system in place so that people can get from point A to point B, and they don't spend all their time in gridlock instead of being with their kids at soccer practice or back home with their families," Perry explains. Governor Perry maintains the controversial transportation network is necessary to "move [the state's] people and product around" and reduce road congestion.

All Original Content Copyright 2006-2008 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved. Policies Get the ONN RSS Feed Contact Us "OneNewsNow", "OneNewsNow.com", and the "OneNewsNow World" logo, are Trademarks of the American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved

If it's not too much, that's all I ask. Thanks John.

Islamofascism...Risky Business

The Risky Business Of Islamic Finance

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Islamofascism: Shariah banking has come into vogue in the West, as even cash-strapped U.S. banks try to attract free-flowing Arab petrodollars. But it poses major risks. Wall Street beware.

With oil prices hovering around $100 a barrel, more than $1 trillion in petrodollars are now available annually for global investment. And major U.S. financial institutions, hit hard by the credit crunch, are hungrily eyeing them.

Citibank and Goldman Sachs, for example, are creating investment vehicles that cater to Muslim investors in order to grab some of the billions in management fees in the offing. These products include Shariah-compliant bonds, mutual funds, mortgages, insurance, hedge funds and soon REITs.

Dow Jones Corp. has even created its own index for Islamic-correct investments: the Dow Jones Islamic Index.

While the $800 billion global Shariah market is relatively small, it's growing at a 15% clip, thanks to the oil boom and a resurgence in Islamic fundamentalism, according to the Center for Security Policy. And it's expected to more than double over the next 10 years.

What's the fuss? Money is money, right? Not in this case.

Shariah-compliant finance involves investments and other transactions that have been structured to conform with the orthodox teachings of Islamic law.

That means they can't charge or earn interest — the cornerstone of our credit-driven economy. Nor can they take any stake in haram, or forbidden, industries, including meat and beverage producers (if they process any pork or alcohol); entertainment; gaming; and interest-based financing.

Wall Street is jumping into this hot new market oblivious to the risks not just to the bottom line, but to national security. It knows little about Shariah law and is turning to consultants to create "ethical" products to sell.

Lost in the hype over these Muslim-friendly funds is that they must "purify" their returns by transferring at least 3% into Islamic charities, many of which funnel funds to terrorists. So the Street may unwittingly be helping the evildoers launder blood money.

Shariah law obligates that a sizable portion of zakat, or giving — one of the pillars of Islam — go to support jihad. So many of the purification donations generated from Shariah finance could wind up in the hands of our enemy.

Wall Street also knows little about who's advising these funds. Each has to hire Muslim scholars to bless the investments.

One such scholar is Yusuf Qaradawi, a member of the radical Muslim Brotherhood, which works for the establishment of a global caliphate, and an open supporter of suicide bombings. Another is Muhammad Usmani, a radical Pakistani cleric who ran a madrassa that trained thousands of Taliban, according to the Washington-based Center for Security Policy.

Usmani sits on the Shariah supervisory board of the Dow Jones Islamic Index Fund, which is run by the North American Islamic Trust — a Saudi-tied alleged front for the Muslim Brotherhood that holds title to some of the most radical mosques in America. The Justice Department last year named the Islamic Trust an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terror-financing case.

It is this radical group, which may be using investment proceeds to finance new mosques in America, to which Dow Jones has lent its name — something the company, under the new management of Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch, may want to revisit.

These funds offer little transparency. They fail to disclose either the radical ties of the scholars who are advising and running them or the tenets that dictate the structuring of the investments. The prospectuses explain simply that the investments are "ethical" or "socially acceptable," when in fact they're grounded in a religious doctrine that threatens America and the West.

The main purpose of Shariah law is to promote Islam as the only legitimate governing system and to help establish its rule worldwide. Shariah-compliant finance is a means to that end.

Ignoring in a time of war the moral hazards associated with such financial products, and treating them as if they were as benign and secular as any other, may be the height of corporate recklessness.

______________

Meanwhile back at the home front we have an imbecile running for Commander-In-Chief which can be viewed below...

Does the 'D' in Dingell stand for Dictator? Or is it the 'D' preceding 'MICH': Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich

Bloodsuckers Vs. Lifesavers

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Enterprise: When a great American company offers a medicine that lengthens the lives of hundreds of millions of people, you might think politicians would say thank you. Instead they say: How dare you advertise it.

Pfizer has just been pressured by Congress into dropping its main ad campaign for the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor, arguably the most popular medicine in the world and with very good reason.

Lipitor can lower the deadly artery-clogging substance by as much as 60% and, when combined with regular exercise and a low-fat diet, prevents heart attacks and sudden deaths.

Companies who do so much for so many deserve plaudits. But liberal politicians never rest in their search for corporate villains, and so they have demonized the pharmaceutical industry, just as they have an oil and gas industry that spends billions developing new technologies to reach crude and natural gas deposits that were inaccessible only a few years ago.

Just as Congress' big shots have no appreciation for how "Big Oil" can cut our dependence on oil-rich enemy countries, they're equally ungrateful for how "Big Pharma" cures and manages disease.

In his research on productivity and health care for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Columbia business professor Frank R. Lichtenberg found a direct connection between new drug approvals and rapidly increased longevity.

Lichtenberg reckons the average new drug approval adds a total of 1.2 million years to the lives of current and future generations. With it costing the pharmaceutical industry about $500 million to bring a new drug to market, Lichtenberg extrapolated that the "cost per life-year gained is $424" — just a fraction of the economic value of a single year of a person's life of $150,000, cited by Lichtenberg based on calculations by University of Chicago economics professors Kevin M. Murphy and Robert H. Topel.

Drug manufacturers such as Pfizer have been performing such incalculably valuable services to Americans and the rest of the world for generations.

It may have been the disorganized Alexander Fleming who won the Nobel Prize for accidentally discovering penicillin in 1928. But he actually failed to recognize its importance and abandoned his discovery. Pfizer, with its expertise in fermentation, mass produced the new wonder drug in response to an appeal from the U.S. government, saving multitudes of Allied forces in World War II.

This is of little interest, however, to Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and an octogenarian who has held his House seat since 1955.

Also known as "The Truck" — as in stay out of his way if you don't want to be run over — Dingell was complaining that Pfizer was using Dr. Robert Jarvik, the physician who helped develop the artificial heart, as its spokesman for Lipitor — and paying Jarvik quite well for his services.

Pfizer on Monday chose to pull its Jarvik ads in the face of Dingell's pressure, and in typical fashion Dingell issued a response that did little to disguise his gloating: "We trust that Pfizer is sincere in its commitment to 'greater clarity' in its advertising. My colleagues and I look forward to meeting with Pfizer's management team to discuss their plans related to direct-to-consumer advertising."

In other words, see you when you and your fellow corporate vassals come by Capitol Hill to deliver your oaths of fealty to your congressional masters.

A company that has saved and extended so many lives — including those of Congress members and their loved ones — are not allowed to sell their own valuable wares without politicians sticking their noses into it. They're not allowed to educate the public in the most effective way about their medicines.

Such arrogant intrusion by politicians in search of corporate bogeymen isn't just political grandstanding; it actually costs lives.