Some scary stuff here! Really makes you think..

Now why doesn’t this surprise me?!  Me thinks that more scientists, as they rely less on federal funding, will come out and follow suit on this issue.  All the evidence is there, so people need to give this electricity hog the finger!

Scientist Says The Goracle is A Crook

December 28th, 2007  Posted By The Bashman.

Climate-change skeptics are taking a beating these days even in France, where people long resisted the green creed.
Paris bookstores brim with guidebooks — including one shaped like a toilet seat — that tell readers how to help save our planet. Yet the dissidents refuse to shut up, even now that Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize and the U.S. government has agreed to negotiate a new global-warming treaty by 2009.
The most conspicuous doubter in France is Claude Allegre, a former education minister and a physicist by profession. His new book, “Ma Verite Sur la Planete” (“My Truth About the Planet”), doesn’t mince words.
He calls Gore a “crook” presiding over an eco-business that pumps out cash. As for Gore’s French followers, the author likens them to religious zealots who, far from saving humanity, are endangering it. Driven by a Judeo-Christian guilt complex, he says, French greens paint worst-case scenarios and attribute little-understood cycles to human misbehavior.
Allegre doesn’t deny that the climate has changed or that extreme weather has become more common. He instead emphasizes the local character of these phenomena.
While the icecap of the North Pole is shrinking, the one covering Antarctica — or 92 percent of the Earth’s ice — is not, he says. Nor have Scandinavian glaciers receded, he says. To play down these differences by basing forecasts on a global average makes no sense to Allegre.
He dismisses talk of renewable energies, such as wind or solar power, saying it would take a century for them to become a serious factor in meeting the world’s energy demands.

The Eight of the State for 12/29/07:

1. Joseph McEnroe and Michele Anderson – They would be number one on anyone’s list!  Hopefully, they are on the top of the list to be executed.

2. Allah – Religion of Peace, my ass!  At least my God didn’t autopraph Katrina!

3. Federal and local law enforcement officials – If a scientist can find these folks, why can’t the authorities?!

4. Hasham Islam – Hmmm…sounds like this guy might need to be waterboarded!

5. David Hicks – Just another dumbass in the fight with Global Terror.  I love the pic of his dad and his son’s “buddies”!

6. Baitullah Mehsud – Dead man walking!

7. Jennifer Brandt – My 16 month old can kick her 16 yr old’s ass!

8. Frank Lindh and Marilyn Walker – They are some of the most disfunctional people in Marin County and they are shocked that their son would do such a thing!

Blue Falcon of the Week

Your Blue Falcon for Jan. 5th, 2008 is the United States Marine Corps!

For letting some punk Colonels carry on this farce of a court martial against SSgt. Wuterich!  Someone has to stop this nonsense!  But then again, even the Commandant answers to someone.  How about some of the brass growing some stones and looking after your Marines!

From WorldNetDaily.com:

Haditha charges against another Marine reduced

Murder counts in politically inspired prosecution dropped
Posted: January 1, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

Charges against another U.S. Marine caught up in the political fallout from an ambush in Haditha, Iraq, in 2005 have been reduced, officials have confirmed.

Authorities at Camp Pendleton, Calif., said in a statement that the remaining charges against Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, who was accused of leading the campaign that resulted in the deaths of two dozen Iraqis, are “voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault” and others.

But Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland, the U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central commander, “dismissed the charges of unpremeditated murder, soliciting another to commit an offense and false official statement,” according to a Reuters report.

Eight Marines originally were accused in the case, in which they were assigned to clear suspected terrorists from a series of buildings in Haditha after a Marine convoy was hit by a roadside bomb.

Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, who grew up in Rangely, Colo., and graduated from the University of Northern Colorado, is facing a court-martial for the events of that day, even though he was not on the scene. Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum also has been ordered to be court-martialed. The case against Cpl. Andrew Grayson also remained pending.

Two other officers, Capts. Randy Stone and Lucas McConnell, have had their charges dismissed. Charges against Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz also were dismissed, as were charges against Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt.

The prosecution came about after U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., publicly accused the Marines of killing Iraqi civilians “cold blood.”

Chessani, the top officer accused, is being represented by The Thomas More Law Center. His trial tentatively has been scheduled to begin April 28, 2008.

“We have the absurd situation of Lt. Col. Chessani being charged with failing to report and investigate a crime that never occurred,” said Richard Thompson, the president and chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center. “Every American should be outraged at the way this dedicated Marine and his family are being treated by the nation he so loyally defended.”

Chessani faces criminal charges that he failed to properly report and investigate a possible “law of war” violation for the Nov. 19, 2005, house-to-house battle that involved four Marines from his battalion. If convicted, Chessani faces more than two years in prison, a dishonorable discharge and loss of all retirement benefits.

However, multiple investigations have revealed no wrong-doing by the 20-year Marine officer who served in the Panama Invasion, the Persian Gulf War and three tours in Iraq, the law center said.

“Every patriotic American has a stake in the outcome of this case,” Thompson continued. “A U.S. Army colonel and an Army general conducted two separate investigations, and came to the same conclusion: there was no ‘massacre’ and no ‘cover-up.’

“Yet the government still pursued a multi-million dollar investigation in order to appease an anti-war politician and the ‘blame America first’ media,” he said.

The law center reported the charges against Chessani “were incited by an inflammatory Time magazine headline accusing Marine enlisted men of ‘massacring innocent civilians.’ The story was planted by known terrorist propaganda operatives, and has since been discredited.

“Anti-war Congressman John Murtha, who holds major influence over military appropriations, in an unprecedented action publicly accused Marine officers of a ‘cover-up’ and enlisted men of killing ‘in cold blood’ even before the investigation of the incident was completed,” the law center said.

“Subsequent investigations have specifically found no ‘cover-up’ at any level of command, and have exonerated several of the Marines involved,” the law center said.

The charges stemmed from the actions of four Marines who came under fire from a coordinated al-Qaida-led ambush in Haditha. It was not long after 7 a.m. when an improvised explosive device exploded under one of the four Humvees in a supply convoy, killing one Marine and injuring two others.

Simultaneously the Marines came under gunfire from nearby homes, and the four-man Marine fire team was ordered to clear the houses of insurgents, and the resulting house-to-house firefight left 15 civilians dead, the law center said.

For months after the attack, not a single superior officer suspected a law of war violation, and Chessani was commended on a job well done.

However, when the Time magazine article appeared and Murtha lodged his accusations, the Marines were targeted, the law center said.

Ms. Gabriel is the author of the New York Times Best Seller BECAUSE THEY HATE, A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America, and the founder of ACT FOR AMERICA.org.  Brigitte was on the Dec. 29th show talking about the Bhutto assassination and the rise of Islamic terror across the globe.

With the death of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, what does that mean to America?  How is this going to affect us?  Who was Bhutto and why is this such a huge story?  What does this mean to my family?  I will attempt to explain this and more on this weeks show.  I can tell you though, that this is’t good for our families.  It will mean more fighting (In Afghanistan) and more suicide attacks. T hese Islamists are emboldened and have a farily safe place (Pakistan) to plot further attacks on us.

Benazir Bhutto assassinated

Benazir Bhutto, the leader of the Pakistani People’s Party, has been assassinated while campaigning in the military garrison city of Rawalpindi.  Bhutto, who was a favorite to be the next Prime Minister of Pakistan, was killed along with at least 20 of her supporters and security detail in a shooting attack and suicide bombing as she was exiting the campaign procession in her vehicle.

The first accounts of the assassination indicate the shooter and the suicide bomber were the same person.  “Party supporter Chaudry Mohammed Nazir said that two gunshots rang out when Bhutto’s vehicle pulled into the main street and then there was a big blast next to her car,” The AP reported.  “The man first fired at Bhutto’s vehicle,” Rawalpindi police officer Mohammad Shahid told Reuters.  “She ducked and then he blew himself up.”

Bhutto was taken to Rawalpindi General Hospital and was treated for “serious head injuries besides bullet injuries in the neck region,” Safdar Abbasi, Bhutto’s aide said.  She was reported shot in the neck and chest, but Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Cheema said, “It may have been pellets packed into the suicide bomber’s vest that hit her.”

The mode of attack suggests a level of training, discipline, and expertise of a military organization.  If bullets penetrated Bhutto’s vehicle windshield, which was no doubt bullet proof, the shooter was using armor-piercing rounds and had good aim.  There is the possibility a sniper was placed elsewhere and aided the assault, although this has not been confirmed.  The shooter also had the discipline to detonate his suicide vest after the confusion of firing into her vehicle.

Today’s attack occurred in the military garrison city of Rawalpindi, which the Pakistani military presumably controls.  This was the fifth bombing targeting military and political leaders in Rawalpindi since July.

This was the second strike against Bhutto since her return to Pakistan in mid-October.  The first attack also showed a level of sophistication, training, and discipline of a military operation.  In the October attack on Bhutto’s return processional in Karachi, snipers, suicide bombers, and a car bomb were coordinated among a blanket of security.  The attack came close to killing Bhutto.  More than 132 Pakistanis were killed and upwards of 500 wounded.

Bhutto supporters have begun to blame President Pervez Musharraf for her death.  The sophistication of the attack, the government’s reported refusal to provide adequate security, and the location of the bombing have created distrust among Bhutto supporters.

But this attack was most likely carried out by the Taliban and al Qaeda.  Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the newly united Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan, or Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, threatened to kill Bhutto upon her return in October.  The Taliban and al Qaeda manage training camps in Pakistan’s tribal areas and have trainers and recruits from the Pakistani military in their ranks.

“My men will welcome Bhutto on her return,” Baitullah told a former senator.  “We don’t accept President General Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto because they only protect the US interest and see things through its glasses.  They’re only acceptable if they wear the Pakistani glasses.”

Mustafa Abu al Yazid, al Qaeda’s commander in Afghanistan, has taken credit for Bhutto’s assassination.  “We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Yazid told Syed Saleem Shahzad, a Pakistani reporter.  The attack was reportedly ordered by Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s second in command, and carried out by a “defunct Lashkar-i-Jhangvi’s Punjabi volunteer.”

Bhutto was believed to be the frontrunner as the next Prime Minister of Pakistan.  She returned to Pakistan after the US applied significant pressure on the Musharraf government.  Bhutto promised to rid the tribal regions of the Taliban and al Qaeda.  Elections are to be held on January 8, 2008.

(CNN.com)

A Senate report on Climate Change was released this week by the Committee on Environment and Public Works. In the report, some 400 prominent scientists rebuked Al’s claim of man-made Global Warming. This kind of news you may not hear on the MSM, but here at Chandler’s Watch, we strive to give you the news that makes the so called leaders of our society look like the dumbasses that they are!

I have included some of the summary from the report in this article. Click here to view the full summary with a link to the actual report.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks “Consensus”

Report Released on December 20, 2007
U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.” Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has “co-opted” the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - [LINK ]

Scientists from Around the World Dissent

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”

This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”

A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) - In addtiion, an August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. [LINK]

The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.

Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:

Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who ‘believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona’ (June 20, 2006 – LINK)

CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We’re done.” O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK)

On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.”

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there — but that’s not the case. (LINK)

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK)

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate “over” and added “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.” (LINK)

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK)

##

Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:

Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth’s climatic history. There’s nothing special about the recent rise!”

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote.

Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There’s no need to be worried. It’s very interesting to study [climate change], but there’s no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote.

Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached.”

Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.

France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? – The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra – that ‘the Earth is warming up’ – is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac¬ceptance. … Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God … fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!”
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”

Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. ”

Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.

India: One of India’s leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”

USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”

Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.”

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain’t so.”

South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”

Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: “”We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.”

Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: “There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.”

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”

China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: “Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated.” Their study asserted that “it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.”

Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”

Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: “CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore’s movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”

Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.”

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth’s surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

Atmospheric Physicist Dr. Garth W. Paltridge, an Emeritus Professor from University of Tasmania, is another prominent skeptic. Paltridge who was a Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research before taking up positions in 1990 as Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies at the University of Tasmania and as CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Center. Paltridge questioned the motives of scientists hyping climate fears. “They have been so successful with their message of greenhouse doom that, should one of them prove tomorrow that it is nonsense, the discovery would have to be suppressed for the sake of the overall reputation of science,” Paltridge wrote in an April 6, 2007 op-ed entitled “Global Warming – Not Really a Done Deal?” Paltridge is best known internationally for his work on atmospheric radiation and on the theoretical basis of climate change. He is a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science. Paltridge also worked with the National Climate Program Office. “Even as it is, the barriers to public dissemination of results that might cast doubt on one aspect or another of accepted greenhouse wisdom are extraordinarily high. Climate scientists rush in overwhelming numbers to repel infection by ideas not supportive of the basic thesis that global warming is perhaps the greatest of the threats to mankind and that it is caused by human folly – the burning of fossil fuels to support our way of life,” Paltridge explained. “In a way, their situation is very similar to that of the software engineers who sold the concept of the Y2K bug a decade ago. The ‘reputation stakes’ have become so high that it is absolutely necessary for some form of international action (any action, whether sensible or not) to be forced upon mankind. Then, should disaster not in fact befall, the avoidance of doom can be attributed to that action rather than to the probability that the prospects for disaster were massively oversold,” he added. “Pity the politicians who (we presume) are trying their best to make an informed decision on the matter. Of course politicians realize that those clamoring for their attention on any particular issue usually have other un-stated agendas. But they may not recognize that scientists too are human and are as subject as the rest of us to the seductions of well-funded campaigns. One of the more frightening statements about global warming to be heard now from the corridors of power is that ‘the scientists have spoken’. Well maybe they have – some of them anyway – but the implication of god-like infallibility is a bit hard to take,” he concluded.

This is quite possibly the eeriest thing I have ever seen. A lot of things going on right now in this country start to make sense when you see this. Understand that H.W. is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Tri-Lateral Commission. The stated goal of these organizations is to create a one world order that will controlled by an Oligarchical system who are not accountable to anyone. Sounds familiar doesn’t it. The E.U. is basically in that position right now. With the N.A.U. a possibility here on this side of the pond, a one world state is on our horizon. Scary isn’t it. Beware of who you vote for in ’08!

New York Governor Spitzer has instituted a driver’s license program that even his own constituents don’t like. Seventy-two percent of those New Yorkers that responded have reacted negatively to this program. But, that could well be because they are nothing more than “venomous racists”. That is what the good Governor is calling those who disagree with his program. You see the program in question is giving Driver’s Licenses (DL) to those that are in this country illegally. Maybe Governor Spitzer is the racist; he is the only one in the debate talking about Mexican nationals here illegally. I hear pundits saying that this is a state issue and should not be criticized on the national level, but they are grossly mistaken.

Because of the way that the Federal has been written, Illinois must recognize another States Driver’s License and allow the carrier of Driver’s License the privilege to drive in Illinois. Regardless of any Illinois laws that would exclude the illegal alien holding a valid New York DL from driving legally in Illinois. God forbid, an illegal from New York comes to Chicago with more documentation than he got to New York with, well he or she now has a valid DL in their possession. I would have to assume that to the untrained civilian this would lower any red flags that may have popped up. Although I do not believe that a DL will make them desire to become Americans, they will still want to be _________ living in America (fill in the blank with country of origin).

So they will be able to drive legally, if you can call their trespassing here legal, but will they learn English? Will it stop the practice of Identity Theft? I think not. They will still need to steal a Social Security Number from someone who has come here legally, or was born here. They cannot go to work without one, but they will be able to legally drive themselves to the under the table job or the one that they stole a Social Security Number to get hired. They will still need a Social Security Number to get any Federal Benefits, or apply for a credit card; unless they bank at Bank of Anti-America. Governor Spitzer does this really make us safer? In reality I firmly believe it undermines both local security, as well as National security. Giving a DL to those that are in this country without the consent of “We the People” will only make it easier to get through the day to day business of living. Why not make it easier for a stalker to continue to stalk? Is illegal immigration any more legal than stalking? No, it is not, nor is it any safer for any of us living legally in the United States of America. The Federal Government has put in place a process of vetting to get the privilege of coming to America legally. There a background checks, both medical and criminal. They were not just put through paces for the sake of someone’s amusement. Just because you think that there is more opportunity for a better life here in America does not give you the right to come and live here. We are a nation of laws, and if we do not follow those laws then what is the point of writing more laws.

It is inherently unfair to those of us that were either born here or, like my sister-in-law, have had to jump through all of the right hoops to become American citizens to just give illegal aliens legitimacy. It should be a slap in the face to all of us that some elected officials feel that they are above the law of the land and can pick and choose which laws to enforce. If in a Sanctuary City/County/State a suspected illegal alien is not asked about their immigration status, then why can the same City/County/State employee ask you or me for our Driver’s License, or proof of insurance? If we refused to comply with the request we could be arrested and jailed, at least when we arrived at Cook County Jail we would be comforted by the signs in four languages informing us that it is illegal for any Cook County employee to ask us about our status in this Great Nation of ours.

It is inherently unfair to put illegal aliens on the path to legitimacy. A driver’s license or State ID gives us the required legitimacy to do things as simple as writing a check to pay for our groceries. Try to get on a plane today without a State issued ID card, I guarantee you will not get close to the concourses let alone the planes without one.

So, why exactly is it that we want to help people hide in plain site? It would be the most obvious first steps in making all of them legal. If you cannot pass a blanket amnesty you break down what you really want to accomplish and work on your goal in smaller steps.

Immigration Reform, better known as the Amnesty Bill, did not pass muster. The Dream Act has not yet died yet. It is very similar to the way that smoking has been made to become politically incorrect or taboo. Smoking bans did not just pop up in different cities over the course of two or three weeks, it took thirty to forty years to get to the point that society has come to about smoking. Immigration will start with whatever foothold they can get and move from there. The problem is, up until Code Pink and Move On we have stayed the silent majority, and we continue to be.

I fully understand that there are millions of people that are here in America illegally that live decent lives and just want to give their families more. I applaud that. I think that it is great that they want to elevate their families living situation, but what parent does not want to give their children a better life? Maybe it is a better idea for them to go back to their country of origin and use their energies to make that country a better place to live. If we sent 20 million people back to where they came from think about all the good that could be done world wide, they have already lived the example. Question: What documentation do undocumented people provide to receive their license?Answer: If they are here and undocumented they have no documentation to provide.

Not a bad idea. Sign me up as Willie E. Coyote and give me access to ACME and I think I can deal with Al Qaeda.

Leo McSweeney and Lt. Gen. Krulak

This Saturday, Leo will be pinning on Staff Sergeant! He will, for obvious reasons, not be with me on the show.  I remember when Leo and I were Corporals. Leo picked up Sgt. in 1995.  With several years out of the Corps, he lost all of his time in grade.  He had to start all over again.  I can honestly tell you that the isn’t one other Sgt. in the Corps that is as deserving as Leo.  Congratulations Leo and Semper Fi!

Stu Headley is a member of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association, Chapter 3 Carnation Chapter and a survivor from the USS West Virginia. Stu and Tommy talked about what Stu went through on Dec. 7th, 1941 and how his father saved his life.

Michael Yon appeared on the Dec. 8th show as a pre-record interview from London.  Tommy and Michael talked about the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and about Michael’s adventures with the Brit 4 Rifles and Scots ‘Black Watch’ regiment.

1. Hanukkah hams – And the manager doesn’t walk the store looking for crap like this in his store?!

2. Matthew P. Lankford – I don’t care who you are… No one decapitates a snowman and gets away with it!

3. The Baltimore 9 – We should re-institute the ‘chain gang’! If these folks want to be part of a ‘gang’ so bad, then we should be accommodating.

4. Gangs of Merauding Hispanics – At least they could have given the ‘gringo’ firefighter a break. I would like to see all firefighters in Eastie stop putting fires at hispanics homes now!

5. Diego Ortiz & Hernando Riascos – Now this is what I am talking about!  If America was more like Mr. Horn, we wouldn’t have crap like these guys here!

6. Daniel Pochoda – I think that I need to move to Arizona. Or better yet, Arpaio for President!

7. Pertussis – Just one thought on this…Immigrants and Epidemics!

8. Michael Santos – What a dumbass! Although that did take some balls, and some Jack Daniels!

Part 4 in the series that tells the story of 4 Rifles and the Scots ‘Black Watch’ Regiment as they patrol the streets of Basra. The tales of what the Brits go through is unheard of here in the U.S., until now. Michael Yon, a former Army Special Forces soldier, is now a journalist and author covering the untold stories of the heart pounding action in southern Iraq.

A British soldier after combat in Basra (Photo by Michael Yon)

www.michaelyon-online.com