Polar Bear Expert Barred from Polar Bear Conference for Denying Man-Made Global Warming

You’ve probably been told that the melting Arctic icecap is causing polar bears to drown or seen bumper stickers making reference to polar bears drowning and blaming global warming.

above: Polar bear bumper sticker

What might surprise you is that according to polar bear expert Dr. Mitchell Taylor polar bear populations are higher now than they were 30 years ago, which is the same time period that “global warming” is supposed to be killing polar bears to the point of extinction.

The British news agency Telegraph reports the following:

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr. Taylor also believes that although the Arctic region has been warming, the warming is not linked to CO2 emissions but to warm water that has been brought in by currents from the Pacific ocean and winds blowing in from the Bering sea.

Because of his refusal to blame man-made emissions of CO2 for global warming and denying that there is a polar bear population problem, Dr. Taylor has been barred from attending the upcoming Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) meeting in Copenhagen. The PBSG  is a international agency set up to monitor and manage the polar bears survival.

The Telegraph reports that the PBSG didn’t hide it’s global warming agenda:

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.

Instead of following valid scientific method and testing the global warming hypothesis, these “scientists” are more interested in the politics of their research, not the science.

If they found that global warming and polar bear populations were not a problem, there would be no reason for the PBSG to exist, which would mean no money for research and no fancy trips to places like Copenhagen for their meetings.

Be prepared to see news articles in July, which is typically the hottest month in the Northern Hemisphere, reporting on the PBSG conference with more global warming hysteria, detailing how rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, primarily produced by U.S. industries, are leading to the extinction of the polar bear.

We’ll keep you posted.

Mike Huckabee & Jon Stewart Debate Abortion

Mike Huckabee was a guest on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart show for a debate on abortion. The following videos are the complete debate as it was broadcast on Comedy Central.

The content of this abortion debate may be unsuitable for children under 13 and I would encourage children and parents to watch these videos together as a conversation starter.

Part I

Part II

Part III

Too Little Carbon Dioxide?

above- The Global Warming Culprit: Sun with solar flares and sun-spots

While the global warming alarmists have been trying to reduce the American culture to that of a third-world nation by insisting that we downsize our carbon-heavy lifestyles, a team of scientists from the California Institute of Technology has a different take: The earth is dying from too little carbon dioxide:

…as the luminosity of the Sun increases over its life cycle, biologically enhanced silicate weathering is able to reduce the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) so that the Earth’s surface temperature is maintained within an inhabitable range. As this process continues, however, between 100 and 900 million years (Ma) from now the CO₂ concentration will reach levels too low for C₃ and C₄ photosynthesis, signaling the end of the solar-powered biosphere.

In other words, these scientists believe the long-term CO₂ content trend is downward in our atmosphere, which means that, eventually, carbon-based life which thrives on the sun (mankind) will end on our earth. Another group of British scientists have published a study in Nature which says that CO₂ levels are down over 81% over the last 60 million years (Myr):

We estimate CO₂ concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO₂ outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24 Myr ago), atmospheric CO₂ concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO₂ reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr go.

Since 1832, the carbon dioxide content in our atmosphere has increased from 284 ppm (parts per million) to the current level of 386 ppm.

So while Congress considers a “cap and trade” bill that would limit CO₂ production, and President Obama considers international climate treaties that would do the same, the result of their activity would actually push our biosphere closer to extinction according to these scientists.

Little did we know how close we came to extinction in 1832 and are now rebounding quite nicely thanks to the current solar cycle.

What is “Cap and Trade”?

“Cap and Trade” is a nickname given to proposed bills in Congress that would force industries in the United States to limit, or “cap”, the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) they emit.

Each company would be given an allowance to emit a certain amount of CO2, and if they cannot meet that goal, they would have to buy, the “trade” part, an allowance from another company that is below it’s CO2 emission cap.

The allowances would be worth billions of dollars and the cost of those allowances would be passed on to the consumer. In effect, anytime you turned on a light switch, cooked a meal, took a shower, or cut your grass you would be paying more for the energy that those activities consume because the cost of producing that energy has been increased by the new government regulation.

The goal of the “cap and trade” system is to reduce the amount of CO2 in the environment, and reduce “global warming”. In fact, one of the “cap and trade” bills currently in the U.S. Senate is called America’s Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191).

The following video helps explain the cap and trade system and it’s economic impact. Even President Obama, who is in favor of such laws, has said that such “electricity rates would skyrocket” under such a plan.

Obama Makes Policy Speech in Cairo to Muslims

President Obama made a 55-minute speech in Cairo, Egypt on Thursday laying out his thoughts and policies regarding the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world.  You can view the entire video of his speech below.

Comments on the speech

President Obama, in typical liberal political correctness, refused to use the word “terrorist” to describe the Muslims that attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11, preferring instead and throughout the speech to call them “extremists” or “violent extremists”:

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims.  The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights.  All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

President Obama also avoided speaking the truth about the character and history of Islam as a backward, mysogynistic, and violently supremacist religion with the following remark:

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

President Obama did send Iran’s president and other radical Muslims a strong message with the following quote concerning the Jewish community and Israel:

Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich.  Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today.  Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful.  Threatening Israel with destruction — or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews — is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

President Obama also seemed to misunderstand his role as president in of the United States, saying that:

I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

It’s not his responsibility to fight stereotypes of any sort. In the oath he took as president, Obama swore to “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That is his responsibility. Later, President Obama did make this statement which is more in line with the Constitution:

We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security — because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject:  the killing of innocent men, women, and children.  And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

President Obama also threw a bone to the United Nations and Europe by promising to pursue international consensus and diplomacy, which doesn’t work with Islamists bent on destroying free societies. This is a naive and dangerous position to take:

Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.

Finally, President Obama laid out a plan to bring peace to the Middle East by establishing a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict. He lacked the moral backbone to call the Hamas leadership of Palestine “terrorists” and made Hamas’ acts of terrorism the moral equivalent of Israel building settlements in the West Bank.

Every American president since Jimmy Carter has tackled the Israeli/Palestinian conflict unsuccessfully with treaties and bargaining of different sorts. This issue will not be resolved until one side defeats the other militarily.

Do these Palestinians look like they can be bargained with?

above: Palestinian terrorists watching Obama's speech

above: Palestinian Terrorists holding press conference

U.S. government now owns bankrupt General Motors

General Motors, which is the biggest car maker in the world, filed for bankruptcy Monday at the direction of President Obama.

The bankrupt auto maker has been receiving bailout money from the federal government, which gave the Obama administration the clout needed to fully take over the major decision making process at General Motors.

The government takeover of a private industry on such a large scale in the United States is unprecedented, but not surprising with the government’s previous intrusion into the affairs of Chrysler, Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG, and other financial institutions.

The plan is for the federal government to take a 60 percent ownership stake in the new GM. The Canadian government would take 12.5 percent, with the United Auto Workers getting a 17.5 percent share and unsecured bondholders receiving 10 percent. Existing GM shareholders are expected to be wiped out.(from AP)

President Obama also promised that the Federal government would start buying more cars from General motors, which basically means they are buying cars from themselves:

That’s why we are accelerating the purchase of a federal fleet of cars to jump-start demand and give the industry a boost at a time when it needs one. And that’s why I’m calling on Congress to pass fleet modernization legislation that can provide a credit to consumers who turn in old cars and purchase cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars.

On top of buying billions of dollars of these new government designed cars, the U.S. government is planning on pumping $30 billion of taxpayer money into GM, on top of the $20 billion that has already been loaned. The Canadian government has promised $9.5 billion to the bankrupt auto maker.

The free market is what our country was founded on, not government ownership of industry and financial sectors .  The free market best determines what kind of cars should be built and who is the best at building them.

Politicians are good at taking money from the American people, but will fail at designing, building, marketing, and servicing automobiles.

Instead of building cars that people want to buy, GM’s new management team will rely on government mandates that will force people to buy the new inferior cars that GM will manufacture and thereby bring Obama’s vision of environmental and social change to America.

All you have to do is look at any government-run agency, and you will find runaway waste, fraud, and mismanagement that would cause any normal business to go bankrupt under normal circumstances.

The free market always wins and eventually corrects the economy.  Defying the principles of the free market always results in economic pain and hardship, which is  why Chrysler and GM ended up in such bad shape in the first place.

President Obama, who has no business experience in the private sector, will conveniently find some scapegoat to blame when his foray into the automobile industry blows up in his face.

News videos about Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor

Here are two news videos dealing with President Obama’s choice of Sonia Sotomayor to be his Supreme Court nominee. Both videos highlight Sotomayor’s disturbing judicial philosophy which should disqualify her from the Supreme Court altogether.

The first is from FOX News, the second from MSNBC.  The MSNBC host is particularly hostile to their guest, Curt Levy, who is the Executive Director for Committee For Justice.  Committee For Justice is a non-profit organization that “exists to restore the judiciary to its proper role under the law and counter the partisan warfare that has arisen against constitutionalist judicial nominees.”

FOX NEWS:

MSNBC:

President Obama Nominates Extreme Liberal for Supreme Court

President Obama today nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be a justice for the Supreme Court.  Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic and only the third women to sit on the Supreme Court if she is confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

above: Nominee Sonia Sotomayor

Sotomayor has a terrible record in the years she has been serving as a judge in District court and the U.S. Appeals Court.  Sotomayor has made many disturbing rulings that run contrary to the Constitution which she will be expected to interpret and apply fairly to cases brought before her as a Supreme Court justice.

Here’ a sample from CNSNews.com:

…As a district court judge, Sotomayor also allowed a racial discrimination claim to continue when the plaintiff, a black nurse, sued Bellevue Hospital Corp because other nurses spoke mainly in Filipino, their native tongue, which she claimed made her feel harassed and isolated.
…In another recent decision, U.S.A. v. Marcus, Sotomayor sent the case of a convicted violent sex trafficker back to a lower court because a lower court judge had not specifically told the jury that some, though not all, of the sex trafficking had taken place before it was specifically outlawed.

…She also flippantly dismissed a case brought to the court by 18 white firefighters who had experienced reverse discrimination from the city of New Haven, Conn.  That case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sotomayor also stated in a speech at the University of California, Berkeley: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life…”  Apparently, it’s not the Constitution that matters, but the richness of a person’s life, whatever that is, that will make a person a better judge.

A video of Sotomayor in a panel discussion for law students show that she is not going to judge cases based on the Constitution, but instead on what kind of policy outcomes can be issued from the Court:

North Korea tests nuclear bomb

by Burt Noyes

North Korea tested a powerful nuclear bomb today as it continues to defy the world community by continuing the development  of it’s nuclear weapons and missile programs.

North Korea also launched three missiles in a test of it’s long-range missile technology, which will eventually give the socialist dictatorship the  ability to deliver nuclear-armed missiles to much of Europe, Asia, and possibly even the United States.

President Obama reacted by saying that “North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community.”

above: North Korean nuclear map

He said his administration would work through the U.N. Security Council and the six-party talks on North Korea to address the issue. Under the so-called “six-party” talks among the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States, North Korea committed in 2005 to abandon all its nuclear programs.

Today’s test clearly demonstrates that you cannot negotiate with a evil regime like North Korea, which has been under the dictatorship of Kim Jon Il since 1994.  Former President Clinton tried diplomacy and even sent humanitarian aid after Kim Jong Il promised to stop nuclear testing.

President Bush said that  North Korea was part of the “Axis of Evil”, which also included Iran and Iraq, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, but didn’t do much about the rogue nation, leaving it up to the United Nations and China to handle the situation.

While the United States dealt with Iraq as the most serious threat through military action, the international community has been unable to stop either North Korea or Iran as they have both made advances in nuclear weapons and missile technology.

The simple truth is that diplomacy does not work with rogue nations such as North Korea.  Only military intervention or all-out war is going to end their weapons development programs.

President Obama’s effort to pursue a peaceful resolution through the United Nations will only end in more promises to be broken later and eventually a nuclear incident that will lead to war.