Why immigration will be the number 1 political issue in the 2008 Presidential Election–watch the video and get educated!
Then get mad.
Immigration By The Numbers
Same video on YouTube
Illegal Immigration and the Numbers Pure & Simple Part 1
Fight on Illegal Immigration and the Numbers Part 2
A Description of the Immigrant Population
“…The Census Bureau estimated that the number of foreign-born people living in the United States topped 33 million and accounted for nearly 12 percent of the population in 2003–its highest share since 1930. Half of those people have arrived in the United States since 1990, and the foreign-born population is now growing at a rate of about 1 million per year. Between the 1990 and 2000 censuses, the foreign-born population grew by more than 11 million, accounting for about 35 percent of total population growth. Estimates of the portion of immigrants who are unauthorized range from 7 million to 10 million, although in the absence of reliable data, those estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty.
More than half of the total foreign-born population originated in Latin America, with Mexico by far the single largest source. The number of immigrants from Asia has also grown rapidly since the 1960s. In contrast, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the vast majority of immigrants came from Europe.
The foreign-born population is quite concentrated geographically, more so than people born in the United States. More than two-thirds of the foreign-born population reside in one of six states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey), and the majority of newly admitted legal immigrants continue to settle in those states. However, that concentration has diminished somewhat since 1990, and new major destinations include Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, Georgia, and Colorado. The foreign-born population also tends to be more concentrated in urban areas–especially central cities–than the native-born is, but as is the case generally in the United States, more than half of the foreign-born population now live in suburban areas. …”
“The Foreign-Born Population, 1850 to 2000
Source: Congressional Budget Office using data from Campbell J. Gibson and Emily Lennon, Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 1850-1990, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Population Division, Working Paper No. 29 (February 1999); and Nolan Malone and others, The Foreign-Born Population: 2000, Census 2000 Brief (Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, December 2003). …”
Racism against the Chinese on Fox News–No–Common Sense Questions
An unlikely treasure-trove of donors for Clinton
“…As with other campaigns looking for dollars in unpromising places, the Clinton operation also has accepted what it later conceded were improper donations. At least one reported donor denies making a contribution. Another admitted to lacking the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money.
Clinton aides said they were concerned about some of the Chinatown contributions.
“We have hundreds of thousands of donors. We are proud to have support from across New York and the country from many different communities,” campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said. “In this instance, our own compliance process flagged a number of questionable donations and took the appropriate steps to be sure they were legally given. In cases where we couldn’t confirm that, the money was returned.”
The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.
And several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs — including dishwasher, server or chef — that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election. …”
Once again, a zeal for campaign cash trumps common sense.
“…This appears to be another instance in which a Clinton campaign’s zeal for campaign cash overwhelms its judgment. After the fundraising scandals of President Bill Clinton‘s 1996 reelection campaign, the dangers of vacuuming cash from a politically inexperienced immigrant community should have been obvious. But Ms. Clinton’s money machine seized on a new source of cash in Chinatown and environs. As the Times reported, a single Chinatown fundraiser in April brought in $380,000. By contrast, 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry raised $24,000 from Chinatown in the course of his entire campaign. …”
Hillary Clinton’s Defiant Stand Regarding Chinese Campaign Contributions
“…What has occurred in the lower Manhattan back alleys of New York City’s Chinatown must be shared with democrat voters across the nation.
Clinton sees all New York voters as nothing more than 17 million fools she intends to use as a stepping stone to a fradulent presidency.
There is absolutely no chance thousands of poor Asian immigrants had one thousand and two thousand dollar donations available by themselves. HILLARY HAS BEEN CAUGHT RED HANDED! She knows it. New Yorkers know it. Iowa voters should know it! New Hampshire voters should know it. Her DEFIANCE is fooling no one! Especially no street savy New Yorker who knows damn well this entire matter of mimimum wage immigrant workers donating $338,000 to her campaign was a poorly organized conspiracy to funnel a large donation through theft identity, fraud and outright intimidation. …”
The second round of apparently illegal chinese laundered and bundled campaign financing contributions has found its way to Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President.
A criminal pattern or method of operation– m.o.– of funneling cash through low income Chinese workers–busboys, dishwashers, waiters–cries out for FBI investigation of both the actual financiers, bundlers, contributors and the recipient.
Nobody believes Chinese immigrants in low income jobs are making contributions of $500 to $2300 of their own money to Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign.
Who is the real source of the money being “laundered” through Chinese low income workers?
Federal money laundering and election laws are being broken.
These violations of the law should be investigated now and not after the primaries and election.
No political candidate is above the law including Democratic and Republician candidates for President of the United States of America in 2008.
The American people do not want another Chinese Communist (ChiCom) Candidate being elected President of the United States of America:
INVESTIGATION OF ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER ACTIVITIES
IN CONNECTION WITH 1996 FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
FINAL REPORT of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
SENATE Rept. 105-167 – 105th Congress 2d Session – March 10, 1998
“…From its earliest stages, the Committee’s investigation
uncovered instances of political contributions made with
foreign money. Either contributing or soliciting this money
have been individuals with business or political ties to the
PRC, who have escorted PRC officials and businessmen to
meetings with President Clinton and Vice President Gore, and
who have otherwise facilitated efforts to shape United States
policy towards China. The intelligence portion of the
Committee’s investigation sought to determine whether the
foreign contributions and the PRC ties were mere coincidence,
or if the PRC was in some way behind any foreign political
“… Information obtained by the Committee reveals close ties
between the PRC and many of the individuals who produced or
facilitated foreign campaign contributions. And these
individuals–Ted Sioeng, Maria Hsia, John Huang, and James and
Mochtar Riady–interacted with one-another with some frequency.
Their paths appear to have crossed most often when they were
engaged in fund- raising or contributing money to the
Democratic National Committee.
Ted Sioeng.\11\ The Committee has learned that Sioeng
worked, and perhaps still works, on behalf of the Chinese
government. Sioeng regularly communicated with PRC embassy and
consular officials at various locations in the United States,
and, before the campaign finance scandal broke, he traveled to
Beijing frequently where he reported to and was briefed by
Chinese communist party officials. …”
“…In amassing $52 million in campaign contributions in the first half of this year, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton relied on a platinum pyramid of 233 ”Hillraisers,” including the movie director Steven Spielberg, the party powerbroker Vernon E. Jordan Jr., and the real estate mogul William C. Rudin.
Another, less famous name on the list, however, has proven a liability to Mrs. Clinton: Norman Hsu, a business executive who turned out to be wanted in connection with a fraud case in California.
Mr. Hsu came into the picture with the advent of bundlers, wealthy and well-connected surrogates who can collect stacks of campaign checks from friends, family members and associates.
The system is a byproduct of the $2,300 cap on individual contributions, which has led campaigns to ask their biggest supporters to go beyond simply making donations and to pass the hat. Pioneered in an organized way by George W. Bush in 2000, it has become increasingly important because of the 2002 campaign finance laws that closed the spigot of unrestricted ”soft money” from corporations and other big donors through the political party campaign committees.
The six leading primary campaigns have listed a total of nearly 2,000 bundlers.
The reliance on bundlers has exploded this year because, for the first time in three decades, the major candidates are planning to turn down public financing in favor of raising and spending money without being subject to any limit. …”
The following is the full text of the executive summary of the final report of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee’s “Investigation on Illegal or Improper Activities in Connection With The 1996 Federal Election Campaigns.”
“…Money Laundering Basics
Money laundering, at its simplest, is the act of making money that comes from Source A look like it comes from Source B. In practice, criminals are trying to disguise the origins of money obtained through illegal activities so it looks like it was obtained from legal sources. Otherwise, they can’t use the money because it would connect them to the criminal activity, and law-enforcement officials would seize it.
The most common types of criminals who need to launder money are drug traffickers, embezzlers, corrupt politicians and public officials, mobsters, terrorists and con artists. …”
Congressional Democrats Use Genocide Resolution to Sabotage Support of Soldiers
Speaker Pelosi is playing politics with the lives of our soldiers in Iraq by endangering their logistical support bases in Turkey.
Speaker, you are not the Commander in Chief, nor the Secretary of Defense nor Secretary of State.
Stop using the Armenian Genocide Resolution to sabotage support of our soldiers in Iraq.
Americans are angry with your political ploys.
Speaker Pelosi is apparently leading the way for Congress to set a new record of public disapproval of their job performance.
Pelosi ploys should result in single digit performance numbers in the near future.
Congress Approval Rating Matches Historical Low
Just 18% approve of job Congress is doing
“A new Gallup Poll finds Congress’ approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll. …”
Secretary of State Pelosi
The Armenian genocide doesn’t belong in U.S. foreign policy right now.Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
“…To be clear: We write that we would like to assume, rather than that we do assume, because we are no longer able to discern whether the Speaker’s foreign-policy intrusions are merely misguided or are consciously intended to cause a U.S. policy failure in Iraq.
Where is the upside in October 2007 to this Armenian resolution?
The bill is opposed by eight former U.S. Secretaries of State, including Madeleine Albright. After Tom Lantos’s House Foreign Affairs Committee voted out the resolution last week, Turkey recalled its ambassador from Washington. Turkey serves as a primary transit hub for U.S. equipment going into both Iraq and Afghanistan. After the Kurdish terrorist group PKK killed 13 Turkish conscripts last week near the border with Iraq, Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, asked the parliament to approve a huge deployment of the army along the border, threatening an incursion into Kurdish-controlled Iraq. This of course is the one manifestly successful region of post-Saddam Iraq. In a situation teetering on a knife-edge, President Bush has been asking Mr. Erdogan to show restraint on the Iraq border.
Somehow, none of this is allowed to penetrate Speaker Pelosi’s world. She is offering various explanations for bringing the genocide resolution to the House floor. “This isn’t about the Erdogan government,” she says. “This is about the Ottoman Empire,” last seen more than 85 years ago. “Genocide still exists,” insists Ms. Pelosi. “We saw it in Rwanda; we see it now in Darfur.”
Yes, but why now, with Turkey crucial to an Iraq policy that now has the prospect of a positive outcome? The answer may be found in the compulsive parochialism of the House’s current edition of politicians, mostly Democrats. California is home to the country’s largest number of politically active Armenians. Speaker Pelosi has many in her own district. Mr. Lantos represents the San Francisco suburbs. The bill’s leading sponsors include Representatives Adam Schiff, George Radanovich and Anna Eshoo, all from California. …”
Sabotage in Wartime By Thomas Sowell Monday, October 15, 2007
“If Congress has gone nearly a century without passing a resolution accusing the Turks of genocide, why now, in the midst of the Iraq war? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this resolution is just the latest in a series of Congressional efforts to sabotage the conduct of that war.Large numbers of American troops and vast amounts of military equipment go to Iraq through Turkey, one of the few nations in the Islamic Middle East that has long been an American ally.Turkey has also thus far refrained from retaliating against guerrilla attacks from the Kurdish regions of Iraq onto Turkish soil. But the Turks could retaliate big time if they chose.There are more Turkish troops on the border of Iraq than there are American troops within Iraq.Turkey has already recalled its ambassador from Washington to show its displeasure over Congress’ raising this issue. The Turks may or may not stop at that.In this touchy situation, why stir up a hornet’s nest over something in the past that neither we nor anybody else can do anything about today? …”http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/10/15/sabotage_in_wartime
Pelosi’s Most Dangerous Ploy
by Jed Babbin
“Congressional Democrats anxious to force a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq are frustrated by their inability to muster a veto-proof majority for legislation that would establish a firm date for retreat. But what they cannot do directly they are now working hard to do indirectly.
According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey is the transshipment point for about 70% of all air cargo (including 33% of the fuel) going to supply US forces in Iraq. Included are about 95% of the new “MRAP” – mine-resistant, ambush-protected – vehicles designed to save the lives of American troops. Turkey wasn’t always this helpful. In 2003, the Turks refused permission for the 4th Infantry Division to enter Iraq through Turkey.
Turkey’s Erdogan government has indicated that if the House of Representatives takes action on a non-binding resolution being pushed by Speaker Pelosi, Turkey might revoke our ability to use Incirlik as a waypoint for Iraq supplies.
At issue is the non-binding resolution passed on October 10 by the House Foreign Affairs Committee that labels the 1915-1923 massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire a genocide. Such resolutions can be passed by either or both houses of Congress and are not subject to presidential veto. …”
“”If the resolution that has passed in the US committee is accepted by the assembly of the House of Representatives our military relations with the United States can never be the same again,” chief of General Staff, General Yasar Buyukanit, told newspaper Milliyet in his first public comments on the issue.
“We could not explain this to Turkish public opinion.”
The Turkish government is to seek approval from parliament this week for a major operation against separatist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) militants based in the Iraqi mountains.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Saturday she had urged the Turkish government to refrain from any major military operation in northern Iraq.
US officials fear such a move could destabilise a relatively peaceful area of Iraq. …”
“…One expects the Speaker of the House to be far more responsible, particularly when it comes to dealing with irresponsible, emotional demands of constituents. But what Nancy Pelosi seems to have forgotten is that her position makes her the next in line to be president of the United States after the vice president and that at times that may require putting the national interests ahead of political expediency no matter how many Armenian Americans are in her district.
So ignoring the possible consequences of a diplomatic break, which both Turkish and U.S. authorities warn is a real possibility, Pelosi has allowed the politically mischievous resolution to be voted out of committee and has further inflamed the situation by promising the issue would be taken up by the full House. The result of this, among other things, has been to increase the possibility of a Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq to quell Kurdish separatists who Turks regard as terrorists and the cutting off of vital supply lines and bases for U.S. troops. …”
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
~ H.L. Mencken
“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
An “over-representation” is a lie. Lawyers call it a material misrepresentation.
Al Gore’s biggest whopper or lie in An Inconvenient Truth, both the film and book, is the 20 feet sea level rise by 2100.
This is in sharp contrast to the 2 feet maximum prediction of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Both Al Gore and the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 on October 12, 2007.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its report of February 2007 projected sea level gains of 18-59 centimeters (7-23 inches) by 2100 with temperature rises of 1.8-4.0 Celsius (3.2-7.8 Farenheit).
“Considering all of these influences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the global average sea level will rise by 7.2 to 23.6 inches (18-59 cm or 0.18- 0.59m) by 2100 (see Figure 1) relative to 1980-1999 under a range of scenarios.
Sea Level Rise Projections to 2100
Past and projected global average sea level. The gray shaded area shows the estimates of sea level change from 1800 to 1870 when measurements are not available. The red line is a reconstruction of sea level change measured by tide gauges with the surrounding shaded area depicting the uncertainty. The green line shows sea level change as measured by satellite. The purple shaded area represents the range of model projections for a medium growth emissions scenario (IPCC SRES A1B). For reference 100mm is about 4 inches. Source: IPCC (2007)
Note that these estimates assume that ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica will continue at the same rates as observed from 1993-2003. The IPCC cautions that these rates could increase or decrease in the future. For example, if ice flow were to increase linearly, in step with global average temperature, the upper range of projected sea level rise by the year 2100 would be 19.2 to 31.6 inches (48-79 cm or 0.48-0.79 m). But current understanding of ice sheet dynamics is too limited to estimate such changes or to provide an upper limit to the amount by which sea level is likely to rise over this century.”
“…17. Over the last 100 years, the global sea level has risen by about 10 to 25 cm.
Sea level change is difficult to measure. Relative sea level changes have been derived mainly from tide-gauge data. In the conventional tide-gauge system, the sea level is measured relative to a land-based tide-gauge benchmark. The major problem is that the land experiences vertical movements (e.g. from isostatic effects, neotectonism, and sedimentation), and these get incorporated into the measurements. However, improved methods of filtering out the effects of long-term vertical land movements, as well as a greater reliance on the longest tide-gauge records for estimating trends, have provided greater confidence that the volume of ocean water has indeed been increasing, causing the sea level to rise within the given range.
It is likely that much of the rise in sea level has been related to the concurrent rise in global temperature over the last 100 years. On this time scale, the warming and the consequent thermal expansion of the oceans may account for about 2-7 cm of the observed sea level rise, while the observed retreat of glaciers and ice caps may account for about 2-5 cm. Other factors are more difficult to quantify. The rate of observed sea level rise suggests that there has been a net positive contribution from the huge ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, but observations of the ice sheets do not yet allow meaningful quantitative estimates of their separate contributions. The ice sheets remain a major source of uncertainty in accounting for past changes in sea level because of insufficient data about these ice sheets over the last 100 years. …”
Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge said: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s “wake-up call”. He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water – “but only after, and over, millennia”.”The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”
The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls “are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming” but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
The documentary speaks of global warming “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” – the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was “very unlikely” that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.
Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.
Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.
The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that “it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”
Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was “insufficient evidence to show that”.
Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from “swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice” The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.”That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued – “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.
Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult. …”
UK Gov’t Helps Teachers Deal With Gore’s Climate Errors
No wonder a judge in the United Kingdom found nine errors including Al Gore’s big whopper in his ruling on An Inconveniet Truth:
“…The High Court has indicated that schools can lawfully show AIT to pupils without breaching ss. 406 or 407 of the Education Act 1996, but that, in doing so they must bear in mind the following points: AIT promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about those views; • in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore.s view may be inaccurate or departs from that of mainstream scientific opinion; • where the film suggests that viewers should take particular action at thepolitical level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view. …”
• teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote
Al Gore has at least been consistent on warning about global warming for twenty years. He also has a propensity to quote Winston Churchill.
Here is one quotation from Winston Churchill that he appears to have overlooked.
“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”
Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was best described by Paul Johnson, British author and historian, and Presidential Medal of Freedom award recipient:
“Beware of those who seek to win an argument at the expense of the language. For the fact that they do is proof positive that their argument is false, and proof presumptive that they know it is. A man who deliberately inflicts violence on the language will almost certainly inflict violence on human beings if he acquires the power. Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones. The correct and honourable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilized status.”
Looks like John Stossel is going to rain on Al Gore’s Nobel Prize parade/panic attack for a global warming planetary emergency.
Watch the 20/20 show Friday, October 19, 2007 at 8 P.M. Eastern time on ABC.
John Stossel Exposes Global Warming Myths
“…In a release from ABC previewing Stossel’s report on Friday’s “20/20,” the veteran newsman and Newsmax pundit – who won 19 Emmys exposing scammers and con artists – says:
“This week on ‘20/20’ (in our new 8 p.m. Eastern time slot) I say ‘Give Me a Break!’ to our Nobel Prize-winning Vice President.
“Mr. Gore says ‘The debate is over,’ and those who disagree with his take on global warming have been ‘purchased’ in order to create ‘the illusion of a debate.’ Nonsense. It’s as if the Vice President and his allies in the environmental movement plan to win the debate through intimidation. I interview some scientists who won’t be intimidated, even though one has had his life threatened for speaking up.
“The Vice President’s much-applauded movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ claims warming is man’s fault and a coming crisis! While the earth has certainly warmed over the last century, plenty of independent scientists say scientists cannot be sure that man caused the warming or that warming will be a crisis.
“They say the computer models that are used to predict the disasters don’t include important variables because scientists don’t fully understand them. For example, warming may cause cloud formations that reflect sun and cool the earth. The computer models cannot know. These scientists call global warming activism more of a religious movement than science.”
Gore’s film is filled with “misleading messages,” says Stossel. …”
“…I suspect that next year’s government boondoggle will be massive spending on carbon-reducing technology.
“It reminds me of George Mason University Economics Department Chairman Don Boudreax’s suggestion that such schemes really mean ‘government seizing enormous amounts of additional power in order to embark upon schemes of social engineering – schemes whose pursuit gratifies the abstract fantasies of the theory class and, simultaneously, lines the very real pockets of politically powerful corporations, organizations, and “experts.”’
“He is so right. The abstract fantasies of the theory class will soon send huge chunks of your money to politicians, friends, activist scientists, and politically savvy corporations.
“…Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes (“fingerprints”) over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.
The conclusion is that climate change is “unstoppable” and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation. …”
“Gore spends a lot of time talking about how dramatic melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps that could raise sea level by 20 feet by 2100. He shows computer animated maps in which most of southern Florida, southern Manhattan, Shanghai, and Bangladesh are inundated. “Think of the impact of a couple hundred thousand refugees, and then imagine 100 million,” says Gore. Of course his reference to the couple of hundred thousand refugees aims to evoke thoughts about the horrific experience of New Orleanians last year.
Well, the “consensus” of climate scientists as represented in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that sea level is likely to rise between 4 inches to 35 inches with a central value of 19 inches. Nineteen inches is not nothing and is 3 times greater than the sea level rise the world experienced during the 20th century, but Manhattan and most of Florida will most likely still be above water in 2100. A new study in Science concluded if temperatures rose steeply that the Greenland ice sheet might melt away in 500 to 1000 years. So fortunately we don’t have to worry about the impact of 100 million people fleeing relentlessly rising seas all at once, though it would be a good idea for builders and insurance companies to keep the projected rise in sea level in mind. …”
David Evans – Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming
Global cooling not warming
Unstoppable Solar Cycles
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 1
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 2
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 1)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 2)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 3)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 4)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 5)
(4 of 14) MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER
Global Warming Hoax
Another Global Warming Hoax exposed
James Hansen concerned IPCC ignores danger of ice sheet melt
NASA’s Hansen Reaches Escape Velocity
“…Dr. Hansen is a math modeler in the climate change game. How does he get Planetary Doom from a math model? It’s very simple. You build in “positive feedback loops.” That is, you look in the vast toolbox of climate variables to find just two factors that might reinforce each other in a catastrophic loop. For instance, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might create a greenhouse effect, which causes more heating, which causes more water evaporation, which causes more greenhouse effect, which causes more heating, etc., etc. Keep looping that, and you raise world temps by just one degree Centigrade, so the polar ice caps melt and the oceans rise, up to 25 meters. See? It’s easy.
The big problem with this scenario is that the climate system almost certainly has negative feedback loops, i.e., causal connections that work to bring temperatures back to a rough baseline. The climate is likely to have self-regulation mechanisms in much the way that our bodies have self-regulating loops to stabilize our temperature, blood sugar, and a hundred other variables. Why does that seem likely? Because the world hasn’t burned up or drowned in quite a long time, even though temperature variations and greenhouse gases have existed for many millions of years. Such factors as clouds and air particulates are believed to lower temperatures. With a little imagination we could easily build math models for self-regulating loops that would tend to stabilize temperatures. (But it might be hard to swing the federal grant support for those models.) …”
Statement: Thinning of West Antarctic Ice Sheet Demands Improved Monitoring to Reduce Uncertainty over Potential Sea-Level Rise
The consensus view of the workshop:
Satellite observations show that both the grounded ice sheet and the floating ice shelves of the Amundsen Sea Embayment have thinned over the last decades.
Ongoing thinning in the grounded ice sheet is already contributing to sea-level rise.
The thinning of the ice has occurred because melting beneath the ice shelves has increased, reducing the friction holding back the grounded ice sheet and causing faster flow.
Oceanic changes have caused the increased ice-shelf melting. The observed average warming of the global ocean has not yet notably affected the waters reaching the base of the ice shelves. However, recent changes in winds around Antarctica caused by human influence and/or natural variability may be changing ocean currents, moving warmer waters under the ice shelves.
Our understanding of ice-sheet flow suggests the possibility that too much melting beneath ice shelves will lead to “runaway” thinning of the grounded ice sheet. Current understanding is too limited to know whether, when, or how rapidly this might happen, but discussions at the meeting included the possibility of several feet of sea-level rise over a few centuries from changes in this region.
The experts agreed that to reduce the very large uncertainties concerning the behavior of the Antarctic ice in the Amundsen Sea Embayment will require new satellite, ground, and ship-based observations coupled to improved models of the ice-ocean-atmosphere system. Issues include:
The recent changes were discovered by satellite observations; however, continued monitoring of some of these changes is not possible because of a loss of capability in current and funded satellite missions.
The remoteness of this part of Antarctica from existing stations continues to limit the availability of ground observations essential to predicting the future of the ice sheet.
No oceanographic observations exist beneath the ice shelves, and other oceanographic sampling is too infrequent and sparse to constrain critical processes.
Current continental-scale ice sheet models are inadequate for predicting future sea level rise because they omit important physical processes.
Current global climate models do not provide information essential for predicting ice sheet and oceanic changes in the Amundsen Sea Embayment; for example, ice shelves are not included.
Changes in Sea-Level associated with Modifications of the Mass Balance of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets over the 21st Century
Changes in runoff from Greenland and Antarctica are often cited as one of the major concerns linked to anthropogenic changes in climate. The changes in mass balance, and associated changes in sea-level, of these two ice sheets are examined by comparing the predictions of the six possible combinations of two climate models and three methods for estimating melting and runoff. All models are solved on 20 and 40 km grids respectively for Greenland and Antarctica. The two temperature based runoff parameterizations give adequate results for Greenland, less so for Antarctica. The energy balance based approach, which relies on an explicit modelling of the temperature and density structure within the snow cover, gives similar results when coupled to either climate model. The Greenland ice sheet, for a reference climate scenario similar to the IPCC’s IS92a, is not expected to contribute significantly to changes in the level of the ocean over the 21st century. The changes in mass balance in Antarctica are dominated by the increase in snowfall, leading to a decrease in sea-level of 4 cm by 2100. The range of uncertainty in these predictions is estimated by repeating the calculation with the simpler climate model for seven climate change scenarios. Greenland would increase the level of the oceans by 0 – 2 cm, while Antarctica would decrease it by 2.5 – 6.5 cm. The combined effect of both ice sheets lowers the sea-level by 2.5 – 4.5 cm over the next 100 years, this represents a 25% reduction of the sea-level rise estimated from thermal expansion alone. This surprisingly small range of uncertainty is due to cancellations between the effects of the two ice sheets. For the same reason, the imposition of the Kyoto Protocol has no impact on the prediction of sea-level change due to changes in Greenland and Antarctica, when compared to a reference scenario in which emissions are allowed to grow unconstrained. …”
Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets
Andrew Shepherd1 and Duncan Wingham2*
After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellitemeasurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth’sice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen,so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Althoughthe balance between these opposing processes has varied considerablyon a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenlandare each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combinedimbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raisesea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. This is only a modestcontribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimetersper year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenlandis the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streamsand glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade. Inboth continents, there are suspected triggers for the acceleratedice discharge—surface and ocean warming, respectively—and,over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidlycounteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climatemodels.
1 Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, EH8 9XP, UK. 2 Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, WC1E 6BT
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492, 2007
On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century
S. J. Holgate
Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK
Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.
Received 17 October 2006; accepted 21 November 2006; published 4 January 2007. “
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change:
Separating Scientific Fact from Personal OpinionA critique of the 26 April 2007 testimony of James E. Hansen made to
the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming
of the United States House of Representatives entitled
“Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate”Prepared by Sherwood B. Idso and Craig D. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 6 June 2007
“…After a careful study of the claims made by James Hansen in his testimony of 26 April 2007 to the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the US House of Representatives, we find that much of what he contends is contradicted by real-world observations.Although Hansen speaks of a sea level rise this century measured in meters, due to “the likely demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet,” the most recent and comprehensive review of potential sea level rise due to contributions arising from the wastage of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets suggests a century-long rise of only 35 millimeters, based on the results of 14 satellite-derived estimates of imbalances of the polar ice sheets that have been obtained since 1998. In addition, whereas Hansen claims that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, century-scale data sets indicate that the mean rate-of-rise of the global ocean has either not accelerated at all over the latter part of the 20th century or has actually slowed.Another of Hansen’s claims that is at odds with reality is that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are “skyrocketing,” for several studies of methane (which has historically provided a climate forcing equivalent to approximately half that provided by CO2) have demonstrated that its atmospheric concentration actually stabilized several years ago and has ceased to rise further. This development – which was totally unanticipated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the time of its last major report, and which was vehemently denied to even be occurring when it was first observed – effectively repudiates Hansen’s contentions about the need to act immediately to curtail anthropogenic CO2 emissions, for this unforeseen circumstance has already done more than humanity could ever hope to do in the foreseeable future in terms of reducing the atmosphere’s radiative impetus for warming; and it has thereby given us considerable extra time to determine what the true status of earth’s climate really is, as well as what we should, or should not, do about it. …”
So what is the “true status” of earth’s climate? It is perhaps best understood by noting that the earth is not any warmer now – and is possibly a fair amount cooler – than it was at many other times in the past. These warmer-than-present periods include much of the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago, most of the Climatic Optimum that held sway during the central portion of the current interglacial, and significant portions of all four of the prior interglacials, when – in all six cases – the air’s CO2 concentration was much lower than it is today. …”
It seems that the Red-Green Coalition, also known as the Socialist Coalition, has a slight majority in the Storting, the Norwegian Parliament, that appoints the five member Nobel Peace Prize Committee.
This presents the Nobel Peace Prize Committee with an excellent opportunity to influence the direction of USA for at least the next four years by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to both Rush Limbaugh and Al Gore.
In the spirit of Republican and Democratic Party unity may I suggest to Rush and Al that you offer the Vice-President spot on your party’s ticket to former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and New York Senator Hillary Clinton, respectively.
Good luck Rush and Al.
We all look forward to a spirited Presidential campaign and debate.
I have been a regular listener of the Rush Limbaugh Show for nearly nineteen years.
Why? He is entertaining, informative and tells it like it is.
Since I am a classical liberal or libertarian, as well as a movement conservative, I know where Rush is coming from and his views resonate with me.
Note, I did not say Republician. I vote for the individual candidate not necessarily the Republician Party candidate.
It is very easy to take any comment out of context. The mainstream media do it all the time.
Just start or stop the clip or transcript where you want and give it a misleading headline.
Many times the context is essential to understanding what was or was not said.
Very often what was said was clearly a joke and meant to be taken humorously, goes right over the head of many American Liberal Democrats without a sense of humor.
Media Matters is all about taking out of context the comments of popular conservative and/or libertian talk radio shows hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Neal Boortz, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Bill O’Reilly, just to name a few of the more popular national radio show hosts, and misrepresenting what was really said or meant.
Why you might ask does the Left in America go to the trouble to listening to conservative/libertarian talk radio.
They know that many Liberal Democrats of their own party and political base are listening.
They rightly fear that many of them might slowly but surely change their minds. It is happening every day.
The real objective of Media Matters founded by David Brock and funded indirectly by George Soros
and others on the left is to abolish talk radio or at least cripple it by bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.
Should the left in America and Congress even come close, they will face the wrath of ten of millions of daily talk show radio listeners that will give new meaning to the term “blood will flow in the streets.”
That was a joke for all the leftists without a sense of humor.
Soros and Halperin first proposed CAP’s creation in 2002 to promote generally the cause of the Left and the Democratic Party. But CAP’s overarching objective is considerably more specific than that: As an inside source told reporter Christian Bourge of United Press International, CAP is in fact “the official Hillary Clinton think tank.” Not long after its formal founding in the summer of 2003, Mrs. Clinton toldreporter Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation: “We’ve had the challenge of filling a void on our side of the ledger for a long time, while the other side created an infrastructure that has come to dominate political discourse. The Center [for American Progress] is a welcome effort to fill that void.”
“Soros and Hillary have long held each other in high regard, as demonstrated by Hillary’s declaration at a 2004 Take Back America Conference in Washington, DC: “Now, among the many people who have stood up and said, ‘I cannot sit by and let this happen to the country I love,’ is George Soros, and I have known George Soros for a long time now, and I first came across his work in the former Soviet Union, in Eastern Europe, when I was privileged to travel there, both on my own and with my husband on behalf of our country….[W]e need people like George Soros, who is fearless, and willing to step up when it counts.” (Cited in David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party, p. 53)
Morton Halperin is Senior Vice President of the Center for American Progress and Director of the Open Society Policy Center established by George Soros. On both counts, then, he is tied to Media Matters and its pro-Hillary agendas. He also has an extensive history in Democratic Party politics, most notably during the Clinton administration. President Bill Clinton appointed him to several key positions: Special Assistant to the President, Senior Director for Democracy at the National Security Council, consultant to the Secretary of Defense, and consultant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Halperin was given these appointments even though, as a May 2000 World Net Daily report revealed, he was, “according to a well-respected former State official, . . . ‘known . . . as a Soviet or communist agent’” in the Cold War era.
When laying the groundwork with Soros for CAP, Halperin sought the input of John Podesta, a former chief of staff in the Clinton administration who today is the official President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. Podesta, too, helped Brock develop Media Matters, going so far as to loan office space to Brock’s fledgling organization in Washington, DC. …”
“To most Washington think tank executives, $10 million or $12 million per year for three years would sound like a lot of money.
But then, they are not trying to do what former White House chief of staff John D. Podesta has in mind for his new Center for American Progress. Podesta’s ambition is to update the liberal agenda while beating back the conservative tide. Also, to discover, train and promote a new generation of liberal spokesmen. In other words, he wants to give the left of the American political spectrum a think tank to match the Heritage Foundation on the right.
The seed money pledged by such deep-pocketed Democrats as financier George Soros and mortgage billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler — while serious dough — is barely enough to make a beginning. …”
“…The reality is that we need to fill up the idea tank,” he said.
For that job, Podesta has commissioned a barnacled veteran of many tanks, Morton H. Halperin, whose résumé includes Brookings, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Century Foundation and the Council on Foreign Relations. Halperin is in charge of recruiting the center’s fellows, and his first list is a mix of familiar liberal spokesmen, promising deep thinkers and unmappables in between. They include, among others, Clinton economic guru Gene Sperling, Africa expert Gayle E. Smith, syndicated columnist Matthew Miller, political demographer Ruy Teixeira, media critic Eric Alterman and health care theorist Jeanne Lambrew. …”