Palim and Obama's Death Panels

Gee. I wonder why people would think this.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called President Barack Obama's health plan "downright evil" Friday in her first online comments since leaving office, saying in a Facebook posting that he would create a "death panel" that would deny care to the neediest Americans.

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care," the former Republican vice presidential candidate wrote.

Link

Well, maybe because this man



Ezekiel Emanuel, the Presodent's health care advisor, wrote this:

This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason

Link

Hey, I know, Obamie's Health care Advisor didn't mean it. He was only playing some "what if" games with some Harvard Professors over a beer. Besides, he never sees Obamie anyway. And we can trust Obamie to tell us the truth. Right?

Snowy weather comes from global warming

Well, we have had bit of nasty weather and I have already heard that the snow and cold is caused by climate change caused by manmade global warming... I got to thinking and remembered a letter in the Tennessean I responded to last summer.... said summer was dry and very hot so naturally it was caused by manmade global warming.

I have long felt that the best way to understand what people are writing is to carefully deconstruct something they have published. Such is the case of Pam Jones who has a lengthy opinion piece in the Tennessean.

First, let me note that we have no knowledge of Ms Jones’ background. She may be a highly educated scientist or she may be just another person with a cause and time to spare.

 Jones writes: The atmosphere is changing — not just the one that creates our weather, but the one in which we’re talking about climate change. For years, fossil fuel interests made global warming such a charged political issue that people avoided the topic. But as the effects of a warming planet multiply, the freeze on climate conversation is thawing as fast as the glaciers.

Jim replies: Right off the bat she mixes climate change and manmade global warming in a manner that shows she wants to mislead us or else she is unaware that climate change has happened since the earth was created. The issue is MANMADE global warming, or, as was claimed in the 70’s and 80”s, manmade global cooling.

 As for her erroneous claim that people have avoided the subject I guess she has never heard of Google. Well, I have. I Googled “global warming” and received 270,000,000 hits. Perhaps someone will call and tell her. Perhaps not.

As far as those fast thawing glaciers, well she seems to have never heard of Vinland and the Medeival Warming Period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

And then we have this:

“The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming. ……….

 In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

 However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

 Jones writes: This summer, I’ve overheard more people discussing climate change than ever before — in restaurants, coffee shops, and grocery store lines. You can see a change in the media coverage, too. Stories aren’t just reporting weather catastrophes; they’re making the connection to our fossil fuel addiction. The June Associated Press story entitled “This U.S. summer is ‘what global warming looks like’” actually ran in a newspaper in tiny Cullman, Ala. You wouldn’t have seen that a year ago.

 Jim replies:

I suppose if the Culman News reported the Second Coming Ms Jones would be on I65 heading south.

 But that aside, she makes the mistake of thinking something in the popular press is actually real.

 Jones writes: The reason for the shift, of course, is that the dramatic effects of CO2 emissions have become part of everyone’s personal experience. Here in Nashville, we’re still talking about the searing 109 degrees we hit on June 29 — along with 3,214 other U.S. communities that broke or tied their high-temperature records that month. The conversation among Tennessee’s farmers is about the devastation of this year’s corn crop from the drought that has now spread to two-thirds of the country.

Jim replies:

Uh, Ms Jones. We now know that global warming isn’t caused by CO2. 

 http://drtimball.com/2011/whether-it-is-warming-or-climate-change-it-cannot-be-the-co2/

Jones writes: This is what a 1-degree Centigrade increase in global temperatures feels like. As the climate conversation develops, we need to focus on how to avoid even hotter temperatures in the future. Scientist warn that we must act now to keep the increase to only 2 degrees — beyond which we would be facing conditions we don’t want to think, much less talk, about. This is what a 1-degree Centigrade increase in global temperatures feels like. As the climate conversation develops, we need to focus on how to avoid even hotter temperatures in the future. Scientist warn that we must act now to keep the increase to only 2 degrees — beyond which we would be facing conditions we don’t want to think, much less talk, about.

 Jim replies: No, what is being talked about is called weather. Anecdotal observations that it is hot and dry. Wow. What powers of observation we do have here. James Taylor says it better:

 "Every few months or so, global warming alarmists revise their talking points and march like lemmings off a cliff with a new media catch phrase. The Official Global Warming Catch Phrase of Summer 2012 is “This is what global warming looks like.” Illustrating the reality that the entire global warming movement contains only enough intellectually productive brain cells to create but a single sentence that all the so-called big brains can remember and recite…… Global warming alarmists point to wildfires in the western United States and say, “This is what global warming looks like.” They are right. This is what global warming looks like. According to a recently published paper in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, wildfires in the western United States are currently at a 3,000-year low…….. Global warming alarmists point to drought in the western United States and say, “This is what global warming looks like.” They are right. This is what global warming looks like. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports, “A number of tree-ring records exist for the last two millennia which suggest that 20th century droughts may be mild when evaluated in the context of this longer time frame.”

 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/07/18/yes-reggie-this-is-what-global-warming-looks-like/

Jones writes: Climate activist Bill McKibben has documented how much more CO2 we can pour into the atmosphere if we want to stop at 2 degrees: 565 gigatons. The fossil fuel industry holds assets that, if burned, will emit 2,795 gigatons — five times that maximum. One thing’s for sure: The oil, natural gas and coal industries are not interested in leaving those assets in the ground.

Jim replies: Best I can tell McKibben is a prolific contributor to the magazine, “Rolling Stone.” Now that is a source that I am sure we would like to use for something like… say.. What pop culture hoodoo is interesting…. But not the life and or death of modern civilization.

Jones writes:ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson has admitted the reality of global warming and what’s causing it, but glibly says we just need to adapt. He said this the very week Nashville cooked at 109 degrees and Colorado Springs lost hundreds of homes to a fire fueled by drought- and insect-ravaged trees.

Maybe he can explain that to Tennessee farmers whose corn has been ruined. That’s a conversation I’d love to hear.

Jim replies: I know some farmers and the ones I know are very intelligent hardworking people. They’d laugh at the nonsense Ms Jones is spewing. But I digress.

The fact is that Tillerson is not an expert and he is news worthy now because of whom he is, not what he knows or his education. And that he agrees with the hoaxers.

Jones writes: What I’m talking about now — at work, in the bookstore, and over the fence when it’s finally cool enough in the evening to water my surviving tomato plants — is how putting a price on carbon can stop global warming. A carbon fee and dividend that returns revenue to the public would wean us off fossil fuels without damaging our economy.

It’s an idea that’s gaining support even among conservatives, notably former Reagan economic adviser Arthur Laffer and former U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis. Perhaps our senators, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, should have a chat with them about this common-sense solution.

And what of the fossil-fuel companies who will howl that a carbon fee will hurt them? Maybe they should start their own conversation about how to adapt

Jim writes: Ah, now we come to the real reason for her claims. Like most Left wingers she  want s a tax to modify behavior.  And like all Left wingers she thinks that you can take money from the economy, give it to government, etc….

The question is, how much should we take and what will it cost?? Should we increase the tax on gasoline by a dollar?? That would sure slow down drivers. Should we charge a 30% tax on our utility bills? Well, that would cause to be hot in the summer and cold in the winter.

But, would it stop global warming? No. That is not something we can do.

As I started this deconstruction I noted that I did not know anything about Ms Jones.  What I do know is that she is the President of the local chapter of an organization that 99.999% of Americans know nothing or little about yet she thinks she should lecture us?

I don’t think so Ms Jones.  Please “fly away home.” Your children are overheating and shouldn’t be alone.

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper

 

“It’s the presumption that Obama knows how all these industries ought to be operating better than people who have spent their lives in those industries, and a general cockiness going back to before he was president, and the fact that he has no experience whatever in managing anything. Only someone who has never had the responsibility for managing anything could believe he could manage just about everything.” - Thomas Sowell in Reason Magazine

Shore Bank

The following was sent to me by Larry P. It is a tale of greed and crime being foisted upon the American public.

I quote the entire article, with a link to the source at the end.

This is an interesting story put together from various articles and TV shows by the British Times paper. It shows what Obama and his friends are
really all about. It's not hope and change, it is money.


I warn you, the first part is a little boring, but stick with it. The
second part connects all the dots for you (it will open your eyes). The
end explains how Obama and all his cronies will end up as multi-billionaires.
(It's definitely worth the read. You will not be disappointed).


A small bank in Chicago called SHORE BANK almost went bankrupt
during the recession. The bank made a profit on its foreign micro-loans (see
below) but had lost money in sub-prime mortgages in the US. It was facing
likely closure by federal regulators. However, because the bank's executives
were well connected with members of the Obama Administration, a private
rescue bailout was arranged. The bank's employees had donated money to
Obama's Senate campaign. In other words, Shore Bank was too politically
connected to be allowed to go under.


Shore Bank survived and invested in many "green" businesses
such as solar panel manufacturing. In fact, the bank was mentioned in one
of Obama's speeches during his election campaign because it subjected new
business borrowers to eco-litmus tests.


Prior to becoming President, Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE
FOUNDATION, a liberal charity. This foundation was originally established
by Joyce Kean's family which had accumulated millions of dollars in the
lumber industry. It mostly gave funds to hospitals but after her death in
1972, the foundation was taken over by radical environmentalists and
social justice extremists.


This JOYCE FOUNDATION, which is rumored to have assets of 8 billion
dollars, has now set up and funded, with a few partners, something called
the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE, known as CXX. It will be the exchange (like
the Chicago Grain Futures Market for agriculture) where Environmental
Carbon Credits are traded.


Under Obama's new bill, businesses in the future will be assessed a tax
on how much CO2 they produce (their Carbon Footprint) or in other words
how much they add to global warming. If a company produces less CO2 than
their allotted measured limit, they earn a Carbon Credit. This Carbon
Credit can be traded on the CXX exchange. Another company, which has gone
over their CO2 limit, can buy the Credit and "reduce" their
footprint and tax liability. It will be like trading shares on Wall Street.


Well, it was the same JOYCE FOUNDATION, along with some other private
partners and Wall Street firms that funded the bailout of Shore Bank.
The foundation is now one of the major shareholders. The bank has now
been designated to be the "banking arm" of the CHICAGO CLIMATE
EXCHANGE (CXX). In addition, Goldman Sachs has been contracted to run the
investment trading floor of the exchange.


So far so good; now the INTERESTING parts.


One Shore Bank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College
roommate of Hillary Clinton. Hillary and Bill Clinton have long supported
the bank and are small investors.


Another co-founder of Shore Bank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of
Obama's late mother. Obama's mother worked on foreign MICRO-LOANS for the
Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner.
Yes, you guessed it. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present
Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years.


Another founder of Shore Bank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close
friend of Jimmy Carter.


The former Shore Bank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was
the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. He also
sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill
Ayers, the former terrorist. Nash was also a member of Obama's White House
transition team.


(To jog your memories, Bill Ayers is a Professor at the University of
Illinois at Chicago. He founded the Weather Underground, a radical
revolutionary group that bombed buildings in the 60s and 70s. He had no remorse
for those who were killed, escaped jail on a technicality, and is still an
admitted Marxist).


When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he "funneled"
thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious
education fund. Yes, you guessed it. The brother of Bill Ayers, the terrorist.


Howard Stanback is a board member of Shore Bank. He is a former board
chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist,
also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed
by New Kenwood Inc. a real estate development company co-owned by Tony Rezko.


(You will remember that Tony Rezko was the guy who gave Obama an amazing
sweet deal on his new house. Years prior to this, the law firm of Davis,
Miner, Barnhill & Galland had represented Rezko's company and helped
him get more than 43 million dollars in government funding. Guess who
worked as a lawyer at the firm at the time. Yes, Barack Obama).


Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie
Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also
sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization.


Van Jones sits on the board of Shore Bank and is one the marketing
directors for "green" projects. He also holds a senior advisor position for black studies at Princeton University. You will remember that Mr.Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist.


Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) and registered it in London, England. GIM has close links to the UK-based Climate Exchange PLC, a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This company trades Carbon Credits in Europe (just like CXX will do here) and its floor is run by Goldman Sachs.


Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former
US Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. His wife, Wendy,
graduated from and is presently a Trustee of Wellesley College. Yes, the
same college that Hillary Clinton and Jan Piercy, a co-founder of Shore
Bank attended. (They are all friends).


Interesting? And now the closing...


Because many studies have been exposed as scientific nonsense, people
are slowly realizing that man-made global warming is nothing more than a
money-generating hoax. As a result, Obama is working feverishly to win
the race. He aims to push a Cap-and-Trade Carbon Tax Bill through Congress
and into law.


Obama knows he must get this passed before he loses his majority in
Congress in the November elections. Apart from Climate Change he will
"sell" this bill to the public as generating tax revenue to reduce
our debt. But, it will also make it impossible for US companies to compete
in world markets and drastically increase unemployment. In addition, energy
prices (home utility rates) will sky rocket.


But, here's the "KICKER" (THE MONEY TRAIL). If the bill passes, it is estimated that over 10 TRILLION dollars each year will be traded on the CXX exchange. At a commission rate of only 4 percent, the exchange would earn close to 400 billion dollars to split between its owners, all Obama cronies. At a 2 percent rate, Goldman Sachs
would also rake in 200 billion dollars each year.


But don't forget SHORE BANK. With 10 trillion dollars flowing though its accounts, the bank will earn close to 40 billion dollars in interest each year for its owners (more Obama cronies), without even breaking a sweat.


It is estimated Al Gore alone will probably rake in 15 billion dollars
just in the first year. Of course, Obama's "commissions" will be held in trust for him at the Joyce Foundation. They are estimated to be over 8 billion dollars by the time he leaves office in 2013, if the bill passes this year. Of course, these commissions will continue to be paid for the rest of his life.


Some financial experts think this will be the largest "scam" or "legal heist" in world history. Obama's cronies make the Mafia look like rank amateurs. They will make Bernie Madoff's fraud look like penny ante stuff.

Link

OnTwitter I am Lesabre1

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.” - William Pitt

"Logic. There is little logic among the cultural elite, maybe because there is little omnipresent fear of job losses or the absence of money, and so arises a rather comfortable margin to indulge in nonsense." - Victor Davis Hanson

Global warming as seen from Martin, TN

I read this in the “Views” section of a small regional newspaper, the Jackson Sun. I skimmed it the first time and was going to move on assuming it was written by just another Leftie in love with Obama… then I realized the author is chancellor emeritus of The University of Tennessee Martin.

It starts out like a paean of a typical eco freak.

“I'm concerned about the negative impact mankind is having on our planet. We are not being good stewards of the earth. We are overpopulating, destroying wetlands and overharvesting our natural resources.”

Power to the People!

“With our consumer spending might, we can set the pace to deploy clean, renewable energy, and the world will follow. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) presents an opportunity to spur innovation and economic investment and strengthen American competitiveness.”

Right on brother! But can we talk?

“I strongly believe that we can develop and deploy renewable technology and thus be poised to sell, manufacture and develop those technologies. The proposed solar panel farm at the Haywood County megasite is a good example of clean energy and a positive impact on West Tennessee.”

I understand you strongly believe. But the problem is you use words like “proposed” and “good example.” Can you tell me this? Will it produce electric power that I can purchase, with no subsidies, for what I am paying now? That’s around 9 cents per KWH.

“Transitioning to a clean-energy economy offers pathways out of poverty for the 78 million people in the United States who are presently poor or near-poor. On a national level (according to "How clean-energy policies can fight poverty and raise living standards in the United States," from the Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts Amherst), a $150 billion annual level of clean-energy investments in the U.S. economy would generate a 1.7 million net increase in job creation, roughly 870,000 of them jobs that would be accessible to workers with high school degrees or less. Jackson native Van Jones is working hard as the "green energy czar" to make this happen.”

Again it sounds great. But how can producing power that costs more than what we are paying now be a path out of poverty for anyone? The poor pay a higher percentage of their income for utilities, gasoline and groceries than the non-poor. So unless you are going to pay a direct subsidy to the poor, there is no way you aid them. And if you do, you will have to take money in increased taxes from the middle and upper income people, plus… of course…they will see the same increases in utilities, gasoline and groceries that the poor will.

I must say that for someone who apparently was exposed to higher education for a lengthy period your logic seems to be under developed.

“The clean-energy economy is already proving to be a strong economic boom on top of doing the right thing. New analysis reveals that by 2007, 1,090 businesses in Tennessee had generated more than 15,000 jobs in the clean-energy economy.

As noted by a report this month from the Pew Charitable Trusts, "The clean energy economy: Repowering jobs, businesses and investments across America," about $16.3 million of venture capital investments were directed toward clean technology businesses in Tennessee between 2006 and 2008. We have the third-fastest-growing clean-energy economy in the nation, according to the Pew study.”

I have a few problems with this. The first one is that you don’t provide any references for your claims, and frankly, they don’t make sense. If 1090 businesses generated around 15,000 jobs in clean energy, then that is around 15 jobs per business. That's a low number. Now you don’t say if these are new companies or new hires to existing companies. Plus, while $16 million seems to be a lot of money I can tell you that a high tech start up is a capital intensive operation. $16 million is not a drop in the bucket.

I also get concerned when you don’t define what a “clean energy” company is. You wouldn’t be calling a farm switching from cotton to saw grass a “clean energy” company would you?

“What really gets my passion up is thinking about the world we will leave to our grandchildren. I want them to have a chance to breathe clean air and see the same beautiful Tennessee that I'm experiencing. It is time we think about the future and not just what is happening to us today.”

I am glad to see that you want a pretty Tennessee. I grew up in Tennessee and I remember the pretty green grass we walked on. But let me give you some advice. If you give people the choice of green grass or brown shoes the shoes will win every time.

“I'm also concerned that we must develop an alternative to Middle East oil. For national security reasons, we must break from our dependence on the oil cartels that are influenced by governments that are not friends of America. Do we set the terms for our energy needs, or do we let other, not-so-friendly, nations set our agenda?”

That sounds wonderful. But you don’t tell us how you would do that. And based on what you have written prior to this,I would guess that you are against drilling for more oil off the coast and in ANWR. I would also say you don’t want to mess with oil shale, wouldn’t touch coal and nuclear… well nuclear is just out of the question.

So how would you do this? We use 390 million gallons of gasoline a day. If you convert all of it to a 10% ethanol blend that means 39 million gallons of ethanol. And since saw grass isn’t yet a practical source and since we have a huge import tax on sugar… have you figured out how many acres of corn will be needed? And have you considered the damage that all the new corn production does to the environment… including release carbon dioxide when the soil is tilled??

BTW – Just to give you an idea, even with saw grass it will take around 13 million acres of new production just to break even. Now that would a fair sized spread in any state. And that assumes 100% efficiency. The actual number would most likely be 16 million acres.

Wind? Solar? Both have technical and cost problems, but even if you solve those and develop an electric car with batteries that will last, you have the problem of distribution. Can you imagine millions of cars all needing to be charged at the same time? The existing grid simply won’t do the job. So what happens to those electric bills when the new grid must be paid for? And what happens to the environment when all the new power lines, power stations and other new equipment is put in place?

Nuclear is the obvious choice for electric power generation. It has all the distribution problems I mentioned above if we are to go to electric cars but it is more reliable and cheaper.

You know, petroleum… gasoline…didn’t just get picked as the fuel of choice to run our transportation system. It won because it was cheaper better and easier to use.

“We are not going to come up with a perfect solution to our energy crisis, and all parties are not going to be 100 percent pleased. We can talk this issue to death, or we can begin to solve the problem.

The world's leading scientists have clearly stated the problem. The question is, do we respond like the frog that is placed in a pan of cool water that is slowly warmed to a boiling point and thus perishes, or do we take steps to turn down the temperature? The American Clean Energy and Security Act is a good start in turning down the temperature. Let's not be like the frog.”

The problem is that the problem has not been clearly stated, nor proven. As I write this we find that a 38 year EPA employee’s simple request for the EPA to use other inputs beside the UN’s was denied. That, in my opinion, is criminal. At the least the Administrator should be fired along with all others associated with this action.

Even worse, we have ample evidence that man made Global Warming is not worth worrying over, and that the real driver is the sun, as it has been for millions and millions of years.

Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."

Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather .

During the Little Ice Age, global temperatures dropped sharply. New York Harbor froze hard enough to allow people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island, and in Britain, people reported sighting eskimos paddling canoes off the coast. Glaciers in Norway grew up to 100 meters a year, destroying farms and villages.

Link to source article.

BTW – The Little Ice Age came on quite quickly. You might consider that as you demand we rush to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, we might want to think about this.

“At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"


I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a ridiculous thing? But it turns out he's right.


The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.



Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.


In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties.


Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Science and Technology said this: "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other ... every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so." Now why would a learned man say such a crazy thing?


This is where the looney left gets lost. Their mantra is atmospheric CO2 levels are escalating and this is unquestionably causing earth's temperature rise. But ask yourself -- if global temperatures are experiencing the biggest sustained drop in decades, while CO2 levels continue to rise -- how can it be true?


Ironically, in spite of being shown false, we must now pray for it. Because a massive study, just released by the Russian Government, contains overwhelming evidence that earth is on the verge of another Ice Age.


Based on core samples from Russia's Vostok Station in Antarctica, we now know earth's atmosphere and temperature for the last 420,000 years. This evidence suggests that the 12,000 years of warmth we call the Holocene period is over.


Apparently, we're headed into an ice age of about 100,000 years -- give or take. As for CO2 levels, core samples show conclusively they follow the earth's temperature rise, not lead it.”

Link to source article.

So your to claim that the discussion is over with is laughingly inaccurate. You either do not keep up with what is going on and merely spout the Left’s party line, or you know but still spout the party line.

As a private citizen that is acceptable. But when you seek to add authority to your claims by bringing in your previous position with The University of Tennessee it is not acceptable.

“Nick Dunagan is chancellor emeritus of The University of Tennessee Martin.”